When that's the best counter argument someone can make, it only makes me more confident in my position.

Then why argue something that already been proven in the rules?

The reason why your wrong is becuase I have already proved it. IF you would of quoted the whole thing. Instead of just part of it. It would say that.

(almost forgot about this line)

Hey, Funky. PM me with your email, and I'll let you see for yourself.

I guess part of it is how far you are taking the devils advocate role though Spirit. I know (not assume) most of us are in agreement (yourself included) on how it currently works. It just doesn't seem constructive to post over and over 'SHOW ME WHERE' such and such a thing comes up to contradict your devils advocate comments.
Fett said it well, in that while the rules may not be crystal clear, most of us are playing it correctly or atleast how we interpret the rules.
Rewrites pending or not, most of us 'fighting' here, are most likely interpreting correctly.
Manchine (I think) spoke of 1 instance, and myself and I think someone else brought up issues with creating infinate defend loops. While these do not 100% define the rules, they make it pretty clear that the other side of the arguement cannot be so.
After all is said and done though, rewrite or not, 99% of us will still be playing it this way. Why argue, or butt heads over an issue that we almost all play the exact same way?
It's a waste of space and energy, and people just get frustrated.

Where did you get that bizarre idea? I've seen no proof from the rules. I've seen rather lame attempts to equate a line dealing with a situation where a single LoF passes through multiple squares of hindering terrain, but we're talking about multiple LoFs passing through two separate squares of hindering terrain. Not the same thing at all.

And why are you still commenting in this thread?
"Now I will stop discussing."
Can't you even follow your own promises?

I guess part of it is how far you are taking the devils advocate role though Spirit. I know (not assume) most of us are in agreement (yourself included) on how it currently works. It just doesn't seem constructive to post over and over 'SHOW ME WHERE' such and such a thing comes up to contradict your devils advocate comments.
Fett said it well, in that while the rules may not be crystal clear, most of us are playing it correctly or atleast how we interpret the rules.
Rewrites pending or not, most of us 'fighting' here, are most likely interpreting correctly.
Manchine (I think) spoke of 1 instance, and myself and I think someone else brought up issues with creating infinite defend loops. While these do not 100% define the rules, they make it pretty clear that the other side of the arguement cannot be so.
After all is said and done though, rewrite or not, 99% of us will still be playing it this way. Why argue, or butt heads over an issue that we almost all play the exact same way?
It's a waste of space and energy, and people just get frustrated.

Obviously you cant. I not discussing it anymore, I am discussing what your doing. I dont need to argue any more about it, Its been proven. Your the only one who thinks that it says that.

Well, I haven't exactly been repeating "show me where" and nothing else. I've supported my view with rules - look at the wording of Perplex, the exact same as the hindering modifier. Why is that allowed to be shared, and the hindering modifier is not? Nobody has pointed out a distinction there.

In other words, all I've been hearing in response is "THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS", and that's not good enough.

You'd think so, but as I said earlier, I thought the wild card infinite loop made it clear there was a problem there, and I was shouted down the same way. This isn't the first time I've come across a ruling I thought was bizarre, accepted it, then tried to use that ruling to defend another position only to be told I was thinking properly the first time. There is no logical consistency to rulings made in this game, and that's far more frustrating than any one argument here.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore, Manchine, and you obviously cannot or will not try to comprehend what I've written. If you have a coherent thought to share, I'd be interested in reading it. If all you have to offer is more of the above, I'd suggest your time would be better spent elsewhere.

I am going to take one last shot at this one.

• The “transitive property of Defend” (as stated in the “Powers and Abilities
Card Clarifications” section) also applies to the Defenders team ability. The
number value, unenhanced or aided by any power, is the only value shared
among these characters.

I am taking one leap on this one and treating Defend and the defenders team ability the same in respect to what is shared. It specifically says unenhanced. The expection to this is perplex as this is stated in the defend section of the FAQ. Nowhere does it make note of an exception for HT.

Was thinking the exact same thing about you. Becuase obviously your having a hard time reading sentences. A nap would probable be suitable for you at this time.

Perplex alters the numbers on the dial, be they speed, attack, range, damage, or for our arguement, defence. This new number can be passed on to the adjacent fig using defend or the defenders team ability (assuming both have it or 1 plus the wildcard) Perplex can also lower numbers on the dial and can work on both enemy and ally.
Hindering terrain modifiers add 1 to defence. Nowhere does it say that it changes the number on the dial, just that it adds 1 to the defence in ranged combat situations. The key is that perplex changes the number on the dial. Perplexed numbers can therefore be shared, more applicable in the case of Sinister Sindicate and attack then defence.
Therefore the defence shared is 18 plus 1 to each assuming they are in or behind hindering.

Truce...

Sorry, folks, but I'm joining Funky Jett up here on the high road.

(but I'm soooo tempted, really. Fish in a barrel! Must resist...)

As I said before, we agree to disagree.