I'm actually surprised this is still going...

Normalview never addresses the fact that breakaway does not care what Poison Ivy is adjacent too. Breakaway cares about what the square is adjacent too, not the character.

Seem like an odd oversight to completely ignore the question about breakaway's wording and adjacent squares and stick to the 'she's adjacent' line.

It seems like everyone just skips over how breakaway is worded in the rulebook.

The only reason I'm still putting in the effort is because the ruling does not seem to be supported by the wording.

This is a nice progression, but based off the wording of breakaway it wouldn't go like that.

I see it more like:

Poison Ivy says, "I want to move..."
Poison Ivy asks, "hey square that I'm occupying, are you adjacent to any opposing characters?"
Due to her power not talking about the square she occupies being adjacent to anything other than what it is normally adjacent to, the square says, "Nope, I'm not... you don't need to break away."

So then you agree with the interpretation that Poison Ivy also can't use Poison, Defend, Support or make Close Combat attacks through her plants?

Poison Ivy's power only makes her adjacent to the square, not to the character in that square.

See the problem here is you are trying to lump things together that have different wordings.

The standard 'order' of adjacency could be seen as...

1) Character -> Square Character is Occupying
2) Square Occupied -> Adjacent Squares
3) Adjacent Squares -> Characters Occupying them.

Sort of a 3 step process.

Poison Ivy chops out step one.

Something like:

1) Poison Ivy -> Adjacent Squares
2) Adjacent Squares -> Characters Occupying Them.

So when she checks for adjacency she circumvents the step where you check what her square is adjacent to in order to determine what adjacent squares contain opposing characters.

The issue with breakaway is all in the wording. The check for breakaway has a very unique wording, which deals with whether or not the square is adjacent. It has its own series of steps.

Its not the best explanation, but trying to explain my reasoning from different angles to help you see where I'm coming from.

A better way to look at, perhaps:

A series of questions are asked when determining adjacency.

Q. What square am I occupying?
A. Square B6

Q. What squares are adjacent to Square B6?
A. Square A4-6, B4, B6, C4-6

Q. What characters occupy Squares A4-6, B4, B6, C4-6?
A. Figure A, B, and C does.

Result: I am adjacent to Figure A, B, and C

Now we insert Poison Ivy who is standing in B6 and remove Figure A, B, and C. She asks the same three questions, but she also has to ask a few extra questions.

Q. What squares do I have plant objects in?
A. Square F10

Q. What Squares are in or adjacent to Square F10?
A. Square E9-11, F9-11, G9-11

Result: I add those 9 squares to the list of squares Poison Ivy is adjacent to.

Overall results:

Poison Ivy is adjacent to Squares A4-6, B4, B6, C4-6, E9-11, F9-11, G9-11

Square B6(The square Poison Ivy Occupies) is adjacent to Squares A4-6, B4, B6, C4-6


Breakaway comes along...

Q. What squares are adjacent to the square you occupy?
A. Let me see, I occupy Square B6. Square B6 is adjacent to A4-6, B4, B6, C4-6

Step #1 is what Ivy's power states.

Please cite in the rules where your step #2 is stated.

Thanks for the most coherent and well thought out post that I've seen in Rules for a while. Sorry Normalview lost his cool and didn't address your post.

wow, this is still going?
not sure if it has been resolved yet or not. may I ask 3 simplified questions? I can't give the time to read through all the pages so i apologize for that.

at this point in the thread:

1 - can Ivy use support on friendlies who are adjacent to her plants?
2 - can she be attacked through her plants?
3 - does she or an opponent to to roll for break - away when adjacent to one of her plants?

I want to see what the consensus is so far. or if there have been rulings already...

thanks!

1. Yes. Orange ruling is that as she considers herself adjacent to those squares so she can do anything requiring adjacency to characters in those squares.

She can even move to any of those squares in a single step, regardless of where she is on the map in relation to the plant object.

2. No.

3. Thats what all the current arguing is about. Orange ruling says that Poison Ivy needs to roll break away from opposing characters adjacent to plant objects. Others argue that she doesn't.

Yes, normalview already answered earlier in the thread--
1) Yes, because she considers them adjacent.
2) No, the adjacency only works one way.
3) She does; the opposing character does not, because of the one-way adjacency.

Could you elaborate on why she has to breakaway? Put the whole Poison Ivy's Square vs. Poison Ivy adjacency debate to rest and so forth.

The rules don't seem to support it due to breakaway's check looking at the adjacency of the square Poison Ivy occupies, not Poison Ivy's adjacency.

Look at the power again.

PLANTS GROW WHEREVER SHE WALKS: After the resolution of a move action by Poison Ivy, place a Plant object in a squarethatshe occupied or moved through that action. A Plant object is an immobile object that can be destroyed if it is dealt 1 damage. Poison Ivy considers squares adjacent to or occupied by Plant objects as adjacent to her. Poison Ivy can draw lines of fire and count range and squares from the square of any single Plant object.

It is in the rules:

So when characters are adjacent to each other their squares are also adjacent. So in order for her to be adjacent to a square the square she occupies must also be adjacent to that square.

I think everyone is looking at and saying and thinking well if she is over there and her square she actually occupies is back there, then why does she need to break away.

This is not the case, Those Squares are acting like they are adjacent to Her, meaning that she is still in her square and making it so those squares are adjacent to her and her square.

Look at all the elaborate posts again


The line you quote is defining what adjacent characters are, not what attributes an adjacent characters have.



I appreciate vlad looking in on the thread.


I'd just like for him to elaborate on why she has to break away. Break it down for those of us with excerpts from the rulebook like we usually get.

Oranges are a wonderful resource to have for Heroclix, but in my eyes i see them more like great teachers of the world.

Instead of simply giving you the answer, they show you how they come up with the answer, so that next time you can find it for yourself.

And 99% of the time, that is what we usually get.

I asked a question a while back in the Dr. Manhattan vs. Dr. Voodoo thread. That day I learned something about the fundamental rules about heroclix.

Filed that piece of information away, won't ever have to ask a similar question again.

So at this point, I'd just like a bit more elaboration and addressing the issue of breakaway's wording.

I want to see the breakdown like we so often get for complex power interactions.

You are looking at it backwards.

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 breakaway before it can move, as shown in Figure 8.

She is still in her Square, and all those other Squares become Adjacent to her and her Square. She is not pretending to be anywhere else, those squares are pretending to be adjacent to her and her square.