Silver Samurai
3 cost
Crime Lords
4/5

Whenever Silver Samurai defends, exhaust target character in the same row as the attacker.


Reset
Plot twist

To play, discard a card.

Remove all defenders from this attack.


Situation: Other player attacks Silver Samurai, with Silver Samurai's effect on the chain the Crime Lords player plays Reset and attempts to exhaust the attacker after the attack has concluded, so the attacker will not be able to attack again. I rule that it doesnt work.

Players thinking, once the defender is removed the attack the attack is over and the attacker immediatly readies. I rule that the attacker doesnt ready until the attack moves into the attack conclusion, which is after both players pass on an empty chain, which is after Silver Samurai's effect resolves.

I just want confermation that I ruled this correct, since if the situation ends up happening like I ruled, the Crime Lords player will have to rebuild his deck.

Thanks

If a legal defender is removed from the attack the attacker will ready because it has no legal target.

i agree with joe. as soon as an attacker doesn't have a legal target it readies. so he could target ur guy with samuri and chain reset. the attack would be illegal, u'd ready, and samuri's effect exhausts him.

Unless the rules about this have changed since the last time its come up (which is entirely possible) this is wrong.

If the attacker immediately readies, is the target for Silver Samurai's ability even legal after the attack is reset?
In other words is there a target character in the same row as the now non-existent attacker?

This is all entirely correct.

And I've gotta say, dynamite explanation---provides both views, highlights the critical difference, and spells out the timing of the effects precisely, avoiding common trap phrases like "in response." Repped.

I think, since so many responded, that the clarification needed is that all attacks resolve themselves through attack resolution, regardless of what has happened to the attackers or defenders. Even if BOTH the attacker and defender had been removed, you'd still go through the steps of the attack substep and resolution.

the way I would see it would be

Attack Sameri... Effect goes on the chain ... which he DID become a defender... even if he is removed or not... he still became one... put Reset on or the chain... remove the defender... with no defender the attacker then readies... then Sameri's effect resolves and you would exhaust a character in the same row being the would be attacker or if there is another charcter in the same row.. exhaust that... Sameri is still going to go off...

Indeed. It will be most precise, though, in combination with Togorian's comments that readying the attacker is not immediate. Not only 1) every attack must go through the process of attack conclusion, but 2) the lack of a defender does not cause the attacker to ready until attack conclusion and 3) attack conclusion can only occur after both players have passed while the chain is empty.

Reset removes Silver Samurai from the attack, but the attack is still going on, and the attackers remain so, until after at least two more sets of passes---one to resolve Silver Samurai's effect, and another while the chain is empty to move into attack conclusion.

While the attacker does not immediately ready or get removed from the attack, this question brings up some good points. The answer actually highlights a small glitch in the original post; Silver Samurai refers to "an attacker," not "the attacker." Attacks can have multiple attackers, one or more attackers can be switched out, etc., which is why "the attacker" isn't used in card-text. (And even "the defender" has fallen out of use, replaced with "a defender.")

The row requirement is checked when the target is chosen, and again as the effect tries to resolve. So, imagine that a card like Flying High, Force Field Projection, or Teleport Tube were played, rather than Reset---cards that removes attackers instead of (or in addition to) defenders. The original post's timing would mean that Silver Samurai's effect resolves after those cards had removed the attackers. As a result, his effect's target would no longer be legal; it's impossible to share a row with an attacker when there aren't any. The effect would be negated, rather than resolving, and no one would get exhausted.

In a different scenario, if Exploiting the Flaw were used, the target's legality would be re-checked against only the new attacker's row. The card would have to be worded differently in order to "lock in" which attacker(s) gets checked for target legality.


Hopefully that helps clarify the situation for folks.

I was quoting text from memory, so any wrong text comes from the fact that I didnt remember the card text 100% accuratly.

Steve, see my post and Hero's post. The attacker does not ready IMMEDEATLY.

I figured---and I wasn't knocking you for it. I only brought it up to emphasize that Silver Samurai re-checks who is attacking at resolution, since it was the relevant bit of wording.


Btw, as a potentially-helpful example for those who have been immediately readying attackers: Captain America, Champion License. He removes a defender as a cost, and adds a defender at resolution. If removing the defender caused an attack to fall apart, Captain America would seem to never work at all.

HeroComplex I have a question about this if you are kind enough to answer please.

I was playing with my Hulk deck and my opponent was playing with an At Their Finest deck. Anyway he declares an attack on my lone Hulk and I said it was legal. He attacks and uses a few pumps. I let them resolve and play Hulk Red, he responds by playing Early Edition and I respond by playing yet another copy of Hulk Red. Second copy of Hulk Red resolves making Early Edition a failed attempt at negating the first Hulk Red played. Everything resolves and Hulk has enough DEF to avoid the stun. He then plays SKREEEEEE!!! to lower Hulk's DEF. Now here is where we got into an argument, I play Righteous Anger as to make Hulk untargetable (is that a a real word?) by SKREEEEEEE!!! He immediately readied his character stating that the attack had become illegal because there was no defender. I argued with him that before the attack concludes I get to un-stun Hulk and ready him. and that the attack would continue. Now I see #2 in your explanation and I believe more than ever that I was correct. So was I?

No, because Hulk stops being a defender as he stuns. Righteous Anger has you recover and ready him, but it doesn't make him into a defender.

If you have some way of making one of your characters a defender, or of removing the attacker, before the attack concludes, then you can prevent the attacker from readying. Barring one of those, eventually you'll have to go to attack conclusion and let him ready.


Going a bit beyond the question, your confusion may stem from thinking about an attack as though it were an effect, and a defender as though he were a target. Players do sometimes use the same terminology for both, which I've found tends to blur the distinctions. For example, the legality of a target is checked when first chosen and again at resolution, but not in between.

Some players, I suspect, try analogizing this to attacks, in which case your defender would just need to be "able to defend" during attack conclusion. This line of thinking would explain why players often assume that sending a character into the hidden area will break off attacks in progress, and would also lead to the conclusion that a recovered character might still be an attacker or defender.

But as you can guess from the rest of the post, the analogy doesn't hold. Stunning a defender does not immediately end the attack, but it does immediately strip him of the "defender" characteristic; he's no longer involved in the attack at all. In terms of analogies, it's not like making a target illegal, nor is it like negating an effect. Combat's got a separate set of rules.

Anyway, that may have been a totally unnecessary tangent, but hopefully helps bring it all together.

I totally understand about changing characters from the visible to the hidden, no real confusion there. The attack was legal at the moment so changing from the visible to the hidden is not a way out of combat. I think what your trying to tell me is:

602.3a A character loses the defender characteristic if it changes zones, changes controllers, loses the type character, or gains the stunned characteristic. Modifiers that remove a defender from an attack also cause the object to lose the defender characteristic.

I found the rule before reading your answer. Thanks a bunch anyway. My real problem was that I didn't find this rule last time, and upon reading your previous answer I got confused. Since I didn't see this rule last time I checked one of my main problems was that: How can you remove the attacker before Righteous Anger fully resolves? As such then how is it that the attack is no longer legal if the defending character is still in play with the non-stunned characteristic? It's not like he got stunned and then I played another effect to recover him, it happens all in one card.

My problem was removing the attacker when in reality I was removing the defender by stunning him. But yeah if all it takes is for the defender to lose the defender characteristic is to get stunned then boy was I off. Thank God I played i his way or he would be calling me a cheater right about now.