Confinement reads:

Action: Choose a character with STR 4 or lower. Until the end of the phase, that character loses a {MIL}, an {INT}, and a {POW} icon.

Say I declare a challenge and kneel my attackers. My opponent then plays Confinement, removing the icons on one of my attackers. I believe the targeted character would remain in the challenge. I can't remember where I read about this or a similar situation but the reasoning was that you only check to see if they have the relevant icon when you declare them as an attacker or defender and that removing the icon after the fact does not remove them from the challenge.

Am I correct and can anyone point me to a relevant rule that would explain it? Thanks.

While I do believe that is correct, I will let someone else do the confirmation.

You should in all reality back it up and let them put confinement on the target pre-attack step at this point in most circumstances however anyway. In a casual experience, it is just a nuisance to ask for whether or not there are actions to be made at every possible step. Of course, the proper way to properly approach this in casual, would be to tell your opponent to just pause a moment before attackers are declared if there are decisions being made that you are considering.

RRG, p. 15:

" Participating

Any character that has been declared as an attacker or as a defender for a challenge is considered participating in that challenge through the resolution of the challenge.

x A character is either participating or not participating in a challenge.

x If an ability explicitly removes a character from a challenge, that character is no longer participating in the challenge.

x If a participating character leaves play for any reason, it is no longer participating in the challenge.

x Once a character is participating in a challenge, losing the challenge icon of that type does not remove the character from the challenge."

So... pretty clear in the rules that you cannot use Confinement after the fact to "negate" an opponent's choice of attacker or defender. You can only use it before the character is declared.

You should in all reality back it up and let them put confinement on the target pre-attack step at this point in most circumstances however anyway.

I don't agree with this.

Sure, when your opponent is learning the game, you should cut them some slack in terms of the timing structure. But if you both know the rules and the timing, unless the attacker has clearly jumped the gun, there's no reason to allow an opponent to go back and use Confiscation now that you have telescoped your next challenge and/or attackers.

I don't think it is a nuisance for an attacker to say something like, "Ready for my challenge?" before declaring, even in a casual game. And if something as simple as this is asked, and the opponent says, "Yes," I don't think you there is a general obligation (i.e., you "should in all reality") back up the game and let an opponent play a Confinement he/she had every opportunity to play already.

That's what I was looking for. I just couldn't find it at the time. Thanks.

Since it was a casual game and we still have occasional questions about the timing structure, I let my opponent back up and do it. It was just an honest mistake and since I couldn't cite the rule at the time to back up my side I wanted to be fair. Everyone in my area is new to the game and we're all learning the nuances together.

Yeah, but you would be wrong, . Don't turn games into robotic questions at each activation phase window and don't rush into phases without asking and then don't let them play something. Just play the game! Unless you are at a tournament. And even so, that's iffy. Just play with etiquette.

Just play the game!

That's my point, though. At some point, if all players are allowed to "back it up" and replay decisions - including conscious decisions to do nothing - you aren't actually playing the game.

To me, that's the distinction. If a player makes a clear decision, including both conscious or forgetful decisions to do nothing, you shouldn't be backing up the game and replaying it just because you didn't like the outcome. That's playing the game. But if no clear decision is made, a player has his opportunity to make a decisions taken away from him, consciously or forgetfully (by the other player jumping the gun, for example), or the game state is not properly updated before a player takes their next action (e.g., forgetting renown, forgetting forced reactions, etc.), they yeah, back it up and fix it, because those sorts of things prevent you from playing the game.

Renown is a "may" ability now. No more backing that up!

The basic objection to rewinding the scenario is that your player knowledge has changed. In essence the defender wanted to play Confinement as though it were a Cancel to the challenge, to which the answer is "no, not even a little bit." If you rewind time and let him pre-emptively strip the icon, well, obviously you want to do that *now* as you now know he's intending to make a challenge.

It's a much more difficult proposition to have Confinement in your hand, and three potential challenges from as many potential attackers as your opponent controls, and to judge where to use the card most efficiently without any additional information.