Condition.

Attach to an opponent's character.
Attached character's controller must give you 1 gold token from his or her gold pool each time he or she wishes to declare attached character as an attacker or defender, or trigger attached character's ability.

Any Jugde can answer without doubt this queston?: No money then no attack, defend or abilitty? or oponent can use the character even if he has no money in his pool?

thanks for reading and hope you can help me.

The gold is now a cost to use the characters triggered abilities or to attack or defend. If you can't pay the cost you can't use the character. The key word here is MUST. They have no option nor any way around it without first getting rid or of or shutting down Motley.

i´m not sure becuse is not clear enough. They should write "must pay you in order to" for being clear. But the text as it is is a bit confusing.

Read this: http://tzumainn.com/agot/cards/card.php?card_id=3693

I´ve alredy readed it but still you can see both opinions. Is there any site/mail where i could get an "oficcial" answer?

I would agree with Dormouse. And as ktom says in the tzumainn link, 'wishes to' correlates to 'in order to'. The key word there being 'to'. If you check the FAQ having to do X in order TO do Y is a cost. If you cannot pay the cost, you cannot do it.

And what about Janos Slynt?

"If it is Winter, players must pay 1 gold to the treasury before triggering any effect with an influence cost."

I would say the " must" and the " before" forbid you to trigger effects with an influence cost if you have no gold.

Carnemark said:

There is a link to submit rules questions to FFG at the bottom of every page on the site. It's there by the "privacy policy" and "contact us" links in the footer.

But if you want the judge/TO answer, you already have it. The card is indeed poorly worded, but the combination of the "must give" and "each time" wording makes "giving" this gold an extra cost for declaring the character as an attacker/defender or to use its triggered ability. So if there is no gold to pay the cost, you can't get the benefit. You can see that this is also the answer everyone gives you consistently in the public forums. Send the question in to FFG by the link if you don't like the answer.

Rogue30 said:

Yeah, Slynt is worded much better. If you have to pay the gold "before" and have no gold to pay, then you can't move on to "after."

Thanks every one for your responses.! I haven´t used Motley becouse that bad interpetation but it seems a realy powerfull card now.

Carnemark said:

Yep, it is. :-)