quoted from http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showpo...39&postcount=1

Maybe this has been addressed, but this trait does not seem to specify "The Toyman to which the cymbal-banging monkeys are attached"

So for instance, if I have 3 toymen, each decked out with their totally rad monkeys, each toyman is under an effect which says "count the number of monkeys attached to Toyman, add that to his super senses roll"

But since it doesn't specify WHICH toyman it needs to be attached to, any old toyman will do.

This is substantially different from what happens when a figure references its own name (where the name actually means "this figure", as delineated by how hope summers's attack power works), because when ANOTHER figure is mentioned by name, it no longer has any reference to a particular version of that figure (except as otherwise specified in the power, such as "friendly" or "within 6 squares").

For instance, compare the actual last-word wording to a hypothetical "fixed" wording.

Distraction Toyman can use Super Senses when Cymbal-Banging Monkey is attached to him, but only succeeds on a result of [6]. Add 1 to your result for each Cymbal-Banging Monkey attached to this toyman if not already increased by this effect.

Just moving (or in this case, adding) a few words really changes the meaning of a sentence. The modified version tells us that we only count monkeys attached to each individual toyman for determining THAT toyman's bonus, whereas the original wording could EASILY be interpreted to mean that you would count all attached monkeys to all toymen (and not even just friendly toymen either...).

The "to him" wording is needed, because otherwise the wording implies that if I have 2 toyman(s?, how do I pluralize this?) but only one has a monkey, the OTHER toyman will also get super senses (but only on a 6). While the fix for keeping from counting other monkeys will mean that you need to roll a natural 6 unless he has his own monkey, failing to include the "to him" language suggests that you still have toys giving bonuses to a toyman to which it is not attached.


I like to think I am not just being nitpicky, but then again I am also one of those crazy nuts who thinks that when a wording leads to possible interpretations that cause Bad Things (tm), like unhittable toymans, it is best to address it and just change the wording (via actual eratta, preferably, but by simple orange ruling if necessary).

No.

I don't get to play two Ultra-Boys, have each pick a different option with that power, then both get to use both.

I pick what I pick for each Ultra-Boy, and that Ultra-Boy gets to use that selection.

Toyman means "this particular Toyman". He doesn't care what any other Toymen do or do not have attached.

That was because when a character references itself it always refers to this particular model on the map. But when a character (toys) reference another character (Toyman), in general, they never reference a specific model like in the case of Northstar referencing Aurora.

That being said, I thought MisterId and Necromagus both ruled it does only reference the one Toyman because of reasons I don't remember/understand I forget which was the case.

not the scenario that is happening with the toys.

There may be an example that demosntrates the answer clearly, but in order to be the same problem it would need to be a power/ability on [character A] which has an effect on [character b] rather than itself.

An easy test for figuring out if it is "similar" is "Does Hope Summers change the name in the power when she copies it?"

If she does, then it isn't what is happening with the toys, and thus not helpful.

If she doesn't, then it is probably similar to what is going on here, and thus helpful (it may still have different enough wording to be identical, but it would certainly shed some light).

Ultra boy's power is of the "yes" variety (Ultra boy references himself, thus it ISN'T what we are talking about here. When a figure references itself, even by name, it is functionally identical to writing out "this character". When a character references a different character by name, it is actually talking about ANY character with that name, since "this character" would not be identical in any fashion, and there is no distinct or particular version of the character we can distinguish (unless, of course, additional language is added like the Hulklops revert, which specifies a specific cyclops by set and number, rather than just 'lower points', though if for some reason there were two figures that met the criteria, he could choose from either of them).

Would you consider these following powers comparable to the toys?

Here was another thread where I brought this issue up:

http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=494436

I remember that ruling, for the Airplanes if not specifically for the Monkeys, and I don't think they gave much by way of a reason. The way I see it, this trait is slightly different to other game effects (such as Twin Connection) that reference other characters in that it describes a relationship that, for a given specific Monkey, requires there to be a given specific Toyman in order to be a valid relationship, that being the Toyman to which it is attached. If there isn't a specific Toyman to which your specific Monkey is attached, then it isn't an attached Monkey and the trait is inactive. Twin Connection, on the other hand, requires that a specific Northstar be adjacent to, "a friendly character named Aurora," giving rise to a situation in which up to 8 distinct Auroras can equally fulfil the criteria. As such, there is potential ambiguity as to which Aurora, for any given Northstar, Twin Connection may be referring to, and therefore the correct reading is that it refers to all Auroras, but there is no such ambiguity as to which Toyman, for any given Monkey, Distraction is referring to, and so it is reasonable to infer that the effects of Distraction apply only to that Toyman.

Now, that may well have been the most demented passage of text I have ever typed, but I'm a firm believer that dense problems necessitate inelegant solutions.

That passage is not demented at all. It makes sense on a "common sense" level, but without being codified into rules somewhere, I still find a problem with it: how is anyone ever supposed to reach that same conclusion? And what conclusions should they be making about other detachable game elements?

Oh, I completely agree. My reading of the trait is just a reasonable reading. Without the prior ruling I'd have no reason to be confident that it's the correct reading. Looking at the examples you list above, these traits aren't even the worst offenders, because at least the attached/attached-to relationship is mentioned in the text. B'nee's power is downright ambiguous. Going forward, though, we may be able to take, as a rule of thumb, that detachable game elements refer specifically to themselves when their own names are mentioned in the text associated with their powers/traits and specifically to the figure from which they were detached when their name is mentioned (and vice versa for the powers and traits of the figure). One reason to feel reasonably comfortable with that is that Alyosha Kraven's trait employs significantly different language to achieve the opposite effect:

It's far from iron-clad, but it's at least consistent with how these things have been ruled in the past.

To elaborate on the Batman/Caped Crusader set, if I am running 1 Batman and 1 Caped Crusader but only 1 of the two of them has a Flock attached, we reach the same question Toyman raised.

B'Nee is just too ambiguous. I also checked E.V.A. and saw she followed the same template as Gulyadkin and Kraven. All other detachable game elements and created bystanders were non-issues as far as I could tell.

Ah, yeah, I missed the Flock of Bats issue because neither Batman can be run in duplicate but, you're right, their traits are problematic when you run one of each. I suppose, in this case, you at least have the saving grace that the Flock of Bats trait and the Allies in Darkness trait are two distinct game effects. It's not unreasonable to assume that, when the Allies in Darkness trait uses the phrase, "while at least one Flock of Bats is attached," it specifically refers to Flocks of Bats attached via Allies in Darkness. Do you know of a ruling on B'Nee, by the way? Because, in the absence of one, it's genuinely not clear to me whether or not all friendly Warstars could be given move actions as free actions or not.

Never seen or heard of one. I read that as only one Warstar, but I don't think you are restricted to the "right" Warstar.

Distraction Toyman can use Super Senses when Cymbal-Banging Monkey is attached, but only succeeds on a result of [6]. Add 1 to your result for each attached Cymbal-Banging Monkey if not already increased by this effect.

This refers specifically to the Toyman in question. Can Toyman use Super Senses? No, he does not have the Toy attached.

Does this same rule apply to Batman/Caped Crusader?

Does this mean a given Monkey Joe or Red Gargoyle must reattach to a given Squirrel Girl or Blackheart?

Can B'Nee move any Warstar? Or does he specifically reference the one he detached from?

I can't see why it wouldn't, particularly since in this case you can't play multiples of either, and they're differently-named.

I would imagine so.

I would imagine the latter.