The FAQ for Talisman is now posted...

www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Talisman/support/talisman-faq1-0.pdf

Does anyone disagree, logically, with the question about the Cursed Glade and Desert spaces?

If you haven't read it, it says, basically, that if you encounter a character on the Cursed Glade or Desert spaces, then the effects of the space don't apply.

Come on - if you attack someone in a desert, you're going to get really hot, then get really thirsty, and then die. In that order.

MegaDestroyo said:

Before disagreeing on something, I dare utter the words "Alas, thank you FFG"!

Now I'm gonna read everything through.

* gets popcorn and comfy chair *

"Q2: If the Prophetess chooses to replace a faceup Adventure
Card, can she use the Orb of Knowledge to replace the new
card that she draws?

A: Yes." (p. 2)

When did she gain that ability?

Destroy Magic got nerfed, sniff .

Monk can double up on ability + Psionic Blast it seems. Similarly, looks like duplication is back in (Fiend Slayer + Prophesy later on)

"Teleport
Q: If the Teleport Spell is cast and another character casts
Counterspell to negate its effect, can the character then roll
a die for his movement instead?

A: Yes." (p. 3)

This got changed as well. IIRC, it was that you couldn't roll.

Looks like Sage (and by extension Warlock) got a boost, starting their turns with 0 Spells, but still allowed to cast the Spell they get.

"Q6: Can the Grim Reaper enter the Dungeon?

A: Yes. The Grim Reaper may enter and leave the Dungeon
Region according to the normal rules for a character
entering and leaving the Dungeon, with the following
exception: When the Grim Reaper reaches the Treasure
Chamber space, he must immediately move to any space in
any Region (except the Inner Region) and end his movement
in that space. The player who moved the Grim Reaper
chooses which space he is moved to." (p. 4)

Assuming "any space" means any space listed on the Treasure Chamber space and not literally any space?

I've read everything, and practically I don't see any mistakes. I noticed few things, like impossible as for now actions (Ghost card and next below), really idiotic question about encountering drawn space card and I'm pretty disagreeing with Minstrel card however as for the rest cards, the rest of answers are that ones I expected. So nihil novi sub sole...

Also, does the Orb of Knowledge bit mean Prophetess can use it normally, on top of her ability?

Draw 1, don't like it, discard, draw 1, don't like it, draw 1, have to keep it (unless she has Alteration to boot).

Dam said:

Yes. I just receive that answer from Jon

Good thing there is just 1 Orb of Knowledge in 288 cards, at least she won't get it automatically every game. Of course, Prophetess + Orb + Fiend Slayer + Prophecy is back on! Hit the Hidden Valley for draw 5, then possibly replace two of them.

Thinking about the Reaper, sounds like it really does mean "any space", but that he can no longer enter-exit the Treasure Chamber from the spaces that are "connected" to it, as was previously ruled. So Dungeon becomes, if the Reaper has to hike the long way from the Dungeon Entrance to the Treasure Chamber. If you want the Reaper out of the picture, just send him in there and keep around the middle of the Dungeon board.

Counterspell
Q1: Can a character cast Counterspell on one of his own
Spells to negate its effects?
A: Yes.

Nullify

Q1: Can a character cast the Nullify Spell on himself?
A: Yes, as long as you have at least one Spell at the time
that Nullify is cast.

These two were surprises for me. I still believed that playing with Spells was prohibited in a fantasy world .

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

Ok, but this FAQ doesn't clarify all possible issues of Reflection. Most notably, it doesn't say it's not a Counterspell that reflects the Spell on the caster if it's possible.

Q3: Can the Prophetess look at the Genie’s Spells?
A: No.

I probably missed this one. Interesting. I suppose it's the same with the Spell Ring.

Q: Can the Tinker Imp discard a random Object that is
inside the Bag of Holding or the Concealed Pouch?
A: Yes

So when you draw this nasty fellow and you have Bag/Pouch, you mix the Objects together and draw a random one. If it happens to be the Bag, Objects inside are blown away with the Bag; if it is the Pouch, you only lose the Pouch (as per Shatter Spell FAQ); Objects inside the Bag/Pouch can be randomly chosen as well (better than to lose the Bag, of course).

Regarding the Prophetess stacking with the Orb, I don't think you can simply draw a card, discard, draw a card, discard, draw a card and encounter. Remember how Prophetess ability (and Orb) is written:

"Whenever you have to draw AC, you may discard one card of your choice that you do not wish to encounter and draw one more card to replace it, which you must encounter".

I don't think the Orb allows the Prophetess to ignore that " must "; it only works when she draws multiple cards. If she draws two or more, she may draw all of them and choose up to two to discard and replace with two other cards, which she must encounter.

Unfortunately that important FAQ has a typing error (copy and paste from the previous one) and doesn't really clarify anything.

For the rest, I'm very happy to have my beloved "duplication" back again! This will surely benefit the Monk (of course he can also the Warhorse bonus too).

I'm agree that this FAQ does not clarify many thing such as what happen, when a summoned creature is fighting against a Character with Golden Statue. If that Character is losing a life (should) or Golden Statue. I found few useless questions but I didn't found some more important. Of course I know, that "important question" depends of the taste..

The_Warlock said:

The Philosopher has also the word Must in his ability, and he can still use the Orb of Knowledge, to replace the card that he drew, for discarding a adventure card on the space..

So the Prophetess can do the same.

And Jon said the same to me, that you can combine them together now.

I've read through it, and many of the questions could have been figured out with some common sense. Then there are others that I know our group with never use because they are utter nonsense where game mechanics are being rigged or tweaked to ignore the game environment. An example of this is the ruling on Cursed Glade...

"The instructions on the Cursed Glade only affect a character encountering the space. This also applies to the Desert spaces...."

Ummm... okay, so I land on a Desert while another adventurer is there... and in choosing to encounter the other adventurer I don't lose a Life because I didn't draw a card? I don't think so. So anyone landing there and potentially losing a life better watch their back, because if some else lands there, they can avoid losing a life by attacking you. Ludicrous.

"Note that the Valley of Fire requires a character to have a Talisman before he lands on the space. Even if a character encounters another character on the Valley of Fire, he must still have a Talisman to enter the space."

What has that got to do with anything? That's dealing with prerequisites required before one can land on the space and encounter it or anyone else there. And it's based on a card and not the space itself. The question was related to effects that occur after one has already arrived on the space. And you can't even step onto the Valley of Fire without a Talisman, so the comparison doesnt' work.

So, when I step on the Cursed Glade, I'm not really on the Cursed Glade if I try to wack somebody. If that so, then no one should be able to affect me with any spell that targets a region or space... because I'm not there.

House Rule: If you are on a space, you are affected by the space; that is not the same as encountering what it offers. It's influence is aside from drawing a card or dealing with persona's there or encountering another character. It's been that way since the founding of Talisman as far as I know or remember.

"Q2: If a character rolls a “5” in the Tavern, he may choose to teleport to any other space in the Outer Region as his next move. If the character has to miss his next turn, can he still teleport when he next has a move? A: Yes."

Ah, so a Teleport isn't an actual move, though when used as a Spell, it has to be used in place of a movement. And if the adventurer missed the "next" turn, where's the wizard that offered the Teleport on the next turn... just sitting around and waiting? Balderdash!

Assassin.... we already nixed those loopholes long ago in the opposite of what is listed. These excessive uses of Assassination have been long standing problem with that character. And it should have fixed the other way.

Not worth going on with the rest. Some of this stuff is very disappointing.

MegaDestroyo said:

The lack of logic in Talisman has never bothered me as long as it leads to fun. The cool thing is that you can attack people in the desert and not get screwed yourself. If you wanted to attack some one in the desert with the other rules you''re risking 2 lives.

JCHendee said:

So the logical rule would be that any character landing on the desert loses a life even if he encounters a character there. Right, glad that's settled then. But what if the blizzard event is drawn? Surely a blizzard would not appear in the middle of an arid desert. So in that case you must discard the blizzard and draw another card.

But what if the blizzard was drawn on a different space? The blizzard affects all characters but surely it would not appear in the desert because that would be ludicrous. In this case characters in the desert must roll for movement normally and are not affected by the blizzard but all of the other characters not in deserts remain affected.

But what if you draw the magic stream? Surely it would be ludicrous to have a stream appear in the middle of a desert even if it is magical. In that case you must draw another card.

But what if you draw the giant ice elemental? If a blizzard does not affect the desert surely an ice elemental could not exist in the space otherwise that would be ludicrous.

I think you see where I'm going with this. As soon as you make one rules change where does it end? Talisman is famous for its warped logic. How many other games turn people into little toad miniatures for crying out loud? If you are that worried about logic, balance and verisimilitude wouldn't it be easier to just move on to a different game? HarnWorld is an emersive game experience built upon a solid foundation of old myth and legends. The rules are fairly simple but rich enough to simulate realism and yes, even plenty of verisimilitude. The alignment system is detailed and gives players real choices on how to play their characters. So please switch to a game you actually love and stop obsessing about trying to find every detail that's wrong with Talisman.

Thank you!

Carrion Prince said:

I know... and it doesn't make sense, though I have seen snow fall in a desert. (No, it wasn't a blizzard.) I think there are a lot of silly things that can happen in Talisman. The difference is that when there's obvious instructions written out that have been interpreted one way for two decades you don't over rule them just so players can use all of their toys on each other. If two adventurers who are leaning on magical gadgets want to duke it out in the Cursed Glade... well, stupid is as stupid does... and deserves to suffer for it. Drawing a nonsensical event isn't that same thing.

Carrion Prince said:

No you wouldn't. If we're playing the reality game, there are rivers... large ones... that run under many of our world's deserts. And occasionally the are tapped or breach the surface on their own. As to the magical part, well, I'm not going to go there since the "magic" excuse has been abused for all sorts of loopholes in Talisman. I could but I restrain myself.

Carrion Prince said:

Elementals don't exist naturally... and someone or something had to bring one there. That's akin to the old "it's magic" excuse, but not quite.

Carrion Prince said:

And I could say exactly the same thing about half a dozen rulings in the FAQ.... where is it going to end? Will it still be Talisman... or a videogame masquerading as a boardgame, where its all about what the "code" lets you get away with? That's not the Talisman I've known for twenty years. That's not the "magical quest. "

And while we're at it... do you think someone landing on the Desert should avoid losing a life because they attack another adventurer rather than draw a card? Come on now! If you're willing to concede that's too far, then tell me how the Cursed Glade ruling should be thought any less scoffable.

Expanding examples to ridiculous proportions doesn't negate the specific instance as being ridiculous itself.

Wow, FFG finally does us a favor and gets us a FAQ and alls people do is complain?

And the Cursed Glade ruling is 100% right. You either encounter a space OR a character. I was already playing it this way. Sometimes rules don't need to make 100% "logical" sense. It's a board game. The rules only have to be consistent, plus keep the game from having bad interactions, like the desert scenario that Carrion Prince described.

If you absolutely need "logical" reasoning for it, just pretend you character was concentrating so hard on attacking the other guy that he didn't even realize he was getting thirsty in the Desert. Or in the Cursed Glade, your character was concentrating so hard on attacking the other guy that he didn't follow the "unspoken rules of the forest" and just used his magic stuff anyway, which probably pisses off the trees or something. Or he found a "special open clearing" in the middle of the Cursed Glade that ISN't cursed. /shrug

Anyways, Thanks FFG! The people who aren't belligerent appreciate that you finally gave us a FAQ!

The people who aren't belligerent appreciate that you finally gave us a FAQ!

No one is trying to be a scrooge. It goes without saying that we're all greatly appreciative to FFG for keeping Talisman alive. We wouldn't have purchased the game and joined a forum to discuss it if we weren't. FFG should be thoroughly thanked and applauded for every shred of work they've put into this game.

If I, or anyone else, desires to retain a sense of role-playing and personal flare in their gaming, then so be it. I know I will; I'm belligerent though. So incredibly belligerent that I become thirsty in deserts and become cursed in cursed glades. Pretty weird.

Lol at people who want to "retain a sense of roleplaying" but refuse to think outside the box and do so with the actual rules. Isn't that like the point of roleplaying? What's the difference between "roleplaying" your character getting thirsty and losing a life or "roleplaying" your character not getting thirsty because he's overly focused, or that he found a cactus & broke it open for the water inside while he was there or something? I don't understand.

Also, I'm not saying people shouldn't "retain personal flare" and just say "so be it". Go ahead and houserule whatever you want! Just know that the majority of us actually like to play by the real rules & respect the fact that those rules probably exist for a reason. FFG probably has playtested and found they didn't like those certain interactions. I just don't think people should be trying to tell FFG that the FAQ rulings are crap all because it's not very "logical" in universe. Their job is to balance the game first and foremost.

Anyway, I dunno if you were being sarcastic or were just joking around. Either way, you did give props to FFG & it was a funny read, so I'll give ya that.

Add my name to the "thanks for the FAQ" part.

And, speaking of my name, obviously, there's a lot of House Rules in my version of Talisman. I also don't get why people get upset at a game. Don't like the rule? Change it. It's not like we're going to get in trouble. We play Star Wars RPG with about 20+ pages of Home Rules. It’s not like George Lucas himself will show up and berate us for it. Heck, if he did, it would be worth it just to say “HI!”

I’m reasonably sure no-one here will show up at your home and tell you how to play. Even if it’s official, don’t like it?, don’t play it. Come to a board about the game and discuss it? Of course. Getting upset about it though, that… is hard to wrap my brain around, no offence meant.

Speaking of a personal rule, as per an older Edition (I think, or that could have been a home rule from 10+ years back), no Mules, Horses, Large followers (ex = Colossus) in the Dungeon.

It’s been said by FAQs, Rules Thread, Talisman Island, and even Dam himself that “Np at all with mules and horses in the dungeon.” We don’t like it. So, when we enter, all those followers stay in the Ruins or on the Trapdoor. Why did we do that? We didn’t like the visual of a mule navigating stairs, plus, I’d always played that way in prior editions. Also, makes trap doors that much more intense. Drop to the dungeon, and you lose your mule, horse and cart, riding horse, unicorn, and any Ghoul / Gladiator / etc… followers that are bigger than a humanoid… and that’s a powerful equalizing card.

So, if you want to die no matter what in the desert, be my guest.

For me, though, I can rationalize everything. The desert isn’t 100% desert. There are little mini-oasis (though not THE big oasis that are in everyone’s map) that you can be lucky and drink from… that you happen to find while beating on someone’s noggin. And also, you ambush the other guy on the outskirts of the Cursed glade, as s/he was heading out, ergo, you never got “cursed”.

Heck, if you want verisimilitude, what makes more sense? A cursed Glade / Desert that is 100% uniform, that BAM, over a 2 “real life” inch span, becomes a Warlock cave, or a rocky runes area? Or a gradual transition where it’s hot, but a few puddles exist; where the cursed magic becomes fainter.

Personally, encountering the character trumps the area, because, well, our group avoids PvP as much as we can (barring 1 person that likes it, poor him, since, because of that, we usually all gang up to beat him down, but that’s another story) and that rule makes him happy, “forcing” us to fight rather than lose a Life.

If you don’t like it? No big deal. Make your own. Or talk about what others think. But, man, Talisman is what you do on your DOWNTIME to relax. Please don’t stress. There’s (hack, ptewiee) WORK that’s designed to do that.

(Yeah, I “love” my job)

JCHendee said:

Just because YOU interpreted the rules that way for two decades doesn't make it the truth. Where on the board or rules or on anything in the game does it say that the deserts and cursed glade affects you even if you encounter a character instead of the space? Where in rule book of any edition does it say that you encounter a character and the space during the same turn? The flow chart on the back of every edition clearly shows that you EITHER encounter a character OR the space. This means if you attack a character you do not interact with the space, including its effects. Looks like your oversight has lead you to play the game incorrectly for the past 20 years! Fortunately this forum has spotted some of the other rules you've missed or misinterpreted so you don't play them incorrectly for another 20 years too.

The logic for this rule is even consistenet with special spaces like the crown of command. When you attack another character there you don't get to cast the crown of command spell. There is nothing in the rules, cards, board, or anything else in the game to support your claim that you have to lose a life in the desert when you attack a character. So here's my question to you JC: Do you think it's fair to get pissy at a faq ruling that follows the rules that have been established for 25 years?

Carrion Prince said:

Do you really think I'm the only one? Just because I'm the only one to say doesn't make your capped assumption the truth either.

Carrion Prince said:

The logic of game environment consistency... vs creating or reinforcing (depending on historical perspective) a loophole to avoid the environment itself in an illogical manner.

Carrion Prince said:

I don't remember that flow chart existing in previous editions. If it did, then indeed I missed it. If not, then the flowchart itself is an interpretation of ever version of the game... and you know it. And I do know this is not the way it was played by any group I encountered playing 2E, nor has it been mentioned by any fan group or site in the past (that I'm aware of). And I never heard of it played this way in 3E. Official ruling it may be and is; right or wrong is a matter of perspective. Yours and mine differ, and that's that.

MattrOpolis,

I see where you're coming from, I really do, but "think outside the box" and "follow the rules no matter what" have never sat together very well with me. I'm sure you have a blast playing this game. Comically enough, after all this arguing, or "discussing", I'm curious to try a game or two playing the way you do. I'm sure it adds a strategy that my previous games haven't had.

My reasoning for desiring "affect" spaces to always dish out affects is in the scale with which I chose to play the game. If myself or one of my friends is in a desert space, that means, to us, that the surrounding spaces (Oasis, Temple/Warlock's Cave) are very distant - miles even. In other words, the character is fully immersed in that space, and anyone desiring to attack someone in the middle of the desert would obviously have a VERY good reason for doing so and would feel confident in a victorious outcome. Maybe he would be willing to sacrifice 1 life for the runesword, wand, or magic ring but not for a sword or helmet. See what I mean?

Anyway, again, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Sorry if I came off a bit defensive. Thanks again FFG for the FAQ.

First and foremost, I agree that it is awesome to see a quality game company take the reins on one of my favorite games of all time. That being said, it doesn't mean that disagreeing with one of their rulings, or even possibly bringing a bad idea to their attention should be considered ingratitude.

I have to agree with JC and Mega, when you are in an area that has a pervasive effect, such as the cursed glade or the desert, it seems silly to ignore that effect just because you are attacking another character. I can rationalize with the best of them, and complaining about cards that seem inconsistent with the desert space is valid, but remember, you never could draw a card in the desert until the 4ER. I like that you can draw cards there so its easy to explain it away, as shown earlier by JC.

This probably won't be popular, but in most cases I think that the "encounter the player or the space" is really just trying to say that either you get to draw a card(or roll the dice depending on the space) or attack/trade with a player already there. If you take the player or space rule as meaning you can avoid effects inherent to the space, then you will end up with evil characters attacking good in the chapel without losing a life, which is ridiculous because they are supposed to lose a life there due to their evil nature, and if they are doing something evil on top of that, it shouldn't reward them by sparing them a life.

In the desert, just because you don't realize you are thirsty due to "extreme concentration" doesn't mean that you wouldn't suffer the ill effects of dehydration.

Mattr0polis said:

A glade by definition is an open space surrounded by woods, and the fact that it's cursed does make it special.

Now I realize that we can just amend our house rules to whatever we want, but it is fun to discuss and see what other people think. I'm actually quite amazed that so many people agreed with the FFG interpretation and have even been playing that way for years.

BRASKY said:

You're right, it won't be popular, because it's wrong. What the rules are trying to say is exactly what is written: "encounter a player OR the space". And if there was any confusion at all, we now have the official FAQ that says yes, FFG did 100% intend for it to work exactly the way it's worded.