Somehow in my venue this has come to be an issue:

let's say characters A, B and C all have the batman enemy and/or the defenders TA. A is adjacent to B and B is adjacent to C, BUT C is NOT adjacent to A.

So if A is attacking, can C use the batman enemy TA to replace B's attack value, so that B can lend said attack value to A???

Short answer: yes.

http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11543

A will attack (or defend) and checks their Combat Value.
When checking, they replace their value with the Value of B.
When checking the Combat Value of B, B chooses to replace their Value with C's.
Check C's Value.
B's Value is replaced with C's Value.
When A replaces their value with B's, B has replaced their Value with C's, so now A has the same value as C.

Long story short, in these circumstances, yes, you can "chain" Combat Value replacements.

You can even "borrow" your own values from another character in order to get whatever extra benefit someone might offer.

Let's say Hulk and Hellcat are next to each other, Hulk on an 18 defense and Hellcat on a 16.

Hulk can give Hellcat his 18, then borrow it back from Hellcat along with the super-senses that her trait allows a fellow Defender to use.

Would this prevent that if they both had the Defenders trait, since giving Hellcat the 18 would also give the +1?

It works as Surfer13 describes.

http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....2a73526#p25333

Hulk goes to borrow a DV from Hellcat. Hellcat's trait will activate (and Hulk will get Super Senses). Now you need to figure out what Hellcat's DV is supposed to be... so she can use her Defenders TA to borrow one from Hulk.

It wouldn't go Hulk>Hellcat>Hulk? Isn't Hulk using the trait when he gives it to Hellcat

I don't think NV answered what you were trying to ask.


There is a big difference between chaining the DV and (trying to) chain the special powers with the traits.

Let's list the powers in question:

Hulk's power

.

Hellcat's power

If Hulk gives the DV to Hellcat, she is able to use the special power (+1 to its DV against a close attack).

When Hellcat gives the DV back to Hulk, he is taking back his DV and that he is able to use the special power to use Super Senses during an attack.

The problem, is, it all depends on who is getting attacked and using the DV. We only calculate the DV when needed. If it is HULK being attacked, then he can do the chain to/from Hellcat to use his DV and SuperSenses.

If its Hellcat being attacked, its the same idea.

BUT regardless of who uses it, the trait's power (in this case, Super Senses or +1 DV against close attacks) can only be used ONCE per turn regardless of whether it was activated for use in the chain.

Example:

Hulk uses the chain to get Super Senses. He is attacked and the attack fails to hit. He does not end up using Super Senses.

Now, Hellcat is targeted and attacked and uses Hulks DV for her own, but she CANNOT use the +1 DV against close attacks.

Per Wizkids: http://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic....2a73526#p25333


.

As the Defenders Together trait references "attacks," do you lose the bonus effect after attack #1 of a flurry?

This is the part tripping me up. How is he getting super senses if you already wasted the trait by giving her the +1 while chaining your defense?

Let me try to explain. The first character to have their attack/defense copied that has this type of trait is the only one to have the effect triggered. It is triggered on the onset of copying the value, not on the completion. So, for example:
ABC
A is copying
B has one of these traits
C has one of these traits

1. A chooses to copy from B
2. B's trait is triggered
3. We now need B's combat value, but B is going to copy from C(or copy back from A as was being used in earlier posts).
4. C's trait will not trigger, as B's already has.
5. Now B replaces with C's value.
6. A replaces with B's value, with the addition of B's trait effect.

Sassamo did a good job outlining it, but the trigger for the use is not the CALCULATION of the value being replaced, but the USE of the value being replaced.

*parenthetical statement was mine

Example:

1. Hulk is being attacked.

2. BEFORE the attack commences, Hulk chooses to replace his DV with Hellcat's and thereby use the Super Senses she offers.

3. In order to replace his DV, we need to CALCULATE Hellcat's defense value FIRST.

4. Hellcat then copies Hulk's DV by way of Defender's TA (we are able to use it because we require a Defense Value), granting her the 17 DV to use for our calculation.

5.Hulk then uses Defender's TA to copy the 17 DV for use in the attack, triggering Hellcat's special granting of Super Senses.

6. The attack occurs and the 2D6 result is greater than Hulks DV.

7. The attack triggered the USE of the defense value by Hulk, and as a result of the trigger, Hulk is now able to use the Super Senses granted by Hellcat's power.

It is clunky, but chaining these things tend to be. Its all in the order of effects. The above scenario I gave you is what is specified almost word-for-word in the WK ruling.

Hope it helps...

The Calculation is the Use. Your description could be a little misleading, because you place the 'triggering' in step 5, which is after Hellcat copies Hulk's defense. That makes it look like Hulk's effect should have triggered from Hellcat copying, since the other effect wasn't triggered first.
When they say 'used' here, they are not referring to being used in the attack roll calculation, they can't be, because the 'character with the trait' is not even the one doing the attacking/defending. What they mean by 'used' is 'used to replace someone else's combat value, and it is triggered when they are 'chosen', this occurs before they even have a chance to calculate their own combat value.

Though it is important to remember that you can't just choose to use the ability to copy combat values at any time, it can only be done when a calculation is needed to be make, such as when you are actually attacking or being attacked.

This explanation is dead on. The trait triggers as soon as another character attempts to borrow the value.

Edit: nevermind. I re-read a sentence and found we were saying roughly the same thing and that I misinterpreted the original reading of the sentence.