Can you use/activate Arnkell if you currently have a cursed (non-ditchable) follower?

Arnkell says "must ditch" and the cursed follower rules says that such followers "cannot be ditched". The relevant card text and the cursed rule is below. This left us with a bit of a dilemma. We split the ruling by letting the player use Arnkell, but they had to keep the cursed follower. This same question would apply equally to older non-ditchable cards such as the Hag or the Black Cat.

Arnkell - Magic Object : Instead of moving normally, you may discard Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region. You must ditch any Followers before you move.

Harbinger expansion rule:

Page 15 of the core rulebook indicates that if an effect prevents a character from using an ability, the character can not do so.

Basically Cannot overrides Must.

Therefore, you can't ditch cursed followers if using the Arnkell.

One example of Cannot overrides Must is the Knight when using the Blood Moon expansion.

If the Knight is a Lycanthrope and it is night, he is expected to attack a character that occupies the space he lands on.

However, if the other character is good, the Knight cannot attack him because the Knight's ability prevents him from attacking good characters.

I did wonder if the Warlord can get away with conscripting Cursed followers.

I think she can because her ability does say ignore ALL the card text.

I agree with The Hunter. I believe "cannot" is the most powerful instruction, followed by "must," and then "may." My reasoning is the "can vs cannot" rule, which I think we can translate as "forbidding always wins."

As another example, the Spiteful Imp says you must teleport to another character's space and encounter him; you cannot encounter the space instead. If you teleport to a character on the Mines, the main rulebook says you cannot encounter a character on the Mines. So, although the Spiteful Imp says you "must" encounter a character, the main rulebook says you "cannot." The Spiteful Imp also says you "cannot" encounter your space. So I believe you would teleport to the Mines and do nothing.

Likewise, the Knight cannot attack good characters, while the Lycanthrope Card says he must. If "cannot" overrides "must," then a Lycanthrope Knight cannot attack good characters.

At least that's my interpretation (I'm glad The Hunter seems to think the same way too, as I've pondered this a while.)

1) I agree that the Cursed Keyword would block the use of the Arnkell, since the Cursed rules flatly state "Cannot be ditched".

2) The Arnkell can still be used if you have any "Followers That You Must Take" & "Cards That Become Followers" as defined in the FAQ 1.1 pg. 2. There, these cards rules state "cannot choose to ditch them". Since the Arnkell doesn't include an element of choice when used, these types of Followers would be ditched on the space as usual (or discarded in the case of Cards That Become Followers).

3) An interesting quirk of wording on the Cell space does allow you to "leave" a Cursed Follower there as part of the board space rules as it does not term it as being ditched . I would interpret it the same as the the clause in the Harbinger Rulebook that Cursed Objects can be ditched if exceeding your carrying limit, whereby you can leave Cursed Objects only if all you have to get rid of are Cursed Objects. Following this example, I would presume that when on the Cell Space, you must leave a non-Cursed Follower first, but if none are available, you must leave a Cursed Follower there. Also, if a Cursed Follower is already on the space when you encounter it, you would not be required to take it, as you encountered the space directions, not the Cursed card itself.

4) Should a character have a Lodestone and 2 Cursed Objects, then encounter a 3rd Cursed Object, what do you ditch? Since there are no rules concerning exemptions for Objects That You Must Take, unlike Followers That You Must Take, but Cursed Objects do have an exemption regarding ditching them when exceeding your carrying limit, I would favor ditching 1 of the 3 Cursed Objects first and being forced to retain the Lodestone. This one I am not as sure of as the others myself though. This one is tricky to know which truly has the priority, and also affects things like the False Grail as well.

5) @ Artaterxes - I don't agree with the Spiteful Imp example you give. The Spiteful Imp says "You must then encounter that character, you cannot choose to encounter the space instead". You are correct that the Inner Region rules would prevent the teleported character from encountering the other character in the Mines, but the wording of the Spiteful Imp suggests that you would still encounter the space, since you have no other choice but to encounter the space instead of the character.

1) Why would cursed followers stop you from using the Arnkell? the way the cards worded its a side effect of using it, you still teleport but you must keep the cursed followers because you cant ditch them? hmmm its interesting.

3) Nice find on the cell space cool "leave" not "ditched" nice place to put cursed followers.

5) Wouldn't the spiteful Imp and the mines cancel each other out so in effect you teleport but do sweet nothing.

I disagree.

I think you are missing some specific wording in the two mentioned Golden Rules. (core rules p.15).

Special Ability vs. Rules
In any instance where a special ability or effect is at a variance
with the basic rules , the special ability or effect always
overrides the rules.

Can vs. Cannot
In any instance where a card’s effect indicates that a character
cannot perform an action or use an ability (such as casting a
Spell or using an Object), the character cannot do so. In other
words, the forbidding effects of cards override other abilities
and effects.

The non-ditchability (errr.. I guess that's a word?) of cursed followers/objects is a basic rule from the Harbinger rules.
So the Special ability vs Rules tells us the followers should be ditched when using the Arnkell effect.

The non-ditchability is not a card's effect so the Can vs Cannot is irrelevant in this case.

Happy Arnkelling!

Edit: Nope (see later posts)

After reading the full text of the Arnkell I realize I was wrong yeah you have to ditch all your followers otherwise you cant teleport. Also spiteful Imp and the mines yeah Sanity was right "you cannot choose to encounter the space" your not choosing so yeah you will.

I disagree.

I think you are missing some specific wording in the two mentioned Golden Rules. (core rules p.15).

Special Ability vs. Rules

In any instance where a special ability or effect is at a variance

with the basic rules , the special ability or effect always

overrides the rules.

Can vs. Cannot

In any instance where a card’s effect indicates that a character

cannot perform an action or use an ability (such as casting a

Spell or using an Object), the character cannot do so. In other

words, the forbidding effects of cards override other abilities

and effects.

The non-ditchability (errr.. I guess that's a word?) of cursed followers/objects is a basic rule from the Harbinger rules.

So the Special ability vs Rules tells us the followers should be ditched when using the Arnkell effect.

The non-ditchability is not a card's effect so the Can vs Cannot is irrelevant in this case.

Happy Arnkelling!

Oh boy, looks like I was so use d to Cannot just being applie d no matter what, I forgot the Gol den Rule is only for forbi d ding car d effects.

• If a forbi d ding effect (Cannot) originates from a car d, then the "Can Vs. Cannot" Gol den Rule applies an d it trumps any "must" effect, no matter if the "must" originates from another car d or the rules .
• If a "must" effect that originates from a car d is at variance with a forbi d ding effect (Cannot) from the rules, then "Special Abilities Vs. Rules" Gol den Rule applies an d the "must" trumps the "cannot".

So, it does in dee d appear that Arnkell "wins" so to speak, an d you will ditch any Follower, no matter if they are Curse d or not. A d ditionally, this woul d mean the Spiteful Imp woul d force you to encounter a character in the Mines after all. Looks like I picke d the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

I believe that is correct after thinkng about it.

It reminded me of the Hag (as well as the Cell space in the Dungeon) but I noticed a difference in wording between the two cards (according to the Talisman Wiki).

The Arnkell says "you must ditch ANY followers" whereas the Hag says "ALL other followers immediately leave you - discard them".

I know it sounds nitpicky and pedantic but one could argue over the wording and say that not all followers need to be ditched to use the Arnkell.

If in doubt, don't overthink but use a bit of common sense,

The important thing is to have fun when playing.

But a cursed followers non-ditchability is a "cards effect" because its says it is cursed on the card itself and then it goes by the cursed rules (telling you how to play with cursed cards), Its just as much as a cards effect as it saying so on the card?

You're reading the instruction "You must ditch any Follower before you move." on the Arnkell as if it was a precondition to activate the Object.

It's not that way. You discard the Arnkell to teleport, and before you move you must ditch any Followers you have. If the Followers cannot be ditched, which is the case of the new Cursed Followers but also of the old friends Hag and Poltergeist, they just teleport with you.

This was what we users agreed upon when this question was asked some years ago. Of course an official statement would be nice to remove any doubts, but I think that's the right way to interpret the situation.

You're reading the instruction "You must ditch any Follower before you move." on the Arnkell as if it was a precondition to activate the Object.

It's not that way. You discard the Arnkell to teleport, and before you move you must ditch any Followers you have. If the Followers cannot be ditched, which is the case of the new Cursed Followers but also of the old friends Hag and Poltergeist, they just teleport with you.

This was what we users agreed upon when this question was asked some years ago. Of course an official statement would be nice to remove any doubts, but I think that's the right way to interpret the situation.

Ah so my first thoughts on the matter were right to start with. Good to know,

You're reading the instruction "You must ditch any Follower before you move." on the Arnkell as if it was a precondition to activate the Object.

It's not that way. You discard the Arnkell to teleport, and before you move you must ditch any Followers you have. If the Followers cannot be ditched, which is the case of the new Cursed Followers but also of the old friends Hag and Poltergeist, they just teleport with you.

This was what we users agreed upon when this question was asked some years ago. Of course an official statement would be nice to remove any doubts, but I think that's the right way to interpret the situation.

But a cursed followers non-ditchability is a "cards effect" because its says it is cursed on the card itself and then it goes by the cursed rules (telling you how to play with cursed cards), Its just as much as a cards effect as it saying so on the card?

You're right, this makes more sense.

OK, so since the Cursed keyword is on the card itself, the Cursed rules become a de facto card effect. I can get on board with this, seems very reasonable. Effectively, Cursed Followers can never be specifically ditched for any reason due to "Can Vs. Cannot".

My previous explanation of the Spiteful Imp still holds up, as the Spiteful Imp card effect of "must encounter the character" trumps the rule that characters cannot be encountered in the Mines, since there isn't any card effect stating you cannot do this, only rules.

You're reading the instruction "You must ditch any Follower before you move." on the Arnkell as if it was a precondition to activate the Object.

It's not that way. You discard the Arnkell to teleport, and before you move you must ditch any Followers you have. If the Followers cannot be ditched, which is the case of the new Cursed Followers but also of the old friends Hag and Poltergeist, they just teleport with you.

This was what we users agreed upon when this question was asked some years ago. Of course an official statement would be nice to remove any doubts, but I think that's the right way to interpret the situation.

This post I simply don't agree with, as it goes against precedents in the Talisman rules for how things are allowed to be done.

1) Allowing the Arnkell to be used without fulfilling all conditions on the card is the same as casting a Spell without a legal target or buying an Object without any Gold. The rules very clearly state that for something to be activated, every part of the transaction must be fully realized. We can't buy an Axe at the Blacksmith for 0 Gold, or cast Healing when all players are at or above their Life Values, so why would we be able to use an Object when we aren't able to fulfill all of its text? Talisman is a game of all or nothing, you can either do fully what the effect requires or none of it.

2) Cards That You Must Take and Cards That Become Followers can be ditched when a card effect says they must be. They only have rules stating they cannot be ditched , not card effects, so any card effect that states they "must" be ditched takes priority. Additionally backing this up is the rules for these 2 categories of Followers contain the phrase "cannot choose to be ditched ", and the Arnkell does not give you a choice, as it is a "must" effect of the Objects use. If it simply said "may" then things would be different.

The Arnkell isn't supposed to be something that is completely equitable with the harder to gain Cloak of Feathers, but your interpretation makes it so in the case of a Minstrel's charmed Animal, Ghoul's raised Enemies, etc. if they are not required to discard them when using the Arnkell. Beyond that, you shouldn't be able to use the Arnkell if you are shackled with Cursed Followers. They are Cursed after all, and they should create headaches for you until you manage to rid yourself of them in some other way.

This post I simply don't agree with, as it goes against precedents in the Talisman rules for how things are allowed to be done.

You have a very strict vision of the game, which applies unwritten principles to all effects, no matter how they're written. I just don't see that Arnkell is written as you read it.

1) Allowing the Arnkell to be used without fulfilling all conditions on the card is the same as casting a Spell without a legal target or buying an Object without any Gold. The rules very clearly state that for something to be activated, every part of the transaction must be fully realized. We can't buy an Axe at the Blacksmith for 0 Gold, or cast Healing when all players are at or above their Life Values, so why would we be able to use an Object when we aren't able to fulfill all of its text? Talisman is a game of all or nothing, you can either do fully what the effect requires or none of it.

Ditching any Followers (not all of your Followers, BTW) is not a condition to use the card. The condition to use the Arnkell is to discard it. Ditching Followers before moving is a consequence of using the Arnkell, a condition to apply AFTERWARDS. It has nothing to do with the examples you quote, because the sale price of the Axe at the Blacksmith is 3G not 0G, and Spells are required to have valid targets by the FAQ.

2) Cards That You Must Take and Cards That Become Followers can be ditched when a card effect says they must be. They only have rules stating they cannot be ditched , not card effects, so any card effect that states they "must" be ditched takes priority. Additionally backing this up is the rules for these 2 categories of Followers contain the phrase "cannot choose to be ditched ", and the Arnkell does not give you a choice, as it is a "must" effect of the Objects use. If it simply said "may" then things would be different.

In fact I've made some confusion between Cursed cards, that cannot be ditched, and Followers that you must take and "cannot choose to be ditched". Actually there are no real problems with ditching Hag and Poltergeist when forced to do it; I'm pretty sure this question was asked, maybe before FAQ 1.1 amended the rule to "cannot choose to ditch".

The Arnkell isn't supposed to be something that is completely equitable with the harder to gain Cloak of Feathers, but your interpretation makes it so in the case of a Minstrel's charmed Animal, Ghoul's raised Enemies, etc. if they are not required to discard them when using the Arnkell. Beyond that, you shouldn't be able to use the Arnkell if you are shackled with Cursed Followers. They are Cursed after all, and they should create headaches for you until you manage to rid yourself of them in some other way.

If forced to ditch Cards that Become Followers, the Minstrel has to discard them when using the Arnkell. I cannot see how my statement brought you to think this is my idea.

I just said the Arnkell is not worded like: "Instead of moving normally, you must ditch all of your Followers and discard the Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region".

It's worded "Instead of moving normally, you may discard Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region. You must ditch any Followers before you move."

I cannot see how the two wordings could mean the same thing.

This post I simply don't agree with, as it goes against precedents in the Talisman rules for how things are allowed to be done.

You have a very strict vision of the game, which applies unwritten principles to all effects, no matter how they're written. I just don't see that Arnkell is written as you read it.

1) Allowing the Arnkell to be used without fulfilling all conditions on the card is the same as casting a Spell without a legal target or buying an Object without any Gold. The rules very clearly state that for something to be activated, every part of the transaction must be fully realized. We can't buy an Axe at the Blacksmith for 0 Gold, or cast Healing when all players are at or above their Life Values, so why would we be able to use an Object when we aren't able to fulfill all of its text? Talisman is a game of all or nothing, you can either do fully what the effect requires or none of it.

Ditching any Followers (not all of your Followers, BTW) is not a condition to use the card. The condition to use the Arnkell is to discard it. Ditching Followers before moving is a consequence of using the Arnkell, a condition to apply AFTERWARDS. It has nothing to do with the examples you quote, because the sale price of the Axe at the Blacksmith is 3G not 0G, and Spells are required to have valid targets by the FAQ.

2) Cards That You Must Take and Cards That Become Followers can be ditched when a card effect says they must be. They only have rules stating they cannot be ditched , not card effects, so any card effect that states they "must" be ditched takes priority. Additionally backing this up is the rules for these 2 categories of Followers contain the phrase "cannot choose to be ditched ", and the Arnkell does not give you a choice, as it is a "must" effect of the Objects use. If it simply said "may" then things would be different.

In fact I've made some confusion between Cursed cards, that cannot be ditched, and Followers that you must take and "cannot choose to be ditched". Actually there are no real problems with ditching Hag and Poltergeist when forced to do it; I'm pretty sure this question was asked, maybe before FAQ 1.1 amended the rule to "cannot choose to ditch".

The Arnkell isn't supposed to be something that is completely equitable with the harder to gain Cloak of Feathers, but your interpretation makes it so in the case of a Minstrel's charmed Animal, Ghoul's raised Enemies, etc. if they are not required to discard them when using the Arnkell. Beyond that, you shouldn't be able to use the Arnkell if you are shackled with Cursed Followers. They are Cursed after all, and they should create headaches for you until you manage to rid yourself of them in some other way.

If forced to ditch Cards that Become Followers, the Minstrel has to discard them when using the Arnkell. I cannot see how my statement brought you to think this is my idea.

I just said the Arnkell is not worded like: "Instead of moving normally, you must ditch all of your Followers and discard the Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region".

It's worded "Instead of moving normally, you may discard Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region. You must ditch any Followers before you move."

I cannot see how the two wordings could mean the same thing.

First, I apologize if my post was antagonistic towards you, it was not my intent. Upon re-reading it, it was much more abrupt than I meant, so again, my apologies.

I came to the conclusion you were stating that the Minstrel's charmed Animals and other cards that become Followers were to be retained when you mentioned the Hag and Poltergeist would be and they follow the same rules for what causes them to be ditched or not. It was simply extrapolating that information where it applied in other circumstances. This is no longer a disagreement between our viewpoints based upon your preceding post.

I think where we differ is in what phrases we are applying to the 2nd statement to clarify it for ourselves.

The way I read it is: "You must ditch any Followers (you possess) before you move." To me, if you still have Followers because they are Cursed and cannot be ditched, you cannot then move since the statement precludes being able to move if you have not ditched your Followers.

I think the way you are reading it is: "You must ditch any Followers (that you are able to) before you move." Using this interpretation leads you to still being able to use the Arnkell to teleport while retaining un-ditchable Followers.

Which is right? I don't know for sure, since they are open to individual interpretation with how they are worded. For the sake of community consensus, I will concede that since neither can proven without a FAQ entry clarifying what is correct, that the Arnkell can still be used with Cursed Followers, and that those Followers teleport with you. No point in an endless argument that just confuses people looking for answers.

I personally like the idea the the Arnkell can not be used to teleport if you have a cursed follower I think in a game-play way its more fun and tactical. But if you read the Arnkell card the way its written Warlock is right its not a effect that needs to be done for the teleport. I would be tempted though to add a house rule saying otherwise just to make players think and be weary of cursed followers.

First, I apologize if my post was antagonistic towards you, it was not my intent. Upon re-reading it, it was much more abrupt than I meant, so again, my apologies.

No problem, my answer was a bit rough too. I wasn't really upset, I just have to write my answers in a rush sometimes.

I think where we differ is in what phrases we are applying to the 2nd statement to clarify it for ourselves.

The way I read it is: "You must ditch any Followers (you possess) before you move." To me, if you still have Followers because they are Cursed and cannot be ditched, you cannot then move since the statement precludes being able to move if you have not ditched your Followers.

I think the way you are reading it is: "You must ditch any Followers (that you are able to) before you move." Using this interpretation leads you to still being able to use the Arnkell to teleport while retaining un-ditchable Followers.

Which is right? I don't know for sure, since they are open to individual interpretation with how they are worded. For the sake of community consensus, I will concede that since neither can proven without a FAQ entry clarifying what is correct, that the Arnkell can still be used with Cursed Followers, and that those Followers teleport with you. No point in an endless argument that just confuses people looking for answers.

In the substance you put down the differences quite right. I wish only to make sure you don't read my interpretation like I wanted Arnkell to be used more freely. It's just that I don't see it being very similar to other cards in the game.

The key point is whether ditching Followers is a requirement for the Object to work, or a consequence of the Object working. Arnkell is not written as many other cards that require some kind of cost or sacrifice, and follow a scheme: declare the cost (and timing), then explain the effect you obtain. E.g. Blood Stone: "If you have 2 or more life, you may lose 1 life during your turn to roll 1 die: etc..." or Atlas of Al-Balkhi " During your turn you may spend 1 fate to move 1 Terrain Card and/or 1 fireland token from one space in your Region to any other space in your Region."

Arnkell is different. It says "Instead of moving normally, you may discard Arnkell to teleport to any space in the same Region.", then "You must ditch any Followers before you move."

It's not written as a condition to use the card, or else it would have been listed in the first part, like any other card in the game. This one is different, and the requirement to ditch any Followers before you move is not "in order to move", but it's applied when moving it's about to happen. It's all done when you come to the moment when you have to ditch Followers, Arnkell has been discarded, and it's working.

Cursed Followers are something I wish I could get rid of, personally. They have hideous effects if compared to the bonuses. I can't get rid of them with the Arnkell and this is a strong penalty, since there are few ways to get rid of Cursed Followers. Saying that I can't even use the Arnkell because of a Cursed Follower is bringing the game to a painful level. It's something you can house rule if you want it the hard way, but the Harbinger expansion seems challenging enough without such extremes.

You're reading to much into this card. It's simple and the wording is correct. Thus is one of the cases where 'any' means 'all' as Arnkell is supposed to teleport you and not your group. This also means that if you've mule carrying some of your objects they're ditched on the same space as the followers. The fact that some followers are cursed holds no meaning in this case.

My head exploded reading half way into this thread...

My head exploded reading half way into this thread...

Its a corker indeed. I need a double strength coffee before I start reading.

Guys can we please agree that it needs a FAQ and leave it at that it really is down to how you read the card. Even I went back and forth thinking about it . I think not only do we desperately need a FAQ but we should all make our own house rules set (I know I have within my Forever Talisman Ruleset shameless plug intended ) given how many we have to fix these hard to answer issues mine goes 2 pages now geeeez.

My head exploded reading half way into this thread...

Haha, mine too.

My head started to hurt partway through.

I did post a topic concerning bad followers and objects and my interpretation of the rules concerning these.

My interpretation is you can only ditch/discard them by other means if you're forced to do so (such as the Hag or Chasm), but can not if you're given a choice (such as the Vampire's Tower or the Alchemy spell).

The responses indicate that I was wrong on the latter part, yet when playing the Digital Edition (made by another company) I could not discard the Poltergeist at the Vampire's Tower (as well as being able to do some things others users say you can't do on the board game such as using the Cross on Spirits at the Crags).

An updated FAQ would be beneficial as there have been about half a dozen new expansions since then.

My concern is that players who played the Digital Edition will be like "but I could/couldn't do this on the Digital Edition!"

For what it's worth, I can discard "bad" followers at the Vampire's Tower in the Digital Edition, and following the newest update, it no longer lets me count the Crags Spirit as a "Spirit." Maybe you played an older version of the DE?

It's been a while since I played the DE but did have some upgrades.

Might have noticed the Crags Spirit can't be destroyed but will have to double check that, as well as others.