BanthaFodder said:

The difference is we are right. FFG's official Rulebook and FAQ back us up on this.

Also, your example is neat (while not conclusive, & the existence of the flow chart would seem to contradict it), however, even if you do read that as the other way, that example is irrelevent. This is not 1st/2nd edition. This is 4th edition revised. Rules and cards have changed between editions, for the better. This IS what the rule is now, regardless of what it was in the past. FFG was pretty clear on it in the 4.5 rulebook and has now clarified it for others in the FAQ.

If you don't wish to play this way, then by all means houserule it. But don't call the FAQ garbage & try to get it changed just because you refuse to adapt. Some of these people like JCHendee have admitted that they don't even play the game the normal way. They play with tons of houserules. So how would he even know what is the most balanced for official rules play for 4.5? He wouldn't.

/shrug

crimhead said:

And that's not what is written on the space... unless we get another overlay to not only patch the BI edition but the FFG one as well. You are still avoiding the contradiction against the board's instructions. Any time there is such a change or expansion of one rule over another, no matter where the separate rules are written, it creates glitches. You addendum to the space is not on the space itself... and you know it. We all do.

crimhead said:

Granted. It is an exception. That is not the way the FAQ ruling for the Cursed Glade was handled.

Examples therein try to establish a new paradigm that will be (is?) extended to other spaces. Why else would the Desert be mentioned as well in answering a question specific to the Cursed Glade? More exceptions, more glitchs, and the FAQs keep rolling out.

This has happened in previous editions (and other games) to the point where only those obsessed with being "official" give a **** anymore... even when those rulings create actual or potential further problems later on. It happened in MTG so badly that the whole thing is being revamped once again... this time cutting back gauds of exceptions and additional clarifications to par down to the original essentials and build it better... we hope. In the old days, we played both MTG and Talisman; guess which one died out the quickest. Not Talisman. The problem with MTG was that the cards started to change as well, and old ones eventually had endless exceptions to catalog... aside from editions not mixing. Of course that's a dimension of difficulty that boardgame does not face.

I guess I'm just not willing to go down this road (yet again). And there are a lot of people who won't. Don't be misled by thinking the populace of this forum will or does accurately represent the Talisman players at large. It doesn't. And don't think that I'm the only one just because I'm willing to say it openly right here. The change isn't adding anything to the game and only weakens aspects of its challenge in forcing a longstanding contradiction found in terms and explanations of rules and components. The Cursed Glade or any other space with a dangerous effect has never stopped any but the spineless in going after each other; and that won't change for most players who will ignore this illogical ruling, official or not.

You are interested in what is official, irregardles, and that's fine. I am not, and that's fine. But being "official" is not synonymous with being "right"; that is found in the analysis of what works and what doesn't. And even that is a matter of interpretation. And you ARE entrenched, just l like I am. And I don't play with tons of house rules. You have no idea how I and mine play, do you? And you also have no idea of how much play was done under the strict 4ER rules before (if) any adaptation was applied.

And if you do... well, let me know you accomplished a view into my two decades on and off involvement with Talisman. I'd buy the crystal ball.

JCHendee said:

"Official" IS synonymous with being "right" when the discussion itself is over what is "official". And that's what this whole discussion is about! The OFFICIAL FAQ. If we're not talking about playing with the official rules then heck you can ignore the whole FAQ when you play for all I care. But when it comes to the official way to play 4.5e version of the game, that FFG has tested, this is indeed what is "right".

JCHendee said:

I know that you don't use the normal Warlock Quests. And that you keep them hidden from other players for some reason? And that you keep all kinds of other items and objects on your characters hidden? And a bunch of other stuff you've mentioned. Which is fine. But forgive me when it comes time to discuss what official rulings for the official way to play 4.5e are "right" If I listen to your opinion .... less than enthusiastically.

Earthquake
Q: If a character draws the Earthquake along with another
Adventure Card, is the other card also affected by the
Earthquake?
A: No. The Earthquake only affects cards which are already
faceup on the board when it is drawn.

What about that combination: Cerberus (first drawn card) and Earthquake (second drawn card)? Due to FAQ, Cerber is not affected by Earthquake, normally it should be (as it is placed on the board, then Earthquake is in effect). Or maybe I should read that FAQ very literally, so due to it Earthquake is always drawn as a first card, then the second card can by any card?

[small] Of course I understand the target of this question, is drawn Boar is also affected by Earthquake

Mattr0polis said:

What do you mean by saying "even if you do read that as the other way..."? It's in plain English and lays out a great example of the Cursed Glade affecting a player whose turn has already ended. And (ready?) it's in an official rulebook presented by the minds who created the game. It is indeed conclusive, meaning you were playing incorrectly back in the days of the 1st and 2nd editions. The point in saying this is not to ridicule you for playing incorrectly, because that's not what's important. I'm only to bring to light the fact that originally our way was the way. You can't see how far something has gone downhill unless you've seen where it started.

Inconsequential. This is a completely new edition. Not the old 80's edition with tons of bad interactions/rules loops that eventually led to the game getting stale and being discontinued. 4.5e is balanced and fun, and will stay that way due to the strong foundation of rules being in place from FFG.

JCHendee said:

I think if there ever WAS a way to actually get a consensus from EVERY Talisman player in the world, I think you would probably be the one suprised. I would be willing to bet that the MASSIVE majority of people who buy this game do not mess with houserules, homebrew stuff, etc. That they are mostly normal people who just want to pull a board game out every once in a while with their family and be able to get clear understanding of the rules without having to resort to guesses and/or "how would it be if I was REALLY there fighting in a desert" rulings. They just want a clear rulebook and a FAQ for the other misc. questions that do pop up. They probably wouldn't care EITHER way that it was ruled.

The people that are real hardcore into Talisman like you and I are very more than likely the minority, friend.

The "strong foundation" upon which you say 4ER was built came from the foundation set forth by those in charge of the original version's makers. The "bad encounters and loopholes" that you speak of are only e ncouraged in the new rules by the notion of " being in a space but not encountering the space". That statement makes me laugh every time I see it or any other rendition of it; it's a loophole in the truest sense.

But, alas, these are the rules, and I suppose I have to suck it up and admit that I'm playing "incorrectly", which isn't what irritates me; it irritates me that the "rule-makers" (the current ones anyway) see things the way they have.

I think it's nearing time to be done with this thread, or at least be at ripping the throats off of one another over a different topic within the FAQ.

Sorry for any attack-mode I may have put myself on over the past few days. We need to all of us sit down and play together and see what happens...

Sound advice, M.D... and I bow out before it.

MegaDestroyo said:

They do that because they have professional game designers playtesting this stuff and know what's best for the game, here in this edition. It's their job to know. Plus they can also see much more of what is coming in future expansions than we can, which helps them prepare the game for interactions we don't know about/understand yet.

MegaDestroyo said:

Good advice.

I would agree in general about all game designers as a whole, but you'll have to admit that is still an assumption... and a guess acknowledging that FFG's success as a company is tribute to their collective efforts. But it does not exempt them from making mistakes. If it did, there wouldn't be FAQs. FAQs serve that purpose as well, to address not only clarity but to make changes, as you've stated. And regardless of disagreement with their choices, at least they have begun the process after a long wait. Perhaps the delay was indeed for some of the latter reasons you cite.

MegaDestroyo said:

Hey, no problem man! Isn't that what internet forums are for anyways?

Well, further muddying the water is the difference between "official" and "accepted by the masses". And that might be a fine line for some, and, sometimes, even for me. For example...

Very few can contest that George Lucas's work *IS* what is official in the Star Wars universe. The prequels happened, as is, the end. Don't like it? Can't change that it did happen exactly that way. And yes, I do get my back up when fans say "they know better than Lucas", i.e. the official source. It's his universe. No one "knows better". We wrote / created the darn thing.

However, was the official source enjoyable? Not for many. Trust me, Jar Jar happened, and it was official. But you can certainly add my name to the people that want to hold hands, and chant Kum-Ba-Ya pretending we can do this until it retroactively didn't happen...

Anyhow, I'm glad people have calmed down. Lets go back to rolling the dice and drawing those cool cards...

Oh sweet, a fellow Star Wars fanboy! Awesome!

Yes, Jar-Jar (groan) is a good example of the effects behind what we've debate.

Mattr0polis said:

me too

After reading a bit here, i can't believe that people are complaining about the Cursed Glade.

Accept the rules guys

Nemomon said:

I believe that if you draw 2 cards, and there is card that you must encounter, before you activate the earthquake, then the card is still effected because it is place on the board. If the encounter card comes after earthquake, then it is not effected..

But it will not happen often i think, because earthquake has nr 1. ( as you said, only cerberus is a exception, or lord of the pit( i believe) or chinese dragon, if you draw them before you drew earthquake.

Assassin
Q1: Can the Assassin assassinate any creature, regardless
of whether or not it is drawn from the Adventure deck or
already faceup on the space when he encounters it?
A: Yes.

There's no word about creatures from board spaces. Any ideas why?

btw. Congratulations! Generally , FAQ looks good! Except some details

8janek8 said:

Except some bugs, missed spaces, digits, sometimes additional digits, some situations which as for now cannot happen and lack of really important questions and many of useless and common sense questions - it is a very good FAQ!

8janek8 said:

Why repeat unncessary information?

"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." (p. 10)

This way of thinking leads to conclusion that many questions in this FAQ are unnecessary (including this one).

8janek8 said:

I think the reason Assassin was put in there is because what he can and can't Assassinate (already face-up only or just drawn) has been a hot potato since the R4th hit. Creature and Enemy keywords are clearly (IMO) defined in the rules.