As the subject line indicates, what exactly is a "creature" by definition? Are all enemies considered "creatures?"

If so, can a creature have its Strength or Craft reduced to zero?

Would the effects of Day or Night affect the trophy value of a creature?

Thanks in advance for any clarifications or opinions.

(I really wish FF would update the FAQ and Errata to include all of the latest expansions.)

Hello,

the answers to your questions can be found within existing rules.

As the subject line indicates, what exactly is a "creature" by definition? Are all enemies considered "creatures?"

Check base game rulebook, page 10 (red box "Creatures and Enemies"):

Some cards and special abilities refer to creatures and Enemies.

An “Enemy” is any Adventure Card with the word “Enemy” in the card type box.
A “creature” is any encounter (other than a character) that attacks with Strength or Craft. This may include Enemy cards and also Events, Strangers, Places, Spells, and board spaces.

If so, can a creature have its Strength or Craft reduced to zero?

Yes, but this doesn't apply to the +1/-1 given by the Time Card (see next answer)

Would the effects of Day or Night affect the trophy value of a creature?

No, check the Blood Moon rulesheet, page 2:

During the Day, each creature subtracts 1 from its attack score during battle and psychic combat (to a minimum of 1).
During the Night, each creature adds 1 to its attack score during battle and psychic combat.
If a character fights two or more Enemies at the same time, each Enemy subtracts or adds 1 to the attack score depending on whether it is Day or Night.

"Attack Score" is not Strength or Craft, as per base game rulebook, page 10:

The character’s attack score is the attack roll plus the character’s Strength, plus any other modifiers that may apply.

(I really wish FF would update the FAQ and Errata to include all of the latest expansions.)

I wish it too, but the answers to many questions are already given by the existing rules, provided you know them well before playing or check them regularly if you have doubts. Don't underestimate the words, usually they're the key to undestand the effects of a card, especially when keywords referenced in the rulebook are used.

Thanks for that answer. I completely understand wanting the FAQ updates for newer expansions. I often don't think to check the rulebooks to the base game and earlier expansions to see if a question is already covered in them so your answer to the OP has planted that in my head now and I am going to make sure I review all of them.

What I think we really need is a compilation of rules from all expansions and base game together. A new flow chart including drawing dragon tokens and moving the reaper and werewolf .... something along those lines

Thanks for the reply and for phrasing much kinder than the response RTFM some might have been tempted to post. One would think that an English Major would remember to read things more closely.

I like that you can download the rules on the PC and view them that way.

Thanks for that answer. I completely understand wanting the FAQ updates for newer expansions. I often don't think to check the rulebooks to the base game and earlier expansions to see if a question is already covered in them so your answer to the OP has planted that in my head now and I am going to make sure I review all of them.

Usually expansions add self-contained rules. When you see a new wording, it is probably explained somewhere in the corresponding expansion rulesheet/rulebook.

Most answers are found in the base game manual, but I admit it is written in a vintage fashion and it's not always easy to navigate with the Index. As DomaGB said, I recommend everybody downloads the PDF rulebook, which allows you to search by words. You can check all rule pieces where a certain word is mentioned and if you search well, you will come to an answer. I often make a check before giving answers here, because the arrangement and the style of the instructions might be misleading for someone that has read them not more than 1-2 times. Obvious concepts for regular Talisman players might not be self-evident to new players.

What I think we really need is a compilation of rules from all expansions and base game together. A new flow chart including drawing dragon tokens and moving the reaper and werewolf .... something along those lines

The current FAQ has an updated Encounter Sequence which replaces the flow chart in the rulebook. It would be nice to have a comprehensive sequence for all effects, including the annoying "at any time" effects that sometimes interrupt actions that cannot be interrupted (e.g. defeated character wants to turn all of his Objects into gold with the Alchemist, after the winner declared he's going to take an Object as a reward).

Thanks for that answer. I completely understand wanting the FAQ updates for newer expansions. I often don't think to check the rulebooks to the base game and earlier expansions to see if a question is already covered in them so your answer to the OP has planted that in my head now and I am going to make sure I review all of them.

Usually expansions add self-contained rules. When you see a new wording, it is probably explained somewhere in the corresponding expansion rulesheet/rulebook.

Most answers are found in the base game manual, but I admit it is written in a vintage fashion and it's not always easy to navigate with the Index. As DomaGB said, I recommend everybody downloads the PDF rulebook, which allows you to search by words. You can check all rule pieces where a certain word is mentioned and if you search well, you will come to an answer. I often make a check before giving answers here, because the arrangement and the style of the instructions might be misleading for someone that has read them not more than 1-2 times. Obvious concepts for regular Talisman players might not be self-evident to new players.

What I think we really need is a compilation of rules from all expansions and base game together. A new flow chart including drawing dragon tokens and moving the reaper and werewolf .... something along those lines

The current FAQ has an updated Encounter Sequence which replaces the flow chart in the rulebook. It would be nice to have a comprehensive sequence for all effects, including the annoying "at any time" effects that sometimes interrupt actions that cannot be interrupted (e.g. defeated character wants to turn all of his Objects into gold with the Alchemist, after the winner declared he's going to take an Object as a reward ).

Isn't the bolded example subject to the Simultaneous Effects ruling in the FAQ? It would just be a matter of the player whose turn it was that decided which action took place first, right?

The current FAQ has an updated Encounter Sequence which replaces the flow chart in the rulebook. It would be nice to have a comprehensive sequence for all effects, including the annoying "at any time" effects that sometimes interrupt actions that cannot be interrupted (e.g. defeated character wants to turn all of his Objects into gold with the Alchemist, after the winner declared he's going to take an Object as a reward ).

Isn't the bolded example subject to the Simultaneous Effects ruling in the FAQ? It would just be a matter of the player whose turn it was that decided which action took place first, right?

I wish that rule could be applicable here, but that's not possible: if a character declares an action in the middle of another action, nobody could set the priorities. In the example, if Simultaneous Effects rules is used to decide that Objects are turned into gold first, this makes the other action impossible (i.e. take an Object as a reward).

What's wrong in these situations is declaring an action in the middle of another action, before it's resolved. It's like casting Spells in response to other Spells, à la Magic the Gathering. LIFO doesn't work in Talisman. Another example: if a character casts Acquisition to take the Rod of Ruin, you shouldn't be able to use it at that point. Unfortunately, there are no rules given for these "at any time" effects. That's one of the biggest issues that still requires a fix.

I see where you are coming from here, whereby making a choice "locks it in", so to speak. Which, if that's the case, does create a mess as far as declared actions becoming a total loss if something else blocks it, and technically once locked in nothing should be able to overcome it. I don't personally feel this is necessarily so, however. In the case of a combat winner declaring they want to take the Runesword, for example, as their reward, and the other player declares they are using the "at any time" ability to have it alchemized into Gold, I feel Simultaneous Effects is the only established rule that exists for this situation.

If it is the current turn for the winner of the combat in this case, they choose the order they resolve. They would of course choose to have the reward change hands before it was turned to Gold. While this choice now invalidates the other ability due to removing the Runesword as a legal target, it does not block them from making an alternative choice to use the ability (of course, in this scenario there is no reason to do so). If things were reversed, and it was the loser of the combat's turn, they would choose to have the Runesword become Gold. At this point, the winner of the combat doesn't just get stuck with nothing at all, they simply make a different legal choice for their reward (which if it was an Object, could then also be alchemized, etc.). I don't feel things become as locked in as you have interpreted it.

It feels to me that 1) we should always use what established rules we have, in this case Simultaneous Effects and 2) not assume that declared actions become locked in if there are other "at any time" abilities that may cause them to become illegal or invalid choices. You simply have to redirect and choose a different target or action, which is fine since this all happens in the game simultaneously. Using this method removes all instances of conflict, which I feel is the intention of this ruling in the first place. Whose turn it is basically becomes a tiebreaker for what happens first, and if the second action is invalidated, they simply choose something else that is a legal target or action.

I see where you are coming from here, whereby making a choice "locks it in", so to speak. Which, if that's the case, does create a mess as far as declared actions becoming a total loss if something else blocks it, and technically once locked in nothing should be able to overcome it. I don't personally feel this is necessarily so, however. In the case of a combat winner declaring they want to take the Runesword, for example, as their reward, and the other player declares they are using the "at any time" ability to have it alchemized into Gold, I feel Simultaneous Effects is the only established rule that exists for this situation.

The Simultaneous Effects rule is not so universal as it seems. As written, it gives the impression that it is intended only for "triggered effects", which are abilities and effects that require a specific timing condition to happen. The rule makes the active character decide the order in which simultaneous effects are resolved. In the FAQ example, there's the Hex Spell on the Woods and the Druid lands there, so he needs a way to know if he's going to lose a life or draw his full complement of Spells first. In your example, a character says that he wants to take the Runesword, THEN the opponent says he wants to turn it into gold.

The two situations are very different.

If things were reversed, and it was the loser of the combat's turn, they would choose to have the Runesword become Gold. At this point, the winner of the combat doesn't just get stuck with nothing at all, they simply make a different legal choice for their reward (which if it was an Object, could then also be alchemized, etc.). I don't feel things become as locked in as you have interpreted it.

It feels to me that 1) we should always use what established rules we have, in this case Simultaneous Effects and 2) not assume that declared actions become locked in if there are other "at any time" abilities that may cause them to become illegal or invalid choices. You simply have to redirect and choose a different target or action, which is fine since this all happens in the game simultaneously. Using this method removes all instances of conflict, which I feel is the intention of this ruling in the first place. Whose turn it is basically becomes a tiebreaker for what happens first, and if the second action is invalidated, they simply choose something else that is a legal target or action.

If it is the current turn for the winner of the combat in this case, they choose the order they resolve. They would of course choose to have the reward change hands before it was turned to Gold. While this choice now invalidates the other ability due to removing the Runesword as a legal target, it does not block them from making an alternative choice to use the ability (of course, in this scenario there is no reason to do so). If things were reversed, and it was the loser of the combat's turn, they would choose to have the Runesword become Gold. At this point, the winner of the combat doesn't just get stuck with nothing at all, they simply make a different legal choice for their reward (which if it was an Object, could then also be alchemized, etc.). I don't feel things become as locked in as you have interpreted it.

It feels to me that 1) we should always use what established rules we have, in this case Simultaneous Effects and 2) not assume that declared actions become locked in if there are other "at any time" abilities that may cause them to become illegal or invalid choices. You simply have to redirect and choose a different target or action, which is fine since this all happens in the game simultaneously. Using this method removes all instances of conflict, which I feel is the intention of this ruling in the first place. Whose turn it is basically becomes a tiebreaker for what happens first, and if the second action is invalidated, they simply choose something else that is a legal target or action.

If things were reversed, and it was the loser of the combat's turn, they would choose to have the Runesword become Gold. At this point, the winner of the combat doesn't just get stuck with nothing at all, they simply make a different legal choice for their reward (which if it was an Object, could then also be alchemized, etc.). I don't feel things become as locked in as you have interpreted it.

It feels to me that 1) we should always use what established rules we have, in this case Simultaneous Effects and 2) not assume that declared actions become locked in if there are other "at any time" abilities that may cause them to become illegal or invalid choices. You simply have to redirect and choose a different target or action, which is fine since this all happens in the game simultaneously. Using this method removes all instances of conflict, which I feel is the intention of this ruling in the first place. Whose turn it is basically becomes a tiebreaker for what happens first, and if the second action is invalidated, they simply choose something else that is a legal target or action.

You are a bit optimistic in your conclusion. What if there are no other legal choices for the reward? It's not the case of your example, but if anyone would be able to interfere with an already made choice (=make happen first what was declared last), then there would be a lot of instances of conflict. There are actions, such as ditching Objects, drinking a Potion, etc. that can upset the choice made for the reward.

Example : I've just won, I choose to take your Runesword, but since it's your turn you can ditch it before I can take it. You don't have other Objects or gold to take, so there was no purpose in defeating you during your turn, except playing for blood.

These situations have no rules that cover them. I've house ruled that nobody could play with his belongings when he has lost a combat; when everybody knows this, there's no more discussion. It needn't be a locked sequence by all means, but we require a good rule to end such arguments caused by "at any time" effects.