Dam said:

I wouldn't do that. I've never dealt with cards that appear in different spaces by their order number. When you draw such cards, you roll immediately, place them and continue with your turn. Why should a player that lands on a face-up Ghost in the Ruins have to roll, while a player that does the same thing in the Village should fight him instead?

Card text hasn't changed because the Ghost has been teleported. So when you have to roll, when you FIRST ENCOUNTER the Ghost card? Nah, you roll when you draw it; from there on you treat him like a Craft 4 Enemy Spirit with blank text. Ghost is not intended to be a face-up card different than an Enemy Spirit, same for the Hermit being a Stranger that gives you a Talisman.

The_Warlock said:

That's how you're supposed to handle them, by number order (RAW). Say you hit Hidden Valley and draw Imp, Patrol and Ghost. Imp and Patrol are both #1, you'd do them in the order drawn (I prefer alphabetical), so let's say order was Imp-Patrol-Ghost. Imp moves you to space X (IIRC, one option is Hidden Valley, let's say you don't re-land there). You're gone now. Your turn continues in the new space. Patrol and Ghost remain for the next character. So assuming that character doesn't have the Astrolabe (to avoid Events) nor is the Philosopher, they'll draw 1 card and most likely deal with the Patrol again, leaving the space with Ghost and 2 more Adventure cards. Still the Ghost has not been encountered initially, so no roll has been yet made to see where it'll appear.

I found it:

"One exception to the rule about resolving Adventure Cards in
encounter number order is that Adventure Cards with instructions
that result in their being placed in a space other than
the one where they were drawn are dealt with first, before any
other Adventure Cards are resolved. If placed elsewhere, an
Adventure Card does not affect the character who drew it at
that time." (p.7)

But still have no idea how the Ghost may appear on the SAME space where it is drawn.

8janek8 said:

That's right.

Cards as the ghost, must be dealt first, before encountering the other cards.

PS: how about a card in the future, that says that all such cards ( like ghost) must be encountered on the same space, and overides the text from the ghost himself

8janek8 said:

Well, I honestly forgot the existence of this subrule. Even without remembering it I never thought that an Adventure card may have two different effects when you land on it the first time (roll a die to see where Ghost appers) and from the second time on (encounter an Enemy Spirit). Unfortunately RAW didn't forgot this special case.

However, there are many chances to encounter the Ghost on the same space where it is drawn (i.e., you draw Ghost and The Gathering together), but to APPEAR on the same space... most likely we have another copy and paste error, like the one already noticed in Prophetess' FAQ. Perhaps they merged Ghost and Hermit FAQs. If this is the case, I hope it will be amended shortly.

Alternatively, it should be question about "Blight Haunt" from Dungeon. But I think it's unnecessary to duplicate questions. We have hermit and that's enough. There's other duplicated questions in FAQ that should be deleted.

talismanamsilat said:

Someone knows when FAQ ver 1.2 can be posted? I think there are still lots of important questions which needs official clarifications (in FAQ or errata?) e.g. Immobility Spell, Black Unicorn, Hunchback etc. Many of them have been posted when FAQ was in progress but finally were not included...

crimhead said:

so character A the wizard, strength +2 (trophy hand ins) has three spells from 6 craft, toadify, fireball, counterspell, encounters the cursed glade first, he is under the effects fo the glade and as such can not cast spells until he leaves., character B Warrior, craft 4 has two spells, fireball and syphon strength also lands on cursed glade, but instead of encountering space, decides to encounter Wizard, as he is not under the effects of the curse glade he can cast his syphon strength, to gain the Wizards strength, then cast fireball on the wizard to make him loose a life, then fight him normally with all his onjects.

The Wizard, meanwhile cant cast any spells in return as he is still under the effects of the cursed glade as he has not left the area, (AS PER PAGE 13 RULE BOOK)

This presents a really unbalanced situation for the wizard.

What our group does, is any space that has any special effect on it., such as chappel if evil loose 1 life, desert, graveyard, glade, ect, all have the effects to all characters that ARE ON the space, then, a character can either encounter the space, (pray at chapel/graveyard, draw card at desert or glade)

ososober said:

I agree with the rules on this one.

Ghoul is chasing priest around a board, priest enters the chapel and prays (gets spell), ghoul moves next and can land on the same space as priest. Why shouldn't the ghoul be able to attack the priest and get outside the temple without loosing a life? its either or..
Either you encounter the square and being evil loose 1 life
OR you encounter the player and punish them for trying to seek refuge

There is no reason to bring logic to this, going off this assumption then you must encounter ALL things on a space (Player + Draw a card) it doesnt make sense to do that. its a simple either or.

**addition**

Character A abides by the square.

"Cursed Glade
Draw 1 Card - Do not draw a card if there is alread one in this space
Strength and Craft derived from objects and moagic objects do not count on this space
Nor may you use magic objects or cast spells"

Character B encounters Character A on the square.

Character A is now in an ENCOUNTER with Character B and as such not the Cursed Glade.

Thus the restrictions on Spell Use, Item use is ignored.

However if an item grants them more strength allowing another spell and they first arrive their they must discard a spell first if they have more then their craft allows.

My group is in agreement with Osober, and has chosen to disregard the FAQ rulings. The space generates an encounter through cards as something separate, and logic shouldn't be abandon just so one player can get an illogical advantage over another

A space may generate an encounter either by a roll (Optional or required), a persona visited (optional or required, on the space itself or on a card present), or a draw of cards if none or not enough are present. The space itself is not an encounter, it is an environment which may generate an encounter. All characters are affected by effects of the environment regardless of encounters of choice or requirement. This is the only way have play on a level field without the glitches and loopholes in board mechanics by oversimplification of what the term "encounter" means.

And the groups of players (not the rooms they've played in) that I've "encountered" over 20+ years have predominantly played this way when they are interested in the real challenges of the actual environment in which play occurs. Now imagine how different and more challenging that Wizard and Warrior enounter would have have been if both had to face the actual environment they both entered. Tough games are better games.

The concept that a character has to land on space to encounter another character and is yet not on the space... is not only an issue of logic. It is an issue of wasting the game's innate challenges.

thanks for the backup JCHendee

It's an old argument, Ososober. Those who want to play by the FAQs should certainly do so; there's nothing wrong with that. But for those us who don't, thumping the rules like a Bible isn't going to thwart the logic of why we choose do otherwise.

This again? I love it. How dare anyone have fun at the same activity in a slightly different manner than I chose to?! For the record I agree with certain rules and disagree with others.

House Rule #1: Everyone understands and agrees with the house rules BEFORE the game begins.

This may seem like a long delay at which the players would become irritated and lose interest in even playing. But it is not an hours long ordeal. There are only a few big ones: the Raiders still retain their former potency instead of merely taking gold, the witch is still scary, and (everyone's favorite) you get dried up and die in the desert.

MegaDestroyo said:

Most certainly! And we shuffle our rules around a little depending on who is playing (we don't burned the young, the new, or the slow with too many house rules and play a straight up game for them). It takes only minutes for our group to decide, especially when it's just the long timers and we have our rules cards ready to go... or a replacement card for something like the Raiders that's always in the deck.

By the by (though off topic), which Witch have you gone back to? (On a similar issue, some my group wants to go back to the old Temple of 2E... how does your group view that compared to things like the Witch and Raiders?)

Hey JC.

I'm slowly developing an "Official House Rules" sheet, which is partly for a laugh and partly for actual use. For one such as me, whose venom is reserved to fight "rulebook thumping" as you aptly named it, creating more rules seems counterproductive. But, unlike the "official official" rules, The House Rules therein have been deemed accurate through a sense of logic and with a respect for and understanding of the Talisman universe accumulated over the majority of the authors' lives. Many of the agreed upon rulings have come about through hours of arguing! Sometimes there isn't much else to do on a dark, cold Alaskan night.

The Raiders in our Talisman's universe steal your gold and your objects.

We treat the Witch as the 2nd edition's Witch.

The Temple? Good question. I don't really have a good answer. What are your/your group's thought on it? I'm interested now.

Back atcha, M.D.

MegaDestroyo said:

Yeah, a generic sheet is all your really need if the H.R.s are set and always the same... and they don't have to be counterproductive if they're the your crew is always going to play. Our games aren't too often (well, the ones with more than the wife and I and one other friend). So we have to tailor a bit now and then. Summers more games, winters fewer games, and I imagine moreso for you up in the great near-white north. I'm down in soggy town (Oregon coast).

MegaDestroyo said:

Yeah, that's the good ol' one. We have played on other variation; all the gold the take is spent (they wouldn't sit on it). And they hang about at Strength 7, so you have to fight them to get to any stash of Objects.

Most times were just play them the 2E way (I've made up several variations on that card), but once in a while we alter a bit.

MegaDestroyo said:

Ah yes, that's the popular one. Much more unpredictable and full of nastiness. Lately we've been playing a variation where the Witch has some alignment inclinations.

MegaDestroyo said:

Oh, it just seems like the Temple should be more like the Chapel or graveyard for praying or invoking. There should be a solid chance of nothing gained or lost, just like the other aligned spaces. Since the Temple is for the powers of all alignments, then double so for being a very ambivalent place.

A notion was raised by one of my crew which I agree with, sort of. The gains on the high end should be mirrored by like losses on the low end, but with a "nothing lost/gained" range in the middle (6-8 at least). It was also suggested that one might get make a sacrific (but only one per roll); discard an Object, Magic Object, or Gold to roll an extra die and then pick two of the three dice. Other ideas came up, but we haven't done anything so far.

Such changes might become part of another special set of cards already in the making: Space Cards. Essentially they describe new personas, locations, options, that can be place on some spaces like the City, Village, etc. We're already using one for the Black Knight, so that in landing on him you can actually joust him to try to get out of forfeiting a life or a gold. Of course if you lose, you have to forfeit both.

But overall, something has to be done about the Temple. It's just a bit too far into the nonsensical, and in part it always has been. Any thoughts?

JC,

There are more games around here in the winter than in the summer. The winters are longer and more isolating, so it makes sense to stay indoors because recreational options are very limited - especially when it's dark, which is most of the day in certain months. When summer arrives, we usually take full advantage of the long hours of sun that we are granted.

Anyway, I see your point: the temple doesn't have a "nothing" zone like the chapel and graveyard, but I've never had a problem with it. I kind of like that the game gains potency - greater rewards and greater dangers - when players begin moving to the middle region. The assurance of something happening every roll at the temple goes along with this theme in my mind.

Maybe the temple is closer to the source of all magics (the inner region/crown of command) than the spaces in the outer region? I have, of course, no valid ground upon which I could stand this statement, but for some reason that's the way I've always imagined it.

I can see your point for the Temple being in the Middle Region. It's part of why I hesitated on this one though several of my group have varied opinions as I noted. But overall, its deficits vs benefits are not balanced and never really have been. The being trapped for turns until you roll 4,5,6 isn't really a counterpoint lose to some of those gains, so the benefits definitely outweigh the deficits.

I see your point on the winters as well. Down here it is much the same though not near what you face. The downside is that coming into the holidays at years end and for some time after is the busiest time of year for the Barb and I, so its actually less time for us to play than during other seasons.

One notion put out by my group for a Temple table was as follows, and the stuff in parentheses are from 2E / 4ER for comparison. (Really wish there was a way to insert an XHTML table into a post.)

2 = Lose 1 Strength (Lose 2 Lives / Lose 2 Lives)
3 = Lose 1 Craft (Lose 1 Life / Lose 1 LIfe)
4 = Lose 1 Fate (Lose 1 Life or Follower / Lose 1 Follower)
5 = Lose 1 Life (Enslaved / Enslaved)
6 = Lose 1 Spell (Gain 1 Strength / Strength)
7 = Ignored (Gain 1 Craft / Craft)
8 = Gain 1 Spell (Gain 1 Spell / Spell)
9 = Gain 1 Life (Gain 1 Spell / Spell)
10 = Gain 1 Fate (Gain a Talisman / Talisman)
11 = Gain 1 Craft (Gain 1 Life / Gain 2 Fate)
12 = Gain 1 Strength (Gain 2 Lives / Lives)

Another of my group suggested the Following based on three dice, but I was also very hesitant about this. And the first complaint by two other players was about having to roll too many dice. I wasn't sympathetic about that whiny counterpoint and won't repeat my retort. I've seen them use special Objects and Magic Objects and Followers to pile on extra dice for picking and choosing options such as in movement or combat. They weren't complaining about too many dive then.

I do like the way this one is prioritized. The hardest stuff to gain in the game is also the hardest to lose on the low end and the easiest to gain on the upper end. Lots more variation, some semi serious loses for being in the middle region, but the chance to pick up a little something that might have been difficult for one to acquire is there by the odds.

3 = Lose 1 Fate
4 = Lose 1 Spell
5 = Lose 1 Craft
6 = Lose 1 Strength
7 = Lose 1 Life
8 = Lose a Talisman
9 = Enslaved until you roll 4,5, or 6 on one die for movement
10 = Ignored
11 = Ignored
12 = Take another turn
13 = Gain a Talisman
14 = Gain 1 Fate
15 = Gain 1 Spell
16 = Gain 1 Craft
17 = Gain 1 Strength
18 = Gain 1 Life

And that's probably enough off the topic stuff for today.

I wonder when FAQ 1.1 will come..

There are still a lot of questions that are not included in the Faq.

There are also a lot of questions that do not need to be in a FAQ.

talismanisland said:

True, but the faq is not completed yet.