Motionless Among the Slain

[Jambo]

Motionless Among the Slain
Short-event
Playable on an attack. You assign all strikes of the attack regardless of the attack's normal capabilities and character status. +1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from the attack.

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

A couple of questions on this:

This card says playable on an attack rather than playable on a character/company facing an attack. Can this be played by an attacker in CvCC?

With Digest 115 out, can this still be played by the defender in CvCC? It doesn't cancel an attack, and it can't be played during the strike sequence as by then strikes are already assigned. It also doesn't directly affect an attack.

Edit: I'm guessing the answer is NO to both.

[Konrad Klar]

Motionless Among the Slain affect attack in such way as Many Foes He Fought and Usriev of Treachery does.
Is not restricted to to the attack company is facing.

My YES to both.

[Shapeshifter]

This card says playable on an attack rather than playable on a character/company facing an attack. Can this be played by an attacker in CvCC?

The attacker is not facing an attack just strikes. So it´s not playable by the attacker in CvCC.

[Jambo]

Interesting.

Motionless Among the Slain doesn't actually affect the attack, instead it affects how strikes are assigned. The attack still remains 1 strike for each of the attacking characters regardless of MAtS...

It's like that loophole in not currently being able to play strike assignment cards vs autoattacks.

Regards the second answer, MAtS says playable on an attack, not on a character or company facing an attack. Any CvCC involves an attack in the simplest sense, so maybe MAtS is playable when attacking (assuming this type of card is allowed in CvCC)...

[Konrad Klar]

so maybe MAtS is playable when attacking (assuming this type of card is allowed in CvCC)...

Playing resources in CvCC by attacker is not restricted in any other way than by general rules. Only defender in CVCC is restricted in his play and use of resources.

[Jambo]

so maybe MAtS is playable when attacking (assuming this type of card is allowed in CvCC)...

Playing resources in CvCC by attacker is not restricted in any other way than by general rules. Only defender in CVCC is restricted in his play and use of resources.

So it looks like it's ok to play this card as the attacker.

But given the restrictions on the defender as clarified by Digest 115, it would seem MAtS is not playable as the defender (as is the case for any strike assignment type cards for that matter, e.g. Sojourn in the Shadows).

[Wacho]

MAtS cannot be played by the attacker in CvCC as the context of the card makes it clear that it is played against an attack on your company. Note the part about the body checks that your characters face due to the attack. If you are the attacker in CvCC you are not facing an attack so you can't have any body checks that are the result of an attack. This indicates the MAtS must be played against an attack that you are facing.

@Jambo: Why do you think you can't play strike assignment cards as defender in CvCC? Strike assignment cards do directly affect the attack and so are playable.

[Jambo]

MAtS cannot be played by the attacker in CvCC as the context of the card makes it clear that it is played against an attack on your company. Note the part about the body checks that your characters face due to the attack. If you are the attacker in CvCC you are not facing an attack so you can't have any body checks that are the result of an attack. This indicates the MAtS must be played against an attack that you are facing.

How does the card make it clear it's an attack on your company? It states:

Playable on an attack. You assign all strikes of the attack regardless of the attack's normal capabilities and character status.

So, as the attacker you're playing it on your attack against the defender and then regardless of your attack's normal capabilities you assign the strikes. I.e. who's tapped or untapped is then irrelevant.

@Jambo: Why do you think you can't play strike assignment cards as defender in CvCC? Strike assignment cards do directly affect the attack and so are playable.

How do cards that affect strike assignment affect an attack? Presumably, the attack is still 1 strike for each of the attacking characters, with extras counting as -1's. If strike assignment cards are allowed then why wouldn't Cram or And Forth He Hastened be allowed at this same stage? Using them can surely alter who receives a strike?

[Konrad Klar]

If strike assignment cards are allowed then why wouldn't Cram or And Forth He Hastened be allowed at this same stage?

There are a lot cards/effects that would indirectly affect attack. Potentially all resources. None of them does not require attack.
Motionless Among the Slain requires attack and changes its capabilities.

[Jambo]

There are a lot cards/effects that would indirectly affect attack. Potentially all resources. None of them does not require attack.
Motionless Among the Slain requires attack and changes its capabilities.

Now that is a good answer! It's amazing how all of a sudden something that's been bothering you can just click into place.

[Wacho]

Read the ruling again. It clearly mentions strike assignment effects and how they affect the attack. These are usable by the defender. The attacker may not use such cards. The quote from the CRF is:

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

Also as I said in my earlier post MAtS couldn't be played by the attacker anyway because it is a card that can only be played against an attack. You cannot have body checks from an attack if you aren't facing an attack. The attacker in CvCC is NOT facing an attack, he is only facing strikes. I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but I don't think you've carefully read my earlier post.

[Konrad Klar]

The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.

Ok. Although this limitation is not from card's text.

You cannot have body checks from an attack if you aren't facing an attack. The attacker in CvCC is NOT facing an attack, he is only facing strikes.

Strictly: nobody have body checks from attack only from strikes. So text:
"+1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from the attack."

- means nothing
or
- means +1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from strikes from the attack.

Attacker in CvCC is facing strikes resulting from attack declared by himself.

[Jambo]

I agree Konrad, your reasoning is sound.

[Wacho]

The attacker may only take actions that affect individual strikes.

Ok. Although this limitation is not from card's text.

You're right. However this is the most relevant rule. This means the attacker cannot play cards that affect the attack. That is because they are not facing an attack. Therefore MAtS is not playable by the attacker, no matter how you read it.

You cannot have body checks from an attack if you aren't facing an attack. The attacker in CvCC is NOT facing an attack, he is only facing strikes.

Strictly: nobody have body checks from attack only from strikes. So text:
"+1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from the attack."

- means nothing
or
- means +1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from strikes from the attack.

Obviously it doesn't mean nothing. However, it also doesn't just mean any character who makes a body check. An attack is defined as a set of one or more strikes. This is the definition of an attack and so an attack consists of ONLY these strikes. In CvCC only the defender is facing an attack and so only the strikes that the defender faces are the result of an attack. An attack is not the only time you can face a body check. For instance, A Malady Without Healing, Dragon's Blood, and Cruel Cahardras all require body checks without a strike. The text of Cruel Cahardras is particularly similar to the case of CvCC.

Playable on a company using region movement to move through one of the following regions (and not stopping at a site therein): High Pass, Redhorn Gate, Angmar, Gundabad, Grey Mountain Narrows, or Minas Morgul. Each character in target company must face one strike (not an attack) of 8 prowess which cannot be cancelled. Any resulting body check is modified by +1.

Attacker in CvCC is facing strikes resulting from attack declared by himself.

Not true. The attacker is facing body checks from the result of successful strikes which are not tied to an attack. The only attack going on only consists of the strikes on the defender. Of course he is facing these strikes because he declared an attack, but this is not a direct result.

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.

[Konrad Klar]

For instance, A Malady Without Healing, Dragon's Blood, and Cruel Cahardras all require body checks without a strike.

You mean without a attack. Yes?

"+1 to all body checks by your characters resulting from the attack."

This "your characters" is highly courius in context of your post? Why not just "characters" if "attacker characters" are not facing strikes resulting from attack? Maybe this is academic problem, but I don't think "strikes that are part of attack" is the same as "strikes resulting from the attack". Body checks are not part of attack too (as you wrote: an attack is defined as a set of one or more strikes). However Motionless Among the Slain says about "body checks by your characters resulting from the attack".