It doesn't say that the objects that are attached are part of your force. The IG is part of your force. The objects are attached to it, thus they are in the game, but only the IG is part of your force.


(Are people seriously going to complain that something does exist which can knock the IG down a peg? )

I'm trying to figure out how the rules support it.

How can the objects be considered objects when the card does not allow you to use special objects?

In addition, if the 6 gems are objects, why am I allowed to add 3 standard objects on top of them?

I understand the IG provides a rule allowing you to attach and use these 6 objects.

Where does it say these objects do not count towards my object limit or force?

The card allows me to use 6 objects, what allows me to pile on 3 standard objects after the fact? There isn't anything that raises the limit on how many objects I can use on my force.

So before you bought your house the back door was open?

The gems are used in one of 2 ways.

1. As objects. If you want to use them as objects, pick 3.

2. As gems on the Infinity Gauntlet. If you use the infinity gauntlet, you may NOT use any special objects. (But you can use 3 standard objects) This is because the gauntlet is a resource dial. When the gems are attached, they are augmenting the gauntlet, and not being used as objects.

Get it?

I think what you need to be asking yourself is: Where does it say that they do count towards your force?

Page 19:
That's the "object limit" rule of which you speak.

The IG states that attach the gems to your IG, but nowhere is it stated that those are part of your force. Clearly, though, as they are being used on the IG, the are part of the game. Thus, when instructed to remove an object from the game, those may be removed.

I'm all for this ruling, but it is quite counterintuitive.

So normally I get three objects. The rule limits how many I get, what combinations I'm allowed to have.

Rules on Cards supersede Rules in the book when they don't break the golden rules

So if the Gems are special objects. I'm attaching six special objects to a resource dial on my force. Other characters that have objects attached require a line concerning how they interact with the object limit rules.

Why does the In-betweener require a line about not counting toward the object total, but my Infinity Gauntlet does not? The words about attaching the gem are effectively the same("the soul gem attached to his base" vs. "Gem attached to it").

Does the Inbetweener do a different type of attaching then the Infinity Gauntlet?

I think this right here proves that there is a need for errata or the gems are not objects when attached to the Infinity Gauntlet.

Because it does say when objects do not count towards your force...

Why does Inbetweener(and the other Elders) point out that objects are not a part of your force if the default ruling is that "objects attached to things do not count towards being a part of your force"

The same for peanut Captain America...

If they are not objects, then the battlefield conditions could not remove them... The Oranges are saying that the gems are in fact objects when attached to the IG. How is something an object for one thing and not an object for other things without any Errata?

Actually, you can't pick three gems to use as objects in the normal way: you would need a heavy and a light.
And if they are not objects when attached to the gauntlet then they aren't subject to "remove an object' effects, so obviously they are still objects.

I honestly can see an argument that the gems, when on the gauntlet, are no longer treated as separate entities and so would be immune to "remove from game" effects, but apparently that's been discussed and clarified the other way already as seen above.

Peanut cap, and the IG LE prizes are figures, and are on the map. The gauntlet is not a figure, and should never be on the map.

That is why the figures have special lines about how the objects attach to them and if they are counted toward your force. As the Gauntlet is not a figure, it has different rules governing it. They are on that card I keep misplacing.

They are objects. They become part of the Gauntlet and so do not count against your object total (which is why you can still bring three objects).

Harpua: if I play the Gauntlet I need to list it as part of my force, yes? Shouldn't I also be listing which gems are attached, and doesn't that make them part of my force?

Where does it say that they are objects and do not count against your object total?

They are relics: says so on the card that comes with each one.
Relics are objects: says so in the rulebook.
Nothing says they quit being objects when attached, so they're still objects when attached.

"Don't count towards your object total" is implied by the above and by the fact that you can still use three objects. Since they are still objects, and you can still use the three allowed by the rule, the implication is that they don't count toward that allowance.

Nothing says they stop counting towards your force...

Why is it implied that the gems don't count, but it is explicitly stated on In-betweener? Why one and not the other, unless they are no longer objects?

If they are objects, then where is the errata saying that I can use 9 objects on my force when using a full IG?

The two Orange rulings contradict each other without errata one way or the other.

Without any errata, it seems to me to imply that when the gems become attached to the IG they are no longer objects. Much like Monkey Joe is no longer a figure when attached to Squirrel girl.

They are clearly objects before they are attached. If you can show me where it says they aren't objects when attached to the Gauntlet it will do a lot to support your POV. If they are still objects they must not count toward your allowance or you'd be over an never able to play more than 3.

If your issue here is that this is not as clear as it could be or ought to be, I'm with you 100%. Obviously there is more than one way to see this, which is why it needed clarification. But we've got that (see above), and while your POV has merit it doesn't have more than the (by definition) official response given. Do you not see that the answer you've been given is at least as well supported by the rules as your view?