Mattr0polis said:

Well actually, my point was to contradict that this had been a clear rule all the way back through every revision when you claimed JC had

been playing it wrong for 20 years. I was just pointing out that there has always been an implication that the Cursed Glade was played in

the way where it did not only effect you if you initially decide to encounter the space (draw a card)

In otherwords, as an exception to the flow chart.

I chose to quote the 1st / 2nd edition as I remembered that example (yes I am that sad I remember the rules from over 20 years ago) and I have only

played the 4R edition twice so far.

However, I went and checked the current rulebook, and...... you're not going to like this...... the same example is there...... on Page 13

(In fact both examples I gave are there - the Warrior example is on page 6)

I never claimed the FAQ was wrong, I said it was interesting. It has certainly stimulated debate!

The problem with the "official" way is that are, and always have been, loopholes, contradictions & ambiguities.

That is why people make their own rules to fill in the gaps. As I said before, that is part of the charm of Talisman.

For me, that FAQ ruling directly contradicts the example in the rulebook (including 4R edition) and weakens the space.

P.S. Hands up on Star Wars fanboy too (Not really surprising given my chosen identity)

I did once consider converting Talisman to the Star Wars universe... Luckily I do not have enough time in my life otherwise my journey to the geek side would be complete.

@BanthaFodder - Don't have the rulebook on me so I can't check it out right now, however there have always been some contradictions to those funky examples. I honestly wish they wouldn't even include stuff like that as sometimes those just make things more confusing for people. Anyway, even if those examples do contradict the written rules on page 9, I would take the actual written rules over those examples. And if that's not good enough for some people, then we now have the FAQ that clearly states FFG's intent with that rule.

~~

Anyway, wow I'm kinda suprised by how many Star Wars fans are here & play Talisman! That's awesome! I also have thought about trying to convert Talisman to like a Star Wars universe, but I dunno if the theme would be able to match up as perfectly. Still very cool though!

Has anyone been watching The Clone Wars cartoon?

Obviously the FAQ is the "official" ruling, I don't think there is a single person here trying to say it's not. The point of this discussion is to talk about whether it enhances game play or is detrimental to it. It's a waste of time to endlessly say how amazing the FAQ is and to tell people to just accept the rules. That would lead to a pointless and boring forum. Rather, the point of the forum is for us to point out the areas that seem contradictory or even fly in the face of what was the originally intended interpretation (and for those of you who disagree to defend it, however just saying that it is the "official" ruling is not a real defense).

That being said, I found some interesting information posted here on the FFG website:

Desert
If a character enters a Desert space, he must lose one life unless he has either a Water Bottle or the Holy Grail. However, Deserts are no longer simply a barren wasteland. Players are able to draw an Adventure Card on Desert spaces. Characters will still lose a life before they draw a card, but this revision makes Deserts more interesting, as opposed to dead spaces that are simply avoided.

It seems to me that you can't move anywhere on the board without entering a space at the end of your turn, whether you encounter the space or not, thus no matter what you would lose a life in the desert (unless you had an appropriate item) and by extension suffer the full effects of being in the cursed glade.

I can see the argument already:

"That's not the way it works because the official FAQ says differently!" - Blindly Devoted FFG Fanboy

I'm not arguing that, I'm just arguing that there is flaw in the logic of the FAQ, and I don't think you can logically refute it.

BanthaFodder said:

I don't have my rulebook, so bear with me. Do you mean these examples are presen int R4th rules?

The examples in the book refers to a character who has already actually encountered the Cursed Glade , am I right? Once you have, you then follow the instructions on the space even if those instructions refer to events after your current turn . This is not surprising - many, many other spaces on the board will give you instructions for the future.

In contrast, the example in the FAQ refers to a character who never actually encounters the space. In that case, he doesn't follow the instructions on the space, so they do not effect him.

So I don't really see a contradiction. The FAQ could have been more clear, but between the example in the rules and the FAQ, we know what to do.

JCHendee said:

That answers that! Character A has encountered the space and is therefore under the literal interpretation of the the instructions "while there". Player B, though also there , is not under the influence of the space. Between the FAQ and the examples, this is FFG's intension.

BanthaFodder said:

That would be... GREAT! Just do me a favour, make Vader the one unbeatable character in the game, i.e. the Black Knight. Any movie, book, video game where Vader loses leaves a bad taste in my mouth, or brings me almost to tears, depending on the mood, so, an unkillable Vader in a game would be a great start to your board.

Good luck with it.

@BRASKY

What is wrong with you people?

Dude, that's an article from the main page giving a general summary of the locations. They are not by any means going to post every single possible scenario that can happen at the Desert in an article that is mainly there to get more people to just buy the game. It's just a rough summary of how it works in the most general way, which is when you move there and are alone. Random news articles like that do not somehow trump the real rules.

And "official rulings" are not a good defense? WTF, lol! Ok, here's a better one for you then! You're guys' whole point is that it "isn't as fun to play this way though"? Well guess what, to me and MANY others it IS ! So oh look, we have the same defense: fun level. Only our side is backed by the Official rules you seem to hate so much.

And I CAN "logically refute it" because it's a friggin board game! You're character doesn't need to eat every turn to stay alive, you're character doesn't sleep ever, you roll random dice & skip over a bunch of spaces on your move, etc, etc. There is no "real life" logic, so trying to say that it makes the most "sense" to lose a life in the desert is pointless. If you can somehow deal with all of those "real life inconsistencies" then why can't you deal with once every 10 games when there actually IS a person already on the Desert you would land on and then you don't lose a life when you attack them? It's ridiculous.

Is that un-boring enough for you?

Hmmm... I thought this was a dead already. I think I'll just sit and watch the futility of both sides.

Hey, Bantha, Tons... one of your want to grabs beers and chips and join me for the show... but make mine a glass of vino, if you would.

I will be posting an unofficial FAQ fairly shortly (within a couple of weeks). This will cover a multitude of card scenarios from the main game and all expansion sets. The answers are not FFG's. However they will be very close to the mark as you will probably see when you read it. The answers are based around the official FAQ already posted (Jon and myself had a hand in them).

Ell.

talismanamsilat said:

This sounds awesome, thanks! Yeah, cause there are a lot of big questions I've seen asked that they did leave off the FAQ. I'm hoping further official FAQ updates will include most of the important missing ones, but your unofficial FAQ sounds like it will help in the meantime. Thx.

Tons-Home-rules said:

Heh, indeed! Vader has to be awesome. My biggest question, BanthaFodder, in trying to come up with something for this is: how do you incorporate stuff like starships, different planets, etc?

Tons-Home-rules said:

Haha,

The Black Knight is a good space for Darth Vader

Mattr0polis said:

Or what about walking around and finding bags of gold JUST SITTING THERE on the ground waiting to get picked up! I've walked through may fields and woods in the real world and never stumbled across a bag of money. Not even once. Using the word "logic" and "Talisman" in the same sentence makes me laugh every time.

JCHendee said:

Even if you through a hissy fit about a couple rulings on the faq you still have to admit that FFG is doing a pretty good job with the game. Everything but the upgrade kit and Frostmarch have sold out and Talisman is as popular as ever these days. FFG continues to support the game with promos, extra cards, the new faq....all while releasing new expansions at a good rate.

Let's put all of this in perspective people, the future for Talisman looks as bright as ever.

Dam said:

This must be a mistake in the list.

I saw it too.

Dam said:

How about Monk + Warhorse

I think the Prophetess was just a copy-paste from the Philosopher and since that part is under the Orb of Knowledge section, the point was to highlight that the Prophetess can combo her ability with the Orb, even though both (IIRC) say you "must" encounter the replacement.

For Monk with Warhorse, better hope you can attack in psychic combat.

Dam said:

indeed,

But luckily, not all characters can do that

Just thinking already that a monk with strength 2 ( basics) with ability and warhorse can become strength 9..

And he grows stronger when he get's level ups..

Velhart said:

He'll just have a Strength of 8 (2 + 3 + 3) and won't become any stronger if he improves his Craft. He's still going to lose most of the psychic combats again Spirits (and Characters, if any), then bye bye Warhorse.And you don't mention the enormous limitation concerning Weapons AND Armours in battle, which becomes more significant with every new expansion.

I always played according to the current FAQ, because I never accepted the previous ruling about duplication. The Monk never looked so powerful to me. By the way, this Character never cast a Psionic Blast or got the Warhorse in my games. If he's lucky enough to get those one of those 3 cards out of a Spell + Adventure Deck of 360+ cards, so be it. At least now the Monk can ride a Warhorse like everyone else.

I think that creating general rules to prevent 1 or 2 single cases is a wrong thing to do. "no duplication" was created for the Wand and Orb of Knowledge cards, but in the end it generated unnecessary limitations. With the growing size of decks, the chance of combining 2 cards together (or 1 card and a specific Character) is very low.

Even though I don't like the FAQs about Counterspell and Nullify, I understand why they chose not to limit the use of these Spells. I like that FFG decided to make things simpler and to go for lighter ruling. Official games should have few exceptions to the rules; if you want to complicate things for your home play, it's your game!

The_Warlock said:

This was very, very well put The_Warlock. I feel the same way about the duplication stuff. It just makes it more simple that we won't have all of these weird exceptions to the printed rules down the road when we have who knows how many expansions. That will help keep the game going strong over time and will stop it from becoming a tangled web of rules that scares off new people from trying the game.

The_Warlock said:

Oh, i made a mistake indeed.

But looking at the warhorse card. I forgot that you can also lose him in a psychic combat, even if you don't use him..

Anyway, about the limition of weapons is no problem. we can say that the monk has already a automatic warhorse ability( inner belief)

He can still try to get level up's for strength or craft

But i think it's better to choose for strength.

Monk is a good balance character due to his inner belief ability.

And we must also not forget his pray ability too. The temple or other pray cards are a good spot for him.

Anyway, if you draw the warhorse, then you can at least try to keep him as long as possible, and get another + 3 to his strength in battle. (strength 8 undeed ( or more if you have level up strength !

"Ghost
Q: If the Ghost appears on the space where a character
draws it, does he have to encounter it that turn?
A: Yes."
Is it possible? Every space where the ghost may appear is non-draw.

8janek8 said:

No, same as the Hermit I think. Dungeon has the Blight Haunt that can appear in the space you draw it in after the roll.

Hermit has Cursed Glade and Oasis. So, Q with Ghost is unnecessary.

8janek8 said:

You Land on the Ruins, draw 2 cards, one is the Patrol Event and one is the Ghost Enemy Spirit. You're teleported to your starting space and your Turn continues there, but I think you also have to roll the dice to discover where the Ghost materialises. Chapel, Village and City can be starting spaces and in this case the FAQ has some sense.

I'm not saying that this remote combination required an official FAQ while other topics have been left out, but it has an application.

The_Warlock said:

But if this goes happen, then the character has not draw it actually on that space, but the ghost has actually teleported to that space.

Maybe it's a answer for the future..

The_Warlock said:

I would say since Patrol is #1, you get moved and continue in the new space, leaving the Ghost where it was, for the next character to roll if s/he should encounter the space.