Right that is the point I am trying to make. If they are considered to be next to Larfleeze for poison purposes THEN wyy would it not go through if he is next to the OLO? It makes sense to me, if he is doing poison through them and he can attack through them. I don't know why but it make sense to me. If they are next to the object and 8 squares back next to the OLO, the way the card is worded they are considered next to him. It should transfer through, and I think armor piercing should work with it as well. I read the card several times and this is how I see it.

Armor Piercing does work.

The OL specifically says that the Poisoner can use Poison on figures two away from itself. The Poisoner (in this case Larfleeze) is in one spot. It has no effect on the OCOs.

Look at it this way. There is a big difference between what it says and how you read it.

It says (paraphrased):
Characters on or next to an OCO are considered to be next to Larfleeze for Poison.
(This brings the characters around the OCO over to Larfleeze, in a sense.)

How you seem to be reading it:
Larfleeze is considered to occupy the square occupied by an OCO when using Poison.
(This would put Larfleeze over *there*.)

Since Larfleeze is not considered to be where the OCOs are, the OL doesn't have any effect over there.

I must have missed the armor piercing ruling then. Its just the way i read the card. If they are considered to be next to him for one instance, it doesn't seem logical why he would not be able to filter through them with the Org object.

I kinda feel that has been beaten to death, but the Constructs do not have poison... Ever. The OLO only treats people 2 squares away from a character with poison as if they were adjacent to that person. If someone is 2 squares away from a Construct across the map from Larfleeze, they are not 2 squares away from someone with poison, they are all the way across the map. The constructs treat them as if they are adjacent to Larfleeze just like the OLO treats people 2 squares away from Larfleeze as if they are adjacent.

The Constructs DO NOT treat Larfleeze as if he is adjacent to the opposing figure, but it is the other way around. If the opposing figure is not adjacent or on a Construct or within 2 squares of Larfleeze, then they are not considered to be adjacent to him.

Larfleeze considers THEM next to HIM so he can poison and attack them. THEY don't consider Larfleeze next to THEM, which is why THEY can't attack HIM through the OCs. And that's why the OLO only works when it's next to Larfleeze.

Of course, I wish Larfleeze could actually CARRY that OLO, but that's a whole other thing.

After reading it many times... I understand that the word jive should never be used again.

My memory is failing me, what contest is your signature talking about?

I have a couple of follow up questions about those constructs:
1. Since using Sargon's power can put the construct in someone's hand, and a carried object is considered off the board, does that mean that figure carrying the construct is not adjacent to Larfleeze?
2. Why can't pushing damage be transferred to the constructs? The power reads: Whenever Larfleeze would be dealt damage, you may deal up to 3... isn't pushing damage being dealt to Larfleeze and therefore can be transferred to the construct?

edit: ok ignore #2 there... on page 7 of the rulebook:
PUSHING
When a character recieves a second action token
(usually because it has taken an action on two
consecutive turns), deal one pushing damage to
that character. Game effects that evade, reduce,
ignore, or transfer damage do not affect pushing
damage unless the effect specifically says it does.

Especially since "jibe" is the word you were all looking for.

You assumption for #1 is correct. If you are carrying an object, you are not adjacent or occupying the same square, it is off the board.

Why would a carried object be off the board? This was asked in this thread and while Maraud was the one who gave the answer that a carried Orange Construct object would be in the same square as a character carrying it (and thereby able to affect the character carrying it), normalview participated pretty heavily in the thread after that and did not correct the answer or say it was under discussion.

Good to know. I thought I had heard a ruling that it was otherwise. I will update this in the morning.

Now that I think about it I would rule that they would not affect anyone.

They are objects with special rules, unless a objects says Continual its special rules do not activate.

Would be nice to get a ruling on this though.

That's actually a pretty good argument against it. I agree that a ruling on this would be nice.

so, only carried characters are off the board? why wouldn't it be the same for objects?

Actually that doesn't matter, what's missing about those constructs is whether they are continual or not. Isn't the default non-continual if it is not specified? Therefore, by that logic, the objects do not affect anything?