Defend: Any friendly figure in a square adjacent to this character may use this character’s defense value instead of its own.

Even if the hindering terrain rules say "add 1 to the defense value" it does not say that "the character now has a defense value of x+1".

The corollary to what Remy proposes is that by using Spiderman's defense value+1, the Hulk cannot use his own terrain bonus (if he has one) because the +1 (for the Hulk's terrain) only applies to his (the Hulk's) defense value.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that you can add a terrain modifier to someone else's Defense Value.

Funky, could you explain to certain people what "truce" means? Some don't seem to get it.

If people continue to ignore the truce, I'll be forced to respond appropriately to these comments.

Considering we all actually agree on the way we CURRENTLY play this Defend/Terrain issue, can we please just let this thread die out. We can revisit it if it is not dealt with when the Indy Clix rules (or some better written faq) comes out.
There are only 2 sides, we know them both. As been offered already, let the thread die and raise your white flags.

When this says "add this modifier only once" there is an implied context. I'd say that the unstated context is "once per line of fire". It shouldn't be "once per attack" because that would mean that only one target of a multiple attack could get the benefit of hindering terrain and that would be silly.

The way in which modifiers interact with the sharing of values is half-baked. For example, the FAQ statesThe second sentence in this quote contradicts the first. If you can only share unmodified values then such sharing wouldn't be transitive. Transitivity depends upon sharing of modified values.

So, given this contradiction, you have to choose between one logical method and the other or invent some more rules. My preference is to say that you only share unmodified values and to discard the concept of transitivity. That's when I'm judging. When I'm playing, I'll try to get away with anything that works in my favour ...

Andrew

* sigh *

I Second the idea of letting this thread die. Everyone knows that the modifier is only added once, even the naysayers who are, as they addmitted, only playing devils advocate. This doesn't really need to be ruled on or added to the FAQ or new rule book, does it? Come on, does everyone need everything about the game spoon fed to them? Let it die.

I find it amusing that much of the reason this thread won't die is the sheer number of people who post just to ask that it does die.

Everyone's so obsessed with the hindering modifier and how ridiculous it is to share it, and they're missing the real point of the thread. So here it is, as simply as I can put it:

Sharing the hindering modifier is just as ridiculous as sharing a Perplexed value.

This isn't about adding a line in the FAQ about the hindering modifier, but an attempt to point out how wrong it is to allow a Perplexed value to be shared. Perplex allows you to increase one figure's stats, not a whole string of them. The hindering modifier allows you to increase one figure's stats, not a whole string of them. All my arguments "in favour" of the hindering modifier are the *exact same* as the ones the judges use to justify the Perplex ruling. By rejecting my argument, you're essentially rejecting your own.

And if you truly want this thread to die, stop responding to it.

To all concerned... I said "Truce" because some of the posts were getting out of hand. Everyone needs to stop and take a deep breath before they add fuel to the flaming.

Now, I have taken this to the Judges Forum for them to discuss. Trust me when I say, as soon as I hear something definite from them, then I will post the reply here. I can say this much... most all of the judges are in agreement that both would have a 19 defense, but it is split on how that 19 is achieved. And just because the judges agree on something doesn't mean Dr. G will (or won't) take this to the designers. No matter what happens, as soon as I hear the results, I will post it here.

Let the thread die? No way! Its too funny!

*ducks all the flying vegetables*

I mean... seriously... we know SOME people will never be able to make an arguement in a high school debate, or write a decent enough paper to prove rain falls from the sky... or at least we do now! ^.^

We all do agree, the defense would never go higher then 19, but it really seems funny so many seem to be arguing over that number, and also the whole spirit of the discussion.

The issue at hand here is in fact just an arguement for continued clarification of the rules and an 'addendum' to the FAQ in order to prevent situations like this. It is in no way their attempt to justify any sort of rules 'lawyering'.

And also, in response to those people who seem to think having a clear concise answer to every question there could possibly be... is a silly thing... Well, then you would in essence be creating a game to be scoffed at, with no unity across geographical areas.

Seriously, a game which is taken seriously and participated in at a tournament level across an entire nation needs to have a clearly defined set of rules for every possible circumstance. The 'way its meant to be' is not a valid point of logic for any arguement in any world. Just look at the world of professional sports, sure, some situations come up where a ruling must be made by a Referee... same as in this game... but there are also large handbooks that the ruling bodies are required to learn and know the rules from. If every judge is just supposed to rule in favor of 'the way its supposed to be' then we will have so many different rulings across the many tournaments/gaming areas that in two different places, the game will not even be the same thing.

Having said my peace, I'd like to say that Spirit certainly should deserve an award for patience and fellowship... especially considering the caliber of some of those he has been dealing with.

...and what a fellowship prize it is... an LE Jack Squat! Now my collection is complete!

Thanks everyone for making this such a popular topic of discussion. When I post something like this, that is usually my purpose. I like to see how many different opinions and points of view there are on such a topic.

I for one, am quite sure that if a ruling on this completely pointless situation ever comes to pass, the ruling will most certainly differ from my personal opinion. That's cool. I realize that Dr. G has a vision of how the game should work; it has simply been difficult to put the puzzle that is "Good Concise Rules" together.

I am, however, still of the opinion that the FAQ should never have ventured so far as to contradict or change the rules/PAC in any way beyond adding key words like "opposing" to Outwit. For this reason, I still hold to my view that the rules make this stupid, and it is stupid, little argument lean in the direction I began with. There is no rule that states I am wrong. Only opinions that state so.

That said, it really doesn't matter much. It never was a big deal, so, please, don't get worked up about this. Rule it the way you see fit. Most of you will see it fit to rule for both figures to have a 19 defense. That's probably the way it should be. My opinion, and this is just my opinion, is that the rules say Hulk has a 20 and Bullseye should have just stuck to targeting the Hulk. Feel free to disagree.

One final note: please stop asking that this thread "die." I'm quite sure that you are not obligated to respond to anything about it; you're not even required to look at it. If you're not interested in anything new that people might have to say, just ignore it. But please, do not clutter it up with requests to stop cluttering it up. It's here for people to enjoy. This whole site is.

Again, I'm proud that I found such a hot topic. It's just what I always wanted!