You're getting hung up on that, when it doesn't matter. If it said "on the map" would it change anything? The only difference between "on your force" and "on the map" is that one only looks for stuff that is actually on the map and the other checks for everything on your force, both on and off the map.

There's even a clarification about that as well.

No it wouldn't. If it said on the map, I would also find it odd that they are putting a limitation on that they don't intend to use.

If you can run 30 Namors and all of them can place 6 tokens, on your force is superfluous wording. And superfluous wording creates confusion.

Master Pandemonium's wording already accounts for the clarification (as it tells you to only check for tokens he placed).

The problem you all seem to have is that you read way too much into the wording. If you don't try to overcomplicate things, it's actually all really simple.

All I can say is that I know I'm 100% correct that each Namor can make up to 6 bystanders. You can play him that way or you guys can continue to overanalyze the wording.

Part of the confusion would come into play with something like this:



Where in this case, Vermin says "his Rat Swarm bystanders". Meaning, no matter how many Vermin are in play, each can bring out Rat Swarm bystanders.

Namor doesn't say "More than 4 of his Atlantean Warrior Bystanders". This to me means that it checks for Bystander tokens named Atlantean Warrior and then puts the cap of 6.

It's a very..ambiguous?...case, and although I want to agree with you in that each can have 6, I don't want to break a rule that, to me, would create an unfair situation in so many tokens.

Like I said, you can play it however you want. If you want to limit it to 6 total then that's fine, but just know that you're just putting a handicap on yourself.

I really don't see playing multiple Namors to be a broken combo. I tried it and it wasn't overpowered.

Actually, by having an errata that directly contradicts a strict reading of the power, the Rules Team/Design are the ones over-complicating things.

I know what the right ruling is, too (because I asked and got it denied while being directed to the errata I quoted) but I can at least be honest enough to not try and blame the people that are reading the power literally.

Nah, it's not them It's you. I'm blaming the correct people.

I agree with predator, at least in the rules interpretation. WizKids has always been quite explicit in their rulings that tere is no interaction, and they provide a very comprehensive E&C entry for this.

To try to wrap up any doubts, I made a last ditch effort and submitted another question late last week:
This post has not been denied, but it also hasn't been answered. I think they are tired of being asked about this and are just ignoring it now. Can anyone provide any actual rules reasoning to why this won't work? If it's based on "on your force" or in some other units "on the map", then there are a lot of other 'broken' units where you can be denied the use of your characters powers simply because your opponent is placing the same piece, as I posted earlier in this thread:

The strategy game Darkseid is the example of them ruling it the other way. Even though the wording is close enough to be the same using said logic.

That last sentence can be read in different ways.

Are you saying that you are blaming the people who are correct, or are you saying that you are blaming the appropriate people to be blamed?

Yeah. Probably need to ask on the WIN to clarify.

rejected for reason #1

As predator already explained, that power designates a specific attribute, Name, not a specific character. That's the same as Namor's other power where it looks for keyword. This affects other Namor's bystanders, as it is not addressing the bystander directly. I can see a little confusion because a character's name is generally used as an identifier, but it is also an attribute. Namor's power designates the bystander itself, not just characters with the same name.