This is a question with no direct answer yet and is still waiting to be introduced in an updated FAQ document, if/when it comes.

We have a small hint in the current FAQ (page 8), which gives the interpretation for a different situation. However, it's somehow related to your question:

Reflection
Q: Can a character cast the Reflection Spell to negate the effects of an Immobility Spell?
A: Yes.

The official answer seems to imply that you can reflect a Spell for no effect. In this case, Immobility is either cast on a creature or cast on a character; in both cases it can be reflected onto the caster, but in the first case the caster's turn ends immediately, in the second case there might be no effect at all because the Spell is cast in another player's turn (if the caster is immobilized when not taking his turn there are no consequences for gameplay).

You ask the question: can a Spell who targets the caster be reflected onto the caster? Well, I would say no because there won't be any change in target (the caster is already the Spell's target) and Reflection would be cast for no effect, which is something forbidden by the Rules and FAQ clarifications. However, the FAQ I quoted seems to contemplate certain "no effect" scenarios as I described, so there is no real clarity on the matter. I still think that Reflection should not be used as if it were a Counterspell.

I suggest you to play Reflection as a Spell that changes target from a character to the caster, which must be a different character (otherwise it is like discarding the Spell for no effect). In any case, in your example Reflection cannot change the situation in any possible way, so the only doubt is whether it can be used for no effect or not. The Spell has many gray areas and it's often difficult to figure out how to resolve it, so better not use it unless it's a clear situation. And don't cast so many Spells in sequence, it's not Magic the Gathering.

But your scenario has a completely different outcome. Your opponent used Vindication and immediately after he cast Misfortune on you: there's nothing you could have done about it, unless you had a Counterspell or something similar that cancels Spells (e.g. Spell Scorch). Marked for Glory is used when you're about to make a die roll, but Misfortune cancels the roll completely and makes you roll a 1 instead. No other "about to roll" effects can be used, because Spells in Talisman are resolved one after the other. If Marked of Glory had been played after Vindication, then it could have been resolved and would probably have discouraged the other from casting Misfortune (allowed, but ultimately pointless).

The usual confusion about Talisman Spellcasting is determined by applying LIFO (Last In, First Out) to a system that doesn't support this rule. Spells are resolved one after the other and can be interrupted only be Spells that specifically say so (i.e. Counterspell, Spell Scorch and Reflection, the last one with extra attention to the various interactions).

I know it's hard to understand: Spells needs not only FAQs and answers, but clear and comprehensive rules.

According to the FAQ a spell needs to have an effect. You cast Marked for Glory on yourself so Reflection would have no effect. Therefore it cannot be cast.

Deleted

Alchemy of course targets your Objects not your charcacter, so Reflection turns Alchemy onto your character thereby cancelling Alchemy......

First of all, your opponent may only cast a maximum of one spell per turn except on his own turn. He cast two spells on your turn; not normally allowed.

Yep, I forgot to mention this in the treaty. He actually cast THREE Spells in another player's turn. The specific situation cannot happen as described, but there are still chances that the same problems arise (e.g. there are 3 opponents: one casts Vindication, another Misfortune, the third Reflection).

Any spell NOT cast on yourself may be reflected. If you are a valid target, great. If not, the spell is simply cancelled.

You know as well as I do that this cannot be possible, like in the Alchemy example by talismanamsilat and in many other cases.

I won't be so sure that "the Spell is simply cancelled". Reflection is no Counterspell and if it may be used like a Counterspell it should be officially stated, not guessed or assumed.

I quoted a FAQ entry (BTW, I asked the question in these forums a long time ago) and I tried to explain why the answer is ambiguous. It basically says that in the case of Immobility you can reflect a Spell for no effect, but the rules say that Spells cannot be cast for no effect.

A well-done FAQ entry should state whether Reflection can be used against any Spell as a Counterspell or not (i.e. if it can reflect for no effect). If not, it should also define the cases when a Spell can be reflected onto the caster. Without an additional clarification, we can only speculate or suggest reasonable ways to resolve such scenarios.

I was only going based on responses I've received from the rules questions form, but I suppose that's hearsay until FFG makes it public to all. You're technically right in that aspect.

This is confusing .

The "reflection" spell has been poorly worded and requires a degree of common sense when applying. Refelection requires a spell that has a "Target" and that is not the caster otherwise how can it be "Reflected". Otherwise it just becomes a differently worded "Counterspell". "Random" spell can be reflected but not say "summon Bear" In the example given the "Marked for Glory" spell should not be reflected.

In tIMba's situation what should have happened is that their friend casts "Vindication" and then tIMba casts Marked for glory benefiting from the spell. The friend would not have been able to cast more than one spell on tIMba's turn.

However given the possible situation where 3 other players each cast a spell then the following would happen:

tIMba's turn begins

Player 2 casts Vindication

Player 3 cackles evilly and throws down Misfortune

tIMba Casts "Marked for glory" smugly choosing a beneficial result. tIMbas turn continues.

Player 4 cannot cast reflection on tIMba as there is nothing to reflect as the spell affects tIMba only. If player 4 wanted they could have cast "Reflection on Player 2 meaning they would have to roll on the Vindication spellcard or even player 3 though there would not have been any further effect as player 3 is not about to make a die roll (maybe they just trip over a log or fall in a river or something).

Marked for glory will work despite the Misfortune casting as according to the wording on misfortune the die is still in play but a result of "1" is the result. The Marked for Glory spell is not attempting to reroll the die satisfying the requirments for Misfortune but allows upto 6 to be allowed to the result which in this case is "1".

Misfortune is a dreadful card and just wait until it comes out on DE. death by reaper will be much more prolific. Allowing spells like Marked for Glory to work despite suffering misfortune is an important tactical game balancing effect.

My advice to FF games regarding the Reflection spell though is to FAQ it pronto and get re-worded reprints out in a future expansion to replace the current reflection spell cards.

Well said Grim!

I don't get where the problem is in all this!

Person A casts Vindication and then Misfortune. Both are valid. Result is 1.

Person B (defender) casts Marked for Glory and adds 5 to the roll result. Great.

Person A casts Reflection to reflect the Marked for Glory spell cast by Person B to be reflected onto Person B. This is invalid in much the same way as if Person B cast Temporal Warp on himself or any other spell and it does not change the outcome of the original concern.

Either way, Person B did well!

I don't get where the problem is in all this!

This is perhaps because you didn't read the entire thread.

Person A casts Vindication and then Misfortune. Both are valid. Result is 1.

First of all, this is not legal, since Vindication is cast at the start of a character's turn. In Person B's turn Person A may only cast 1 Spell.

The situation is still possible if Person A casts Vindication and Person C casts Misfortune.

Person B (defender) casts Marked for Glory and adds 5 to the roll result. Great.

Well, the problem of all this is that once Misfortune is cast and takes effect,"the die automatically rolls a 1 result and cannot be rerolled". Marked for Glory is cast "when you are about to make a die roll", so it's too late for Person B to react with this Spell. Die has already been rolled, or better, no roll is taking place at all.

This is the concept about priorities that comes up over and over again. I keep on saying "don't react to Spells with other Spells, except with Counterspell, Reflection or Spell Scorch", but I still see that most players tend to push Talisman Spell casting to the extreme, thinking that Spell use LIFO like Magic the Gathering. It's not like that, if it were like that it should have been written as a rule!

Person A casts Reflection to reflect the Marked for Glory spell cast by Person B to be reflected onto Person B. This is invalid in much the same way as if Person B cast Temporal Warp on himself or any other spell and it does not change the outcome of the original concern.

Again, Person A cannot cast others Spells in this turn, but if we assume Person D casts Reflection (Person C already cast Misfortune), it should not have any effect, because you cannot reflect onto the caster a Spell which already targets the caster. Since Spells cannot be cast for no effect, Person D cannot cast Reflection this way.

It's not simple, it's ridiculously complicated.

I think that's where we differ in opinion. Casting a spell IMHO can't force a sequence of events. In much the same way that if it is one person's turn, the next person cannot just roll dice to force that person's turn to end.

He may declare that he is casting Misfortune, but that does not move the sequence of events on. Only when the original player is ready to roll does his spell activate.

You're wrong Kalten, the Warlock is absolutely spot on with his answers and reasoning...

Thank you all for the awsome answers and clarifications!

warlock & talismanamsilat I agree with you both

Misfortune is the roll. Its a very mean and nasty card. I am glad in our group we try to play nice, therefore I have kept the card in my game (example discussed elsewhere).

I think that's where we differ in opinion. Casting a spell IMHO can't force a sequence of events. In much the same way that if it is one person's turn, the next person cannot just roll dice to force that person's turn to end.

He may declare that he is casting Misfortune, but that does not move the sequence of events on. Only when the original player is ready to roll does his spell activate.

I'll just continue in the older thread where this topic is being discussed simultaneously with this thread.

​ http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/39174-misfortune-what-rerolling-really-means/page-2#entry1192433