Taking into account he is lightbound too of course.

The barbarian the character that can't cast, gain or benefit from spells?

Memory like a sieve at the moment.

Can't have or gain spells and cannot be effected by spells.

My interpretation for the " Can't have or gain spells and cannot be effected by spells. " wording.
The above clause doesn't prevent Barbarian from casting spells.
He also doesn't have the spell that's contained in the wand, it's a part of wand' enchancement. The spell is inseparable from the wand, and doesn't count against character spell quota. This circumvents the inability to have spells.

So,
for the original question "Can the Barbarian take Titania's Wand?" - Yes, he can. This is an object like any other.
for the implied question "Can the Barbarian use Titania's Wand?" - Yes, he can. He doesn't gain any spells from it, and his ability doesn't prevent him from casting spells if he finds a way.
for the relevant question "Can the Barbarian use Titania's Wand effectively?" - Yes, as long as the spell contained in the wand isn't one that would affect the Barbarian himself.

All these should be correct if the "Can't have or gain spells and cannot be effected by spells." is correct.
Where could I find this Barbarian's verbatim text?

Correct text from Barbarian card.

You cannot have or gain Spells. Spells cannot affect you (except for the Command Spell).

This is complicated. I only say this because he cannot be affected by spells; how would one treat Counterspell, Scorch or some other counter here?

I agree tsuma534 that he should be able to have it and use it but you would have to throw in that counterspells and such would work as well in this instance.....

how would one treat Counterspell, Scorch or some other counter here?

And what's the issue with Spell Scorch. While I see what might be a dilemma here, I don't see a relation to the Barbarian.

how would one treat Counterspell, Scorch or some other counter here?

And what's the issue with Spell Scorch. While I see what might be a dilemma here, I don't see a relation to the Barbarian.

Its the being the special ability that makes him unaffected by Spells and the FAQ Amulet ruling.

Q1: The Amulet states “No Spells will affect you, other than

the Command Spell.” Does this also imply that a character’s

Objects, Followers, Spells, and gold are unaffected by Spells

if he has the Amulet?

A: Yes.

That makes any spell he casts unaffected by any other Spell.

He could freely use the wand so long as he was not the target, additionally counterspell and spell scorch could both be used to negate said casting of spell, as the target of the spell is the spell, not the barbarian, but you obviously could not opt for option number 2 on spell scorch.

He could freely use the wand so long as he was not the target, additionally counterspell and spell scorch could both be used to negate said casting of spell, as the target of the spell is the spell, not the barbarian, but you obviously could not opt for option number 2 on spell scorch.

HELLO!

Q1: The Amulet states “No Spells will affect you, other than

the Command Spell.” Does this also imply that a character’s

Objects, Followers, Spells , and gold are unaffected by Spells

if he has the Amulet?

A: Yes.

Text of Barbarian - Spells cannot affect you (except for the Command Spell).

Text of Amulet - No Spells will affect you, other than the Command Spell.

Explain the difference?

Text of Barbarian - Spells cannot affect you (except for the Command Spell).

Text of Amulet - No Spells will affect you, other than the Command Spell.

Explain the difference?

There's no difference.

Text of Barbarian - Spells cannot affect you (except for the Command Spell).

Text of Amulet - No Spells will affect you, other than the Command Spell.

Explain the difference?

There's no difference.

Thus, if the barbarian does cast a spell the spell will also be unaffected by spells. So the spell cannot be countered.

Text of Barbarian - Spells cannot affect you (except for the Command Spell).

Text of Amulet - No Spells will affect you, other than the Command Spell.

Explain the difference?

There's no difference.

Thus, if the barbarian does cast a spell the spell will also be unaffected by spells. So the spell cannot be countered.

Yes.

I stand corrected

I'm actually not convinced. I think the spell could be countered and the faq text is for the amulet only in that matter. If you're playing any other character than the barbarian you'll, more likely than not, have at least one spell in your possession. Those spells cannot be targeted by other spells (i.e. nullify).

The wand is still outside the normal ruling and as the Barbarian can use it, I'm able to counter it.

Q1: The Amulet states “No Spells will affect you, other than

the Command Spell.” Does this also imply that a character’s

Objects, Followers, Spells, and gold are unaffected by Spells

if he has the Amulet?

A: Yes.

That makes any spell he casts unaffected by any other Spell.

I think it only means that spell's are unaffected while they're in the character's possession.

I might argue that a spell that has been cast is no longer in character's possession and no longer protected.

It's also possible that a spell that is a part of wand's enchancement is never in character's possession.

Ah, it's refreshing to learn that Talisman rules are still as blurred as I remember.

Wand says "treat the Spell as though you had cast it"

Also a Spell is still a spell even when casting, otherwise no-one could counter a spell. If the barbarian is allowed to take the wand then he is allowed to cast the spell from it and also that spell is unaffected by spells. Mind you he still cannot be the target of the spell.

I'm actually not convinced. I think the spell could be countered and the faq text is for the amulet only in that matter. If you're playing any other character than the barbarian you'll, more likely than not, have at least one spell in your possession. Those spells cannot be targeted by other spells (i.e. nullify).

The wand is still outside the normal ruling and as the Barbarian can use it, I'm able to counter it.

I would agree with that if it was the wand that casts the spell, not the character (the wand has the spell after all).

But the character casts, so logic dictates that his spell is immune. That feels weird and counterintuitive to me too but it is logical.

Q1: The Amulet states “No Spells will affect you, other than

the Command Spell.” Does this also imply that a character’s

Objects, Followers, Spells, and gold are unaffected by Spells

if he has the Amulet?

A: Yes.

That makes any spell he casts unaffected by any other Spell.

1. I think it only means that spell's are unaffected while they're in the character's possession.

2. I might argue that a spell that has been cast is no longer in character's possession and no longer protected.

1. That's a very good point. Maybe I'm wrong after all...

If the Barbarian casts a Spell, another player may successfully cast Counterspell to negate the Spell just cast. You are misinterpreting the FAQ...

If the Barbarian casts a Spell, another player may successfully cast Counterspell to negate the Spell just cast. You are misinterpreting the FAQ...

So the wand is protected but not its Spell?

So when it says Spell in the FAQ under the Amulet it means Spells just held by the player not when they are cast by the player. But then why does it say "character’s Objects, Followers, Spells, and gold are unaffected by Spells if he has the Amulet"? Surly a Spell is a Spell no matter if held, cast or discarded?

If they meant held they could of said "held by the character" but then again they did not need too, because the Amulet says you can't cast Spells so its a bit moot there. But then again when the barbarian was designed a simple "cannot cast spells" would of fixed this Amulet faq-barbarian prob and it would still allow the barbarian to take said item or follower as well.

So was it by design or was it text error? More proof we need a new updated FAQ.

I'm with uvatha on this one, for once lol

I'm with uvatha on this one, for once lol

WOW and its my birthday today... I feel blessed.

If the Barbarian casts a Spell it has gone from his character, the Spell can be negated by Counterspell. His ability prevents Spells he holds from being affected by other players Spells, fact.

If the Barbarian casts a Spell it has gone from his character, the Spell can be negated by Counterspell. His ability prevents Spells he holds from being affected by other players Spells, fact.

Does not say "spells he is holding" in the FAQ just says "spells", surely the Barbarian spell he is casting is still his spell - he's the caster I do not see how it can not be his when its cast? hardly a "Fact".

I do agree that the FAQ is super vague on this issue though.

If the Barbarian casts a Spell it has gone from his character, the Spell can be negated by Counterspell. His ability prevents Spells he holds from being affected by other players Spells, fact.

Does not say "spells he is holding" in the FAQ just says "spells", surely the Barbarian spell he is casting is still his spell - he's the caster I do not see how it can not be his when its cast? hardly a "Fact".

I do agree that the FAQ is super vague on this issue though.

Seriously? If the Barbarian has Spells (or Objects & Followers) in his possession, they cannot be targeted by another players Spells; this is determined by the special ability of the Barbarian. However, if the Barbarian casts a Spell it is no longer in his possession and can be negated by a Counterspell. This is how it should be handled. You are trying to twist the FAQ to fit your own opinion, whereas I am not...