The following is my opinion and observation:

Normalview ruled that breakaway is necessary, because she makes herself adjacent.

Breakaway has a very odd wording and it was brought up months ago in a thread that the Citrus Squad never replied to; not that anyone expected them too, the figure was not officially previewed.

Because people are human and do make mistakes, I wanted to bring it to the Oranges attention about breakaway and the difference between squares/characters. To me it looks inconsistent and maybe something was missed.

This discussion could end very easily with an orange response to the effect of, "her power considers her square adjacent." or "she needs errata but she considers her square adjacent", whatever.

Normalview has been around the last few days, maybe he figured the thread was dead and is avoiding it. I can't speak for him, but it seems a quick response isn't too much to ask.

Unless, they are debating it. We don't really know. Sometimes we get a 'we are debating it', sometimes its just a long line of silence, then the answer pops out.

To me, it always seems important to understand the reason why.

Some people are happy with, "The orange said so, so it is so."

I'd prefer to be in the realm of, "The orange said it for this reason, I understand the reasoning behind it, and it makes sense."

I've been down this road before with Flurry and Battlefield Promotion, Madame Xanadu and multiple targeting...

------------------------------------------------------------------

eMouse can probably state his argument better, but I think it comes down to...

The "She has to breakaway" side feels that 'adjacent characters' and 'adjacent squares' are interchangeable statements.

The "She doesn't have to breakaway" side feels that Poison Ivy makes herself adjacent, but not the square she occupies. Breakaway is checking for what is adjacent to the square she occupies, not what she is adjacent too.

I haven't been avoiding it. I just saw no point in posting anything else. I've told you the rulings, I've shown you why it works that way... if that isn't good enough for your venue/judge, then there is little I can do to change that opinion.

Play it as you will. Just know what I stated is the way it will be ruled at any official events.

Works for me!

Thanks for writing this up. It helped bring me (and others I hope) up to speed. Normalview has referenced a ruling stating that she needs to break away. In this ruling does he explain that adjacent characters = adjacent squares?

Except you're changing the definition of what makes characters adjacent based on nothing printed in the rule book, even in figure 5.

Assuming A, B, and C refer to characters, figure 5 states that the squares in the dotted line are adjacent to A.

It also states that A is adjacent to B.

This is an example, it doesn't state why A and B are adjacent.

The rules which point to figure 5 state

Adjacent characters occupy adjacent squares, as shown in Figure 5

A is adjacent to B because A's square is adjacent to B's square. If you're going to go with such a strict wording of the rules that you distinguish between characters and the squares they occupy, then that's the only definition of when two characters are adjacent.

Characters are adjacent only when their squares are adjacent.

Nowhere in Figure 5 does it state that B is adjacent to A because it occupies a square adjacent to A. B is adjacent to A because the square it occupies is adjacent to the square A occupies.

So, back to Poison Ivy, if you're reading the rules this strictly, then Poison Ivy is never adjacent to other characters through her plants, because her square is never adjacent to a square occupied by another character.

Her power only makes her adjacent to the squares, not the characters that might be in the squares.

For the characters to be adjacent, their squares must be adjacent.

lol! cant wait for this one to resolve :-) and YES, i have to agree. Sully and Jigma's logic are spot on.

So are you saying that her square is considered adjacent as well as her?

or that breakaway is written differently?

Your ruling made no mention of the square she occupies being considered adjacent and the fact that breakaway is looking for the square to be adjacent, not the character.

It IS resolved. They, for whatever reason, are choosing to disregard my posts... doesn't mean that the issue hasn't been ruled on, though.

She does not move through the plants, in no definition of movement in the book does it mention counting movement through adjacency of squares, but actually counts squares between your start and end point up to your speed value.

Maybe they hope another deputy will come in and disagree with you?

This is not true. You do move through adjacent squares and you must plot a course accordingly (see Fig 9 on page 9 for an example).

If it worked like you stated, you would never have to really worry about terrain, other characters, or any other effect that does impact movement. Instead, you could point here to a character, point there to a square, and then say "That square is within my speed value, so I am going to go there, stuff in between be darned."

Or, maybe they're hoping that the above specific points and questions get addressed. If they were already answered in another post, let me know as I'd like to see it.

So, back to Poison Ivy, if you're reading the rules this strictly, then Poison Ivy is never adjacent to other characters through her plants, because her square is never adjacent to a square occupied by another character.

Except for the part of the player's guide that allows her special power to supersede the rule and consider other squares as adjacent to her, which is what the definition of adjacency is, not to her square.

I agree about the terrain thing, because there are stipulations as to how it's done, and they are going to be adjacent if you're counting the number of squares between point A and point B and then see if there's any restrictions in your path according to the rules, but you can't move through her plants simply because they're adjacent to her and therefore you'd be moving through adjacent squares.

And for clarification, my intention is not for someone to disagree to a ruling that has been made according to the Player's Guide or on some part of the power that contradicts itself. I'm just trying to get an explanation as to why it would work that way, other than just "because I checked individually, conferred with others and that's how we said it is". I have been unable to see a why in any of the rulings that is consistent with the PG's wording, so I brought my case and want to know what I'm missing in the big picture here. I don't even regularly post in the forums, but I really like this piece and want to play her eventually, and if I do I like to have a good solid ruling on it that I can explain in case someone asks while I'm playing her or against her.