Motionless Among the Slain

[Jambo]

The fact that the attacker in CvCC is not facing an attack, and the limitation that they cannot play cards that affect the attack are directly linked. While this is emphasized by the CRF entry it is implicit in the statement that only the defender is facing an attack.

One of the old rules digests stated:

The attacker is free to do anything that is legal during his turn, given that he plays the card outside the strike sequence.

But I guess what we need to know is how this interacts with the CRF entry:

The defender may take actions that affect the attack or any of the strikes. The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.

MAtS is different from a card like Some Secret Art of Flame simply because the wording of the former states "Playable on an attack" where the latter states "Playable on a sorcery-using character facing an attack." Whether that makes a difference based on the two rules quotes above, is what I'm trying to find out...

There's nothing mentioned in the CvCC tutorial regarding this.

[Bandobras Took]

Motionless affects individual strikes by telling them where they are assigned. That seems simple enough to me. An attack exists, so its conditions for play are met.

[Wacho]

The attacker may not play strike assignment cards during CvCC. These type of cards affect the attack and only the defender can play cards that affect the attack. The rules digest does not overrule the CRF entry. It is simply saying you can play cards like Gates of Morning, etc. The attacker is not facing an attack and so cannot play MAtS or other cards of this type.

[Konrad Klar]

Motionless affects individual strikes by telling them where they are assigned. That seems simple enough to me. An attack exists, so its conditions for play are met.

If all strikes from attack are "individual", which are "not individual"?

[Bandobras Took]

Motionless affects individual strikes by telling them where they are assigned. That seems simple enough to me. An attack exists, so its conditions for play are met.

If all strikes from attack are "individual", which are "not individual"?

Or perhaps that refers only to attacks with one strike/attack -- those are individual strikes.

One strike, wherever it occurs, is an individual strike. Surely a card that affects where it is assigned is affecting an individual strike.

[Curunir]

Can this card be used to assign multiple strikes from an attack to a single defending character even when that character is an a company with other characters?

[Konrad Klar]

You assign all strikes of the attack regardless of the attack's normal capabilities and character status

So other limitations, effects and rules still applies (e.g. that strike cannot be/must be assigned to given character, that you cannot normally assign more that one non-excess strike to one character etc.).

[Bandobras Took]

The complete MEBA rules (the ones not currently on the CoE website) state that only the defender can play cards that affect the attack as a whole. Thus, it seems Motionless is invalid to play as an attacker.