I already did. She is adjacent to those squares via her Plants. That adjacency brings with it all the benefits and penalties of adjacency. She can move, she can attack, and, yes, she has to worry about break away.


I am not going to get ino a circular argument here, guys. THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. Obviously, for reasons I can't comprehend, so of you feel otherwise. So be it. You can choose to do whatever you want with her at your own venues. But you've been given your answers.

Officially unsubscribing from this thread.

The problem is you never address the main concern that has people still talking.

You state that she is adjacent.

You never state that the square she occupies is considered adjacent.

Breakaway is looking for her square to be adjacent, not her.

I only became aware of the square issue because of Sully, but after reading the PG in excruciating detail I can't find a single instance where his argument would be incorrect, which is why I posted all the portions that were applicable. I want this to be resolved and with no doubt, because the way the PG reads it completely contradicts the big resounding NO that we keep receiving...

Squares. Not characters. Where in her power does it say that she considers characters in those squares adjacent to her? It doesn't. It only says that she considers the squares to be adjacent. And as you continue to insist, saying that a square is adjacent is not the same as saying a character is adjacent.

Her power does nothing to change the "adjacent characters occupy adjacent squares" rule. It only changes the definition of what she would consider to be an adjacent square. And, again, as you keep insisting, her power only makes her, as a character, adjacent to that square. It does not state that her square is adjacent to that square.

Now, if you accept that because she is adjacent to the square, her square is also adjacent to the square, suddenly all the game effects work as they have already been officially ruled to work.

That's what I'm thinking too. i did go back and look at the RD's posts and there didn't seem to be anything that specifically address Sully's point. And at this point in the thread, due to brimming frustration, I don't think we'll get that courtesy.

Is it just me, or do a disproportionate percentage of threads where Normalview is the main RD involved end up this way...

You're getting the gist of it with that last paragraph, but when you try and determine adjacency from the opposing character then they're not adjacent to you. So she's not required break away according to the current wording in break away. Or Support, for that matter. Just because she can touch you with her plant doesn't mean that you can touch her as a person.

I wouldn't know, like I said, this is really my first couple of posts in the forums, and so far I'm really unimpressed with this part of the site. I've read other threads and all, and some of the advice was great when I was learning the ropes, but after many years of studying minute details in definitions and use of words I just decided to go by the book, for every little detail, and comb through. The more in detail you know how things work the less people can prove otherwise, and that's exactly why I'm insisting, I need to know why is this power being ruled counterintuitively, and as far as I can tell, so 180 degrees from the wording in the PG?

What? That last paragraph is the reason she has to break away.

The reasoning goes like this...

Poison Ivy says, "I want to move"
Poison Ivy asks, "Is my square adjacent to an opposing character?"
Poison Ivy looks at all squares adjacent to herself.
One of those squares via her power has an opposing figure.
That opposing figure's square is adjacent to her - because of her trait.
That opposing figure is adjacent to her - because "adjacent figures occupy adjacent squares"
That opposing figure is adjacent to her square - because "adjacent figure occupy adjacent squares"
Therefore, she has to break away.

Please read break away from the PG, really read carefully, and you'll see that to determine whether she needs to break away or not she would need to occupy a square adjacent to the opponent, and since the opponent doesn't consider her occupied space as adjacent she doesnt have to, but since she does consider his square adjacent he would have to, I'm not discussing that it should stay like that, I'm discussing that the current wording of all applicable rules say it's like that.

I've looked through the latest player's guide several times. Please cite this rule you're finding?

It's Poison Ivy's move action. And since she sees them as adjacent, they're adjacent. You realize that if that wasn't the case, then characters who "ignore other characters" for movement would still have to break away, because from what you're saying, break away isn't based on the character being given the move action.

That was my original post, under breaking away, bolded section it specifically states that you need break away if the opposing character considers your OCCUPIED square adjacent. Nowhere in Break away does it mention whether you consider their square adjacent.

And as for the Improved Movement, the process is simpler than it looks.

-"Improved Movement Character": I start a move action.
-Break Away Rule kicks in: Is there a character that is adjacent to your square?
-"Improved Movement Character": Doesn't matter, I am moving and ignore characters and their effects for movement.
-Break Away Rule: Characters ignored. (Unless they're GCPD Cruiser or Ultimate Clayface)

BTW: I do thank and commend you for continuing this discussion with me eMouse

Because an RD already came in to say he's not right?

Don't suppose this post meets those criteria, huh?

The point I was making with map choice is that I believe her power action to place a plant object says that she can only place a plant object in PRINTED hindering terrain, so the mars map has literally no printed hindering so she can only put down plants by walking.

I almost fell for the, she has a bad sculpt routine. That was pretty funny, I'm doing you the favor, I actually lol'ed.

I can claim that 2+2=4, and you can say that I'm not right. When you have to explain WHY, then it gets interesting. I think Sully and others have found compelling evidence that the ruling coud be a bad one. I'm not saying it is, but there seems to be sufficient evidence on both sides of it...which is rare. In these instances, further analysis and discussion can be and should be a good thing.

When I say cite, I mean give the page number and a copy of the text found on that page that supports your argument. What I see there is you paraphrasing the rules based on what you think they say.

As far as I can tell most of what you cite is from the rule book, not the Player's Guide, which is a separate rules document.

While you're at it, please provide the date of the Player's Guide you're looking at as well.

It also helps if, when you're quoting rules verbatim, to set them off with QUOTE or INDENT tags around them.

But over and over again, it's coming down to the same thing, the rules don't consider adjacency of characters to be separate from adjacency of the squares they occupy. The rules in a number of places use these terms interchangeably. Your argument is that the rules are very specific that the characters must be adjacent to the square, however, if that's the case, then not only do a number of Poison Ivy's powers stop working the way intended, but bits of the rules start to fall apart as well.

The rules do not distinguish between adjacency of characters and adjacency of the squares they occupy. The two are interchangeable. Adjacent characters occupy adjacent squares, and adjacent squares are occupied by adjacent characters.

I've provided several examples where your approach to the rules breaks Poison Ivy or breaks other elements of the game. Yet I've seen no evidence presented that my understanding of the rules, as agreed by a rules arbiter causes any significant breakage, other than people not liking the fact that Poison Ivy has to break away to move.