1. if you are adjacent to an object and an opponent do you have to break away from the character to grab the object.

2. Can you outwit defense and then poison or does poison have to happen before anything else.

Thanks a ton for the help in advance, you guys are a great resource.

Yes, you must break away. You can only pick up objects while you are moving.

Yes, you are allowed to Outwit before Poison takes effect.

The character must breakaway. Objects can only be picked up during movement.

Poison is done at the beginning of the turn, but Outwit can be done at any time during your turn, including before Poison.

In addendum, you decide the order in which free actions take place at the beginning of your turn. This also includes leadership and perplex.

1. You do not have to roll breakway to pick up the object. While it is true that one of the requirements to pick up an object requires a move action (page 42, Danger Room rulebook), a move action can consist of moving zero squares (page 19, Danger Room rulebook). A breakaway roll is only triggered if someone is trying to 'move', i.e., leave their square (page 20, Danger Room rulebook).

2. You can perform a free action, such as outwit, at any point during a turn, including as the very first thing resolved in a turn (indeed, this specific question is in an official FAQ ruling).


Farrell

And giving a zero move action is "trying to move". Break away must be rolled. Try again, please.

A minor clarification:

Outwit from the previous turn does wear off before you can use Poison this round. You would need to use your Outwit in the same round you are using Poison. Effects that end at the beginning of your turn happen before you can use free actions that happen any time during your turn. But you can use free actions that happen any time during your turn before effects that happen at the beginning of your turn.

I hope that makes sense.

I guess it really boils down to this sentence from the DR rulebook:
"Breaking away. If a character occupying a square adjacent to one or more opposing characters moves as a result of being given a move action, power action, or free action, that character must attempt to break away, as shown in Figure 8."

In my opinion, burning an action as a "move action", and then not actually trying to move the figure to another square, does not constitute a move as a result of a move action (or a power/free action, etc).
[ugh -- gotta love the semantics of these sentences! :-)]

I don't consider a non-moving character that just burned a move action to be a "move".

Farrell

Thanks as always, you guys are always helpful.

But you would consider it enough of a move to pick up an object?

Make your choice. Its either a move, or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.



Either way, consider it however you like (you can house rule it, if you like), the ruling is that you must break away to pick up an object when you begin adjacent to an opposing character (unless you have something like L/C that allows you to ignore the opposing character).

The heart of the matter is that while we both acknowledge a non-moving figure can indeed pick up an object, we disagree on whether or not it triggers breakaway.

I see a non-moving figure not being one that "...moves as the result of a move action...", whereas you see it as one that does (albeit a move of 0 squares).

At this time, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Farrell

Or you can simply reference the documentation (I have no idea why I didn't just do this sooner... probably 'cause I couldn't wrap my head around your double standard on movement). From the General Errata and Clarifications document (under Break Away):

A character cannot pick up an object if it fails to break away. If the character used a move action to attempt to break away and failed, and has a team ability that allows it to make a move action without using one of its allotment of actions for the turn, then the break away attempt does not count towards its allotment of actions.

I'm not arguing about what the break away rules are... I'm saying that the break away rules aren't even triggered in the first place.

Here's the rules from the Danger Room book (again):
"Breaking away. If a character occupying a square adjacent to one or more opposing characters moves as a result of being given a move action, power action, or free action, that character must attempt to break away, as shown in Figure 8."

I'm simply saying that a character that doesn't try to leave its square isn't moving. I'm saying that it's possible to assign a 'move action' to a character, and yet not move that character to another square.
If the character isn't trying to move to another square, it's not going to trigger the break away rules.


Farrell

But they are. Here, from the PAC:

SUPER STRENGTH (OPTIONAL): When this character moves as part of a move action, power action, or free action, it can pick up an object as a free action and carry it. The object must be either in a square the character occupies or in an adjacent square. This character can use an object it picks up as a weapon. If this power is lost or countered while this character is holding an object, immediately place the object in the square this character occupies. This power cannot be canceled while this character is carrying an object.


Doesn't matter how it moves (move action, power action, whatever), but it must move to pick up an object. And (one last time) from the Danger Room rule book (page 20):

Oh, wait, you already quoted it...

So, how do you raitionalize that it must move to pick up an object, but somehow that movement doesn't count for breakaway? Seriously. I just don't get it.

I'd appreciate it if you kept it civil, normalview.

To address your last post, I never claimed that one must move in order pick up an object. In fact, I've been arguing the complete opposite the entire time.
A character given a move action doesn't have to move. Only moving characters need to worry about break away. A character given a move action that doesn't move doesn't need to worry about break away.

I've already posted in this thread the chain of rules used to justify my interpretation.

I've read everything you've posted, and I still don't agree with your interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it.


Farrell