Q: Can Reflection be used to redirect Immobility to the caster? If yes, what happens exactly?

Situation: Knight casts Immobility at the start of the Wizard's Turn. Wizard should stop immediately but casts Reflection. Immobility Spell card says that a Character may do nothing apart from negating Immobility with Counterspell. But this is Talisman base set ; Reflection comes with Reaper and works exactly like a Counterspell (it's an improved version of Counterspell).

I had no idea what should be done. We decided that Knight suffers the effect in the Wizard's turn and this had no consequences on the game. But I would like to know what do you think.

The_Warlock said:

Weird situation, but is possible.

In my eyes, you can use reflection, but it has a weird effect on the knight. ( because that the spell is already cast, you could say that the knight may do nothing in the turn of the wizard.( he gets the effects from immobility( as stated on reflection card)

I think the best solution is what you done: Knight lose a turn in Wizard turn so nothing change in game but Wizard get his turn like normal. this mean he used reflection like a normal counterspell in the end.

If I would have that sitation as You, i would play as literally is written at the Immobility spell - if it can be only countered by a Counterspell, nothing can change that. Reflection spell isn't a nice spell, because it cannot counter many of the other spells (for example Enrich), so it hasn't nice solution in that situation either.

Nemomon said:

You have a point

Maybe that Talismansilat can answer this question.

The immobility card says indeed that it can only be countered with a counterspell...

Or is reflection a exception?

Velhart said:

This is what I thought, but I don't like the literal interpretation. It's too game-oriented and has no real meaning. You won't find any reference to Reflection Spell in the base set, because it's in the expansion, but it doesn't mean that Reflection has a different impact than Counterspell. You can Reflect only Spells that affect a Character (which is not the caster), and Immobility is a typical Spell than is suitable for Reflection.

Surely we need an exception about this.

Yes, you can cast the Reflection Spell to negate the effects of an Immobility Spell cast on you (he may do nothing on your turn instead).

Ell.

talismanamsilat said:

Good to know.

Thank you my friend

talismanamsilat said:

This is exactly what we did, but as you might notice this has no impact on the game itself. A Character may only cast one Spell in another Character's Turn (only other action might be use the Rod of Ruin?), so if he's immobilised in that Turn he has no detriment because he's already cast a Spell. We thought that a possible outcome might be that the Knight is immobilised during his next Turn (= miss 1 Turn).

This is a side question about Immobility:

Q: Can an Immobilised Character be attacked by another Character?

What if the Wizard lands on the Knight's Space in that turn and attacks him? Knight is Immobilised and "might be Evaded", but can he be attacked? If not, he gets an advantage from being Immobilised.

Q: Can an Immobilised Character be attacked by another Character?

What if the Wizard lands on the Knight's Space in that turn and attacks him? Knight is Immobilised and "might be Evaded", but can he be attacked? If not, he gets an advantage from being Immobilised.

I say yes, the now immobilised knight can still be attacked, but howeverm, he can not defend himself, (unable to act) and thus cant roll his attack roll, he only gets his base current value. also if defeated and forced to loose a life, he cant use any armour or other protection devices as he is immobilsed

ososober said:

The Immobility Spell is cast on a character ONLY at the start of his turn. However if cast on a creature it can be used at any time. Therefore in answer to your question, an immobilised character cannot be attacked. The Immobility Spell could have been worded slightly better admittedly lol

Ell.