I'm confused...

Breakaway does not read, "If Poison Ivy is adjacent to an opposing character..."

It reads, "If a character(Poison Ivy) occupies a square adjacent to one or more opposing character"

When I read it, Breakaway seems to be asking if the square itself is adjacent to opposing characters, not whether or not Poison Ivy is adjacent.

Edit:

Poison Ivy's trait makes her adjacent, it does not make her square adjacent, so I'm not sure why she would have to roll breakaway.

You are explaining the rules bang on,
Some people are just sad that she doesn't offer a bit more.

At virtually 1/3 the build of a standard team , and being the monthly prize
of a big event , they want those cool powers to help out a bit more.

Like if she has full control over those plants then
'Once at the beginning of your turn , as a Free Action , Poison Ivy can have
one of her Plants move one square ignoring elevation.'

Takes care of being based, adds more oomph to a fig that IMO needs some,
and makes those people happier with their 'big prize'.

Because of Ivy' trait, the square that Ivy occupies IS adjacent to an opposing character. If the figure is adjacent to the plant, then it is also adjacent to Ivy. Ergo, the square she occupies is adjacent to said opposing figure as well. Saying that it isn't physcially next to the square is true, but not entirely accurate for this case. If it was just the square that was looking for the adjacency, then the opposing part would be meaningless as no figures on the board are actually opposing to any of the squares, only to figures that occupy said squares. In essence, the square that Ivy occupies 'gains' all the properties that Ivy has for movement purposes. If the opposing figure is adjacent to Ivy, then it is also adjacent to the square she occupies for that purpose.

The problem here is that there is no evidence to support that.

Poison Ivy's trait says that she is adjacent.

Her trait does not say her square is adjacent.

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

I see your point and would very much like it to be rules this way. Keep fighting the good fight, Sully!

From the rule book:

Adjacent characters (and objects and terrain markers) occupy adjacent squares

If Poison Ivy is adjacent, her square is adjacent. This rule is obviously there to define what an adjacent character is, but there was some question as to whether it was reciprocal. Apparently, it is.

If characters are adjacent, their squares are adjacent.

People are human, people get things wrong. I just want to ensure this is crystal clear.

Breakaway has a fairly non-standard wording to it.

Breakaway doesn't care about Poison Ivy's adjacency, it only cares about the adjacency of the square she occupies.

Poison's Ivy power makes no mention of what her square considers adjacent, only what she considers adjacent.

I just want to make sure that the odd wording of breakaway was not overlooked in this situation, since I'm pretty sure this is the first situation of this type.

I'm fine if the intention (and ruling) is, "Poison Ivy's power means that her square considers itself adjacent to the things she considers herself adjacent to."

I just want to make sure that is what is being said.

The breakaway wording ended up being what the previous thread revolved around.

At the time the figure wasn't officially out, so there were no rulings given, but the main intent of the thread was to raise the issue then, so that the deputies could look at it and be ready.

So, I think it was considered. If you look through the rule book, PAC, and Player's Guide, there's evidence that the way the rules are written, "adjacent characters" and "characters occupying adjacent squares" are considered interchangeable.

I brought it back up again, because it had never received a direct answer.

You are also now wandering into the area of opinion as opposed to what is actually written, which never ends well.

About "adjacent characters" and "characters occupying adjacent squares" being interchangable: Breakaway is not looking for either; it is looking for the adjacency between a square and a character.

If things are as you believe, already been thought out, decided on, etc, then it seems like a real simple answer of, "Yes Poison Ivy's power considers her square adjacent as well as herself" shouldn't be too much to ask.

To me, strictly speaking, as the power is written, she should not have to breakaway. If the intent is different and errata is needed, then sure no problem, but in its current state it is inconsistent and in my eyes, unresolved.

Even the Breaking Away rules don't really distinguish between "occupying a square adjacent" and "being adjacent"

If a character occupying a square adjacent to one or more opposing characters is given an action and attempts to move, that character must successfully break away before it can move, as shown in Figure 8.

To break away, roll a d6. On a result of 3 or less, that character fails to break away and can’t move; resolve the action immediately, including assigning that character any action tokens for that action. On a result of 4 or higher, that character succeeds in breaking away from all opposing characters adjacent to it. Regardless of any game effects, a d6 roll of 1 automatically results in a character failing to break away, while a d6 roll of 6 automatically results in a character succeeding in breaking away.

Only one successful break away roll is required to move away from all adjacent opposing characters or other game effects that may require break away from that square. Once a character successfully breaks away, it can move through squares adjacent to every opposing character or game effect from which it broke away; but ends its movement as normal if it becomes adjacent to an opposing character that it did not break away from this action.

Look at that last part in particular.

Once a character successfully breaks away, it can move through squares adjacent to every opposing character or game effect from which it broke away

...

but ends its movement as normal if it becomes adjacent to an opposing character that it did not break away from this action

If Poison Ivy doesn't make a break away roll, she can't move at all.

Why?

Poison Ivy hasn't made a break away roll. However, the moment she moves she's adjacent to an opposing character that she did not break away from this action. So, she must immediately stop her movement.

The language breakaway uses is efficient for each situation concerning adjacency.

You wouldn't say, "That character succeeds in breaking away from all opposing squares that are occupied by opposing characters and adjacent to the square that character is occupying" or some other obtuse combination.

"opposing characters occupying squares that are adjacent to the square occupied by this character" ...

"squares adjacent to squares occupied by opposing characters" ...

Each way they choose to phrase it is an efficient interpretation. Breakaway choose to make the qualifier for whether or not it occurs to be written the way it was. They could of written it a number of ways, but they choose to write it as checking if the square was adjacent...

As far as the last line "if it becomes adjacent", she would never 'become' adjacent to any of the characters occupying or adjacent to her plant objects, because she would already be adjacent to them. You can't become something that you already are.

No, but they could have said

After all, why mention breaking away with respect to adjacent opposing characters if they have nothing to do with why the character is breaking away?

There are also several cases in the rules where a stat or status can become the exact same thing it was.

Please provide relavent text to indicate how she can jump between plant. i'm a little confused. I get they are adjacent but see no text that supports using adjacency in this way.

thanks

to better explain my question i see why a character can't move into non-adjacent squares but see nothing that says they specifically can always move into adjacent squares

Also by this idea could if she is knocked back can i knock her back through other plants

Double mint post