Bill proposes to attack Fred.
Fred plays Misappopriation and takes away Bill's Thunderjet.

1) Does Bill still have to attack Fred?

2) If Bill does still attack, does he get to exhaust Fred as per the text on Thunderjet? " While equipped character has the Thunderbolts affiliation, whenever it attacks a character, you may exhaust that character."

was the attack made illegal by the missappropriation?

did fred pass on the legality of the attack before playing the Missappropriation?

These are both front row characters so the attack was always legal.

still need an answer to the second question.

When someone proposes an attack, they pass priority to the other player, who then passes on the legality of the attack, at which time the attacker will be exausted and all 'attack' triggers will happen.

So was the legality of the attack passed on?

I think that according to what was said, the legality had not passed back before the Thunder Jet was stolen, so before it was made legal, he lost the Thunder Jet. In which case, the effect from Thunder Jet would not go off because he did not have it when he attacked. It is when you become an attacker that you et the phrase "Whenever A attacks". You can only become an attacker after legality has been awarded, therefore he did not become an attacker until after he already lost the Thunder Jet.

Right, Misappropriation was BEFORE passing on legality. Wouldn't be much of a question otherwise, eh? :)

If both characters are front row and there are no further effects that affect the position of either characters, the attack will continue as normal since when the legality is checked the game will see that the attack is still legal. And Bill does not get the effect of the Thunder Jet because when he becomes an attacker (and triggers the whenever clause) he no longer controls the Thunder Jet.

no offense, but it wasn't much of a question either way. That's why I asked the question, it seemed silly to ask if Thunder jet would get it's effect if it was removed before attack legality.

Well, you see, the thing is, I'm a casual player and that's all I play with. We don't encounter the nitpicky things that tournament players deal with on a regular basis. That's why I ask questions here. Everyone on my end feels better having someone else's outside opinion on this type of question. I realize that's it all old hat to you guys, but that's exactly the point. When I see a few people have rattled off an answer without breaking a sweat, I can feel pretty certain that I have the right answer.

As for this specific question, we VERY rarely have anything occur in that space between proposing an attack and exhausting to perform the attack. so we were none too certain. The only other circumstances that come to mind is when someone has proposed a team attack and the defending player either stuns or exhausts one of the team attackers, forcing the remaining attackers to charge in and get stunned in the fight (unless they have a lot of pumps to take up the slack).

This actually isn't what happens. If one of the proposed team attackers is no longer legal, then the entire proposed attack is illegal---it never gets off the ground. No one becomes an attacker or defender.

If a team attacker is somehow removed from an attack in progress, the remaining team attackers must soldier on, since you can't make attacks illegal once they've begun. And the characters have already exhausted to attack, so exhaustion isn't one of the ways to remove an attacker; it can prevent a proposed attacker from being legal, but it can't invalidate an actual one.