So my friends and I had a game of Talisman last night, and we came across a situation where we couldn't agree on the rules. Heres the situation:

One person was playing the DragonRider and was currently battling some dragon in the Highlands. They clearly beat the dragon in battle and went to take it as a follower, until another player plays a spell that resurrects an enemy that was just killed and it ends the battle with a stand-off (i think the spell is something like resurrection? has a deer on it that looks like it just got resurrected).

Here is where the debate started. One person thought that since the DragonRider was going to take it as a follower, they weren't actually "killing" the dragon, and thus could not be resurrected with the spell. They weren't taking it as a trophy and that meant they weren't killing the dragon.

The second player brought up the rules, which stated that if a characters attack score is higher then the enemy, that enemy is "killed". Thus could then be resurrected using the spell and the battle be counted as a stand-off.

Can someone clear this up for us?

Edit: I believe the main debate was the difference between "Defeated" and "Killed". In this particular situation, is the dragon both "defeated" and "killed"? or since the DragonRider is taking it as a follower, is it just "defeated" and not "killed"?

I'd say the spell can't be used.

Dragon rider
"If you defeat a Dragon, you may capture it and take it as a Follower instead of a trophy. You may only have one captured Dragon at a time. While you have a captured Dragon, you gain the following benefits:"

When you take it as a Follower instead of a trophy you don't kill it. What the base game rule book describes is what would normally happen when an enemy is defeated (it is killed) but this is something else as I see it.

I'm of a different opinion; I think the Spell can be used...

I think there is no difference between "killed" and "defeated."

In my view, the act of defeat has to be confirmed first, and then you may choose to take the defeated Enemy as a follower or trophy.

If the act of defeat is prevented (e.g. with a Resurrection Spell) then you don't get to make that choice.

Thoughts?

Hm, I think I see what you mean but don't quite agree. There is a difference between defeated and killed as far as I know..

The wording on the Reanimate spell kind of supports what I mean.

Cast on an Enemy you just killed (place this card on the Enemy). The reanimated Enemy becomes your Follower and adds its Strength or Craft to yours during 1 battle or psychic combat of your choice. Then, discard this card and the reanimated Enemy.

It would get really weird if lets say this spell would work when the Dragon rider uses her ability.

The word "defeated" has been used instead of "killed" whenever the latter was unsuitable, e.g. on the Black Unicorn that becomes a Follower when "defeated"...

However, the rules say this:

A creature whose attack score is lower than the opposing character's attack score, is killed.

This happens every time a character wins a combat against creatures, so Resurrection Spell can be used with no limitation. It would have been exceedingly smart to have used "defeated" from the beginning and drop "killed" from 2nd edition, but now FFG has gone a long stretch into 4th edition to make radical changes.

The only counterarguments here are logic, theme and commonsense, but they should be put aside in Talisman when rules support a different conclusion.

By the way, Resurrection is no great Spell by any means, and preventing a character from taking a special Follower is one of its best uses.

Although I agree with Warlock I can certainly see why Nioreh thinks that way, and I can also see his point of view in terms of priority...it's a bit of muddy water...

If we agree that Resurrection, Reanimate, and the special ability of the Ghoul/Dragon Rider/Ogre Chieftain etc. all activate equally in response to Enemy defeat, then the "great spell casting debate" also rears its ugly head here (who has priority?) Except now Spells and special abilities are all competing for priority.

It would be easy to invoke the Simultaneous Effects rule when all effects are non-secret, but it gets muddy when secret and non-secret effects compete for priority.

One solution is to let Spells be cast in response to a triggering event (eg Enemy defeat). How you want to handle Spell priority is up to you (eg reaction speed). Then once Spells are cast (or not), then let special abilities be used if still able, using the simultaneous effects rule.

I mean I don't think this is in the rules anywhere, but it's an idea...

Although I agree with Warlock I can certainly see why Nioreh thinks that way, and I can also see his point of view in terms of priority...it's a bit of muddy water...

If we agree that Resurrection, Reanimate, and the special ability of the Ghoul/Dragon Rider/Ogre Chieftain etc. all activate equally in response to Enemy defeat, then the "great spell casting debate" also rears its ugly head here (who has priority?) Except now Spells and special abilities are all competing for priority.

It would be easy to invoke the Simultaneous Effects rule when all effects are non-secret, but it gets muddy when secret and non-secret effects compete for priority.

One solution is to let Spells be cast in response to a triggering event (eg Enemy defeat). How you want to handle Spell priority is up to you (eg reaction speed). Then once Spells are cast (or not), then let special abilities be used if still able, using the simultaneous effects rule.

I mean I don't think this is in the rules anywhere, but it's an idea...

Interesting point of view. I see the problem you're bringing up, and Simultaneous Effects rule is completely useless to settle this kind of situations. If applied, the rule would actually prevent the use of Resurrection, as the active player is the one who has killed the Enemy and might always say he's taking the trophy first.

Using the Dragon Rider/Ghoul/Ogre Chieftain abilities to take an Enemy as a Follower (or taking the Black Unicorn as a Follower), instead of taking him as a trophy , does not happen at the same time of Resurrection Spell.

The rules say: When a character kills an Enemy, he may take it as a trophy. The action to take the Enemy as a trophy is a consequence of the killing and the above abilities work just the same, replacing the trophy taking.

Resurrection says:

Cast after a character kills an Enemy during an attack.

The attack is considered a stand-off and the Enemy remains on the space.

This happens as an alternative to killing, thus cancelling the event. I think that taken as a whole, Resurrection should clearly take place before those abilities and effects, just as Counterspell precedes any effects caused or triggered by a Spell being cast. For this reason, I don't think it's really happening "at the same time".

A possible solution is to apply the "who says first goes first" method, then if the active player said he's taking the Enemy as a Follower before another player said he's casting Resurrection, the first one should get priority. A player that lingered so long to allow the other to surprise him with a known ability, and forgot to surprise him with a secret Spell at the right moment, deserves losing priority IMHO.

I don't know if the OP scenario was so close that the Dragon Rider was already declaring he's taking the Dragon as a Follower when another player hit him with Resurrection. Generally Spells give you the strategic advantage of surprising other players, but must be used at the right time. In my games, if the Rider killed a Dragon, gloated and took it as a Follower, we don't allow other players to say "wait, I had this Spell that makes your combat a stand-off!". They should have cast it as soon as the attack scores were compared.

A possible solution is to apply the "who says first goes first" method, then if the active player said he's taking the Enemy as a Follower before another player said he's casting Resurrection, the first one should get priority. A player that lingered so long to allow the other to surprise him with a known ability, and forgot to surprise him with a secret Spell at the right moment, deserves losing priority IMHO.

I am all for this interpretation.

My own thoughts on the matter is that each character has special rules or options that essentially "break" the rules - for them, in the matter indicated. So to me Dragon Rider's ability breaks the rule of score totals = someone died. It is the Dragon Rider's special ability to take loser Dragons as a Follower. A spell other than Resurrection might be in order perhaps, since, clearly (to me and Nioreh) the Rider's ability should be honored.

I honestly can see this being argued both ways. Does anyone know of an official ruling on this? I got money riding on this one!!

...

However, the rules say this:

A creature whose attack score is lower than the opposing character's attack score, is killed.

...

The only counterarguments here are logic, theme and commonsense, but they should be put aside in Talisman when rules support a different conclusion.

...

Hm, true, put those aside and it's pretty clear.

Along with PromKing and Msrushing I was involved in the game where this issue came up.

Ultimately, I think this comes down to how the terms are ‘killed’ and ‘defeated’ defined within the game. ‘Killed’ is pretty cut and dry, and is spelled out in the rules. Unfortunately ‘defeated’ is not. Personally I feel there is a huge difference in the two words just based on common sense, theme, and logic as Warlock said. I also agree with Oberon, the language on many character cards are often in conflict with the rules and in this situation choosing the term ‘defeated’ instead of ‘killed’ seems like a pretty intentional differentiation. Personally I feel like ‘defeating’ an enemy in this situation comes before whether or not the enemy is ‘killed’. I base this on logic, common sense, and the definitions of both words. If the Dragon Rider killed the dragon, the dragon rider would be riding a dead dragon which would not really be that helpful. But if the Dragon Rider decided to kill the dragon and take it as a trophy, then you could play Resurrection or any other spell/ability that allowed you to interrupt at that point in the game. I also think if the Dragon Rider card said that you could reanimate the dragon after killing it then Resurrection could be played. A spell that clearly said to be played after the enemy is defeated could be played to interrupt the Dragon Riders ability.

In order to be ‘killed’ the enemy must be ‘defeated’, but an enemy can be ‘defeated’ without being ‘killed’. That is my take. It seems pretty self explanatory to me. But if someone told me the official interpretation was that there is no difference between ‘killed’ and ‘defeated’ in terms of the game rules I would concede. If we are left to our own interpretation here, then I propose this as the solution.

So to sum up, I completely agree with Nioreh and Oberon. I also agree with Warlocks statement about the counterarguments being logic, theme, and common sense. There seems to be grey area here, and these seem to be the best guides for us in this situation.

(I guess I should mention that I know I took Warlocks statement out of the context of the rest of his argument and feel like they are the best arguments for something different than what he is advocating).

Dragon Rider should have the right to make dragon a follower before anyone else can effect the ability (unless they have a counter special ability, ability).

We've never discussed this in my group but we've been playing long enough that I can speak for it when saying that we agree with Oberon. Characters with special abilities such as the Dragon rider and bard can choose not to kill enemies, thus making resurrection spell useless. In our book enemies are first defeated and if you don't have an ability that gives you another option you're forced to kill it.

As for who shouts first; usually it's the dragon rider when drawing the card. "Yes! Finally a chance to get a dragon follower! I've been waiting for hours!"

I feel like the process of the turn would be:

you encounter the monster. Then you go into the encounter. Resolve the battle. Were you successful? Good then you can take it as a trophy. Now the dragon rider says that you may take a dragon as a follower INSTEAD of taking it as a trophy. To me that means that combat has to be resolved and you are about to take it as a trophy in order for you to "instead take it as a trophy". If a spell is played that makes it so the combat is considered a standoff, then the dragon rider no longer goes through the process of taking it as a trophy and thus cant cancel the spell by taking it as a follower.

Is this not the process we should be taking?

I feel like the process of the turn would be:

you encounter the monster. Then you go into the encounter. Resolve the battle. Were you successful? Good then you can take it as a trophy. Now the dragon rider says that you may take a dragon as a follower INSTEAD of taking it as a trophy. To me that means that combat has to be resolved and you are about to take it as a trophy in order for you to "instead take it as a trophy". If a spell is played that makes it so the combat is considered a standoff, then the dragon rider no longer goes through the process of taking it as a trophy and thus cant cancel the spell by taking it as a follower.

Is this not the process we should be taking?

That's the approach I use, for the reason you describe. The Enemy is killed, an opportunity to play resurrecting Spells and abilities is triggered, and if not turned into a stand-off, then the Enemy may be taken as a Follower or trophy. If there isn't an opportunity for it to be turned into a trophy, then it can't be taken as a Follower either.

But some are saying the special ability has greater priority, and still others say it has equal priority. (Whereas we are saying it has less priority.) I think it needs a FAQ entry.

So me and a friend just played a game of the "Talisman Digital Edition" on steam. I picked the Wizard and he picked the Ogre Chieftain (dragon expansion isnt out yet, so we couldnt choose the dragon rider). We burned through a bunch of spells until the wizard drew the "Resurrection" spell. Waited for the Ogre Chieftain to encounter a monster that he would be able to dominate as a follower after he killed it, so we could see if the spell would resurrect the monster, or if the Ogre Chieftain could take it as a follower first. The Ogre Chieftain killed the monster, and the wizard was immediately able to cast the spell Resurrection to make the battle considered a stand-off. The Ogre Chieftain was NOT allowed to take it as a follower, as the battle was considered and stand-off and he ended his turn.

Until we get some sort of FAQ from the Talisman people, I believe this is probably the best possible solution we can come up with. Spells that make encounters considered as a stand-off negate any character abilities that try to take that enemy a follower after said encounter.

Agreed PromKing!

This was by far the most costly way to find the answer to this problem, but they seem to have done a really good job with the Digital Edition. I would recommend it. Not only did we resolve that issue but we found a couple other items we have been playing wrong. Who knew the reaper could cross from the temple to the tavern by the ferry?!?

Who knew the reaper could cross from the temple to the tavern by the ferry?!?

I'm pretty sure this is specifically noted in the Reaper rulebook. Something about how the ferryman doesn't deny the Reaper passage if I recall correctly.

'Killed' and 'Defeated' tend to be used interchangeably, for example the Bravo in the City Deck, its meant to work out like a kind of friendly challenge, but the card says 'If you kill him, take one gold' - so a guy rocks up and says "Hey bro, fancy a bet on beating me in a fight?" and if you win, your character murders him in the street and robs his corpse !!

...well, if the character is for example the Ogre Chieftain I think that's exactly what would happen