Lets say I have title-swappin Myrcella in play and I am Hand of the King... I make a challenge against the player with Master of Laws, swap titles and declare Stealth, the challenge goes unopposed. Since a player with a title I support is defending unopposed, I declare defenders... when the challenge resolves I am considered both the loser and the winner and can trigger effects for both losing and winning?

I don't think so, In the rule book it says players can never choose to attack themselves.

I don't think you would even be a legal defender against yourself. Im sort of new at the game but that's how I understood the book. Maybe someones else can shoot me down or back me up whos played longer.

On the face of it, it does look possible. However, I'd say there are two things that make it potentially illegal to take the actions that make it happen:

1. You create the technically illegal situation of attacking someone you support. Because of this, it would be completely consistent to rule that Myrcella's ability cannot be used to swap these titles during the challenge. Precedent can be found in not being able to even trigger the Crown Regent redirect ability when there is not another legal defender for the attacker and in not being able to use the "initiate an intrigue challenge" effect of Shadow Politics during another challenge.

2. The rules for declaring defenders for a person you support are, "In addition, when a player you support is attacked by another player , if the defending player declares no defenders, you may declare any number of your own eligible characters as defenders to that challenge." It is very easy to argue that you, yourself, are not "another player" as far as this goes. (ie, you read "another player" in this sentence from your point of view, not from the point of view of the person being attacked). Since you are not "another player," the play restrictions are not met and you cannot declare defenders in "support."

OK, I can accept your point about being attacked by "another" player, but I want to debate the first point... technically you are only prohibited from initiating a challenge against a player when your title supports theirs. Wouldn't this restriction no longer apply after the point of initiation?
So putting aside the issue of defending my own attack, if I was Master of Coin and I wanted the bonus from winning an Intrigue challenge against a Lanni player running Power Behind the Throne who had the Master of Whispers title, I don't see why I couldn't initiate the challenge and then swap titles mid-challenge to get the +3 STR for the challenge.

Skowza said:

But based on your "initiates" reasoning, why? When Crown Regent is used, the challenge is fully initiated. Attackers are knelt and everything. That's why you cannot change your attackers, etc. after Crown Regent redirects. Clearly, if A's challenge is redirected against B, A isn't initiating a challenge against B, so by what you said earlier, it shouldn't violate the "support" rules. And yet, it is still illegal to use the effect if the only way it can successfully resolve is to violate a "supports" relationship.

Based on that precedent, I would have no trouble ruling against the legality of swapping a title mid-challenge so that the result violates a "supports" relationship.

With Crown Regent it seem like the challenge is "reinitated" at a diffrent target. Could be wrong but it was just a thought.

Testacleas said:

Woah woah woah, crown regent'ed challenges arent considered "reinitated"?

that means you could bounce someone then they can choose to go towards a player with king roberts host? how about winter shadows catelyn?

oshi said:

The challenge is initiated. Then it is redirected, effectively replacing defending player #1 with defending player #2. The rules say that this replacement cannot happen if defending player #2 would not have been a legal defender for a non-redirected challenge. The attacker does not go backwards and start the initiation process all over again, so in that sense, the challenge is not re-initiated. However, the rules prevent the redirect from creating a situation that would have been illegal if the redirect had not been involved.

That is the overall discussion here. Skowza is trying to use Myrcella to legally create an illegal challenge situation (attacking someone you support). I'm saying that based on the rules around the Crown Regent redirect specifically put there to prevent a legally created illegal challenge situation, I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the "supports" rules to prevent the use of Myrcella mid-challenge to create that illegal challenge situation.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that no, Crown Regent's challenges are not considered "reinitiated," but the rules surrounding challenge redirection a) don't allow the otherwise illegal challenge situation, and b) calls the defender who can ultimately win or lose the challenge the player against whom the challenge was initiated. But it is the rules that make this happen, not the timing structure.

I believe that it is legal to change to a title that supports the player you are currently attacking with Myrcella Lannister. It does not put you into an illegal situation that I can see. Reading the Titles for Supports rules sounds to me more like a play restriction on choosing the target of which the challenge is initiated against and not on what happens after that framework action resolves completely. The Crown Regent is an ability that revolves around choosing a target of attack which is why you cannot choose a target of attack against someone you support.

Besides the +3 bonus for a challenge type, one additional reason to take the title is to keep someone from Supporting that player in an undefended attack, which seems to me like a valid strategic move to help you win an unopposed challenge.

However, I do agree with ktom that you cannot "support" that player with your characters against yourself per the text "another player" in the Supports rules. It wouldn't make much sense realistically, even though there can be perks to losing challenges with Martell for example.