Spy looks the Spell held by Wizard.

Wizard has "Generosity":

Cast on another character at the start of his turn. The character must give you all of his gold .

Can the Spy ditch golds to prevent to be the target of Generosity?

I don't know if gold can be ditched at all.

But if yes, Spy can't ditch it as a "counter" to wizard's spell.

Common sense would say yes. Probably not addressed in the rules because not something someone would normally do, but when a character dies his gold is left in the space it's not like it's bound to your character. I would say once ditched it has he same encounter number as all other objects but doesn't count towards cards on the space

(Yes, gold can be ditched but)
No.. When the spell is cast it immediately takes effect.

The Spy can -absolutely not- ditch the gold to circumvent the effects of the spell just like he can not move to a shop and spend the gold.

No. The answer is -no-.

Edit: My bad.. apparently you can't even ditch gold (?)

Sorry, I used wrong words in my last post.

There is no intention to -counter- the spell.
It's just a predetermined strategy. Don' t think about it.

The question is just: Can we ditch gold?

Thank you for the answers.
I think this is one of the cases: common sense vs strict application of rules.
In fact rules speak only about followers and objects...

Gold is basically a trinket object, yes the spy could not drop his gold while a spell was in the midst of being cast but could drop it in anticipation of the casting of said spell.

Sorry, I used wrong words in my last post.

There is no intention to -counter- the spell.

Of course there is.

Gold is basically a trinket object.

Except it's not an object.

From the rulebook "Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against a character’s Object carrying limit."

As silly as this sounds the rules do not specify if you can ditch gold. You can ditch followers and objects and in all instances in the rules where they speak of gold, followers and objects they specifically have gold separated. For this reason I do not believe a character may voluntarily ditch gold...

Yep players cannot choose to ditch gold. Other effects can force you to place your gold on a space. Also ditching reactions is very very frowned on in game. Basically when a card is declared no player can interrupt its effect (unless with a card that says so eg counterspell).

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, I hope so at least, he is not asking if you can ditch gold once generosity is cast, he is asking if he could ditch gold at the appropriate time. The answer is obviously yes.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, I hope so at least, he is not asking if you can ditch gold once generosity is cast, he is asking if he could ditch gold at the appropriate time. The answer is obviously yes.

The answer is No, players can't ditch gold by their choice.

Page 16 main rule book:

Ditching Followers and Objects

A character may ditch any of his Followers or Objects at any

time by leaving them face up in the space he occupies. If a

character ditches any Followers or Objects, he cannot take

them back during the same turn.

Page 12 main rulebook:

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

So Gold may not be ditch by a players choice.

Now a Effect or Special Ability can force a player to place their Gold (some or all) on a space because of the Golden Rule: Special Ability vs. Rules.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, I hope so at least, he is not asking if you can ditch gold once generosity is cast, he is asking if he could ditch gold at the appropriate time. The answer is obviously yes.

The answer is No, players can't ditch gold by their choice.

Page 12 main rulebook:

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

It would seem to me that this rule was put in place before the concept of trinkets came along. They defined gold as being not an object for no other reason than for gold not counting against the object carrying limit. And yet when you draw a bag of gold card it is labeled as an object.

I have no problem with ditching gold. It's a thing that you are carrying that comes as an object card, and it operates exactly like a trinket.

I have no problem with ditching gold. It's a thing that you are carrying that comes as an object card, and it operates exactly like a trinket.

Except its not a Trinket. It acts like a trinket yes but that of course does not mean it is a Trinket. Also just because it "was" or "came from" a Object card does not mean a gold coin- token is a Object.

Using the same logic - Fate counters can come from Places does that mean they are also Places?....

The rule is:

Page 12 main rulebook:

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

Not Gold is not considered an Object for the purposes of a characters Object carrying limit. Further more if FFG wanted gold to be treated as Trinkets or anything else linked to the Trinket rules they would of printed it in the Highlands rules. Or even said something in the old FAQ which was made when Highlands was around.

I have no problem with ditching gold. It's a thing that you are carrying that comes as an object card, and it operates exactly like a trinket.

Except its not a Trinket. It acts like a trinket yes but that of course does not mean it is a Trinket. Also just because it "was" or "came from" a Object card does not mean a gold coin- token is a Object.

Using the same logic - Fate counters can come from Places does that mean they are also Places?....

The rule is:

Page 12 main rulebook:

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

Not Gold is not considered an Object for the purposes of a characters Object carrying limit. Further more if FFG wanted gold to be treated as Trinkets or anything else linked to the Trinket rules they would of printed it in the Highlands rules. Or even said something in the old FAQ which was made when Highlands was around.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Fate counters, strength counters, craft counters, life counters, gold counters--all of these come from places. But of course they aren't places. The place gives you that counter. That's an irrational argument. (Incidentally, there are places and strangers that give you objects, such as Talismans, weapons, and armors. Those things are still objects, even if they came from place.) Gold comes from a card that calls it an object. But instead of carrying around the card, you get a nifty little counter. It looks like an object. It acts like an object. It's used like an object. It says its an object. It must be an object.

But so that this object doesn't count against your carrying limit, it's called "not an object."

But again, the only reason that gold is called "not an object" is because they hadn't invented trinkets yet. If the base game were rewritten today, I would be inclined to think that we would see gold as trinkets. Because the intent of calling it "not an object" was so that it didn't count against the carrying limit. But now that we have a classification for objects that don't against your carrying limit, gold is properly classified as a Trinket.

And don't presume that the original printing of rules for the expansions covered every foreseeable disagreement over the rules. They likely never imagined this scenario coming up.

Because, I mean, really, who's going to ditch gold? The whole foundation of this discussion is ridiculous and exceedingly unlikely ever to occur.

In my house, gold will be considered a trinket should such a need to classify it ever arise.

But really, I think this whole discussion is purely academic and will never have a real, practical application.

Well said

I see gold not just as a physical thing but your overall wealth which would include food and small personal possessions. A person is not going to just ditch those things...

I have no problem with ditching gold. It's a thing that you are carrying that comes as an object card, and it operates exactly like a trinket.

Except its not a Trinket. It acts like a trinket yes but that of course does not mean it is a Trinket. Also just because it "was" or "came from" a Object card does not mean a gold coin- token is a Object.

Using the same logic - Fate counters can come from Places does that mean they are also Places?....

The rule is:

Page 12 main rulebook:

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

Not Gold is not considered an Object for the purposes of a characters Object carrying limit. Further more if FFG wanted gold to be treated as Trinkets or anything else linked to the Trinket rules they would of printed it in the Highlands rules. Or even said something in the old FAQ which was made when Highlands was around.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Fate counters, strength counters, craft counters, life counters, gold counters--all of these come from places. But of course they aren't places. The place gives you that counter. That's an irrational argument. (Incidentally, there are places and strangers that give you objects, such as Talismans, weapons, and armors. Those things are still objects, even if they came from place.) Gold comes from a card that calls it an object. But instead of carrying around the card, you get a nifty little counter. It looks like an object. It acts like an object. It's used like an object. It says its an object. It must be an object.

But so that this object doesn't count against your carrying limit, it's called "not an object."

But again, the only reason that gold is called "not an object" is because they hadn't invented trinkets yet. If the base game were rewritten today, I would be inclined to think that we would see gold as trinkets. Because the intent of calling it "not an object" was so that it didn't count against the carrying limit. But now that we have a classification for objects that don't against your carrying limit, gold is properly classified as a Trinket.

And don't presume that the original printing of rules for the expansions covered every foreseeable disagreement over the rules. They likely never imagined this scenario coming up.

Because, I mean, really, who's going to ditch gold? The whole foundation of this discussion is ridiculous and exceedingly unlikely ever to occur.

In my house, gold will be considered a trinket should such a need to classify it ever arise.

But really, I think this whole discussion is purely academic and will never have a real, practical application.

Hang on here.. Your saying Gold comes from a Object card so its a Object, but then Something that comes from a Place is not a Place as well as what it is? I personally just used the whole "Fate counters can come from Places does that mean they are also Places" as a example of what you are saying about gold being a Object because you can get it from a card that is a Object.

It clearly says that Gold is not a object, read the whole Gold section in the main rulebook:

Gold

Gold allows characters to buy Objects and pay for services. A

character’s wealth is recorded by placing gold coins beside the

character card.

Each character starts the game with one gold, and additional

gold is usually acquired as the result of encounters.

Prices are given in gold coins (G). Thus “3G” represents three

gold coins.

Payments for any purchases or services that are not made to

another character are paid into the gold stockpile.

Any gold received from any source other than another character

is taken from the gold stockpile.

Gold is not considered an Object, so it does not count against

a character’s Object carrying limit.

If a character is required to lose gold and he does not have

any, then there is no effect.

Now this is clearly talking about the gold coins - counters and these gold coins - counters are not considered to be Objects. So how are they considered a Object when they are not considered a Object. Like I said before if they wanted Gold to be Objects but not counted towards the players Object limit they would of stated it such, just like they did with Trinkets in Highlands, did they say that No.

Now the "Bag of Gold" card is a Object but Gold coins - counters are clearly not no matter where they come from. And because a player will never put the "Bag of Gold" card with their normal Objects (because once encountered its traded for Gold coins - counters and then placed in its discard pile) I'm finding what your trying to say difficult to understand.

And (just to clear it up ) it is not me "presuming that the original printing of rules for the expansions covered every foreseeable disagreement over the rules" but instead me saying if Gold coins/counters/tokens where now Trinkets it would of said so in the Highland rules under the rules for Trinkets. (Eg if it was designed as such it would say so). Hardly expecting expansions to covered every foreseeable disagreement over the rules.

Of course "like I said before and will again" everyone is totally free to make up any house rules they want. So if you want Gold to be ditched aok. House Rule it.

I do agree totally to your last statement.

Sometimes I truly wonder about the intelligence level of human beings as a race and as individuals.

Gold will never be considered trinkets as they're not affected by spells like Gust of wind and enemies like Tinker imp.

Whether you can ditch gold or not we'll probably never know for sure but I think it doesn't matter really. As stated before you need a very specific reason to do it, like in the example above, and holding on to a Nullify spell and a Teleport spell so that you can first dispatch of the danger and then regain your gold. And to even consider spending two spells to save your gold you need to have a lot of gold....

As said before: agree before playing and enjoy the game.

Perhaps it's time for someone with too much time and too little to do to create a list with the questions we should agree upon before playing...

Gold will never be considered trinkets as they're not affected by spells like Gust of wind and enemies like Tinker imp.

That is an excellent point, one which I had not considered, and to which I do not have an immediate answer.

Sometimes I truly wonder about the intelligence level of human beings as a race and as individuals.

I think everyone thinks this from time to time .

I've got a question about gold coins, if you land on a space with 3 gold coins do you have to take all 3 of them or can you choose to take just 1 or 2 or none at all?

In the last game I played I had the deliver 3 gold quest, but I needed to buy a mule for 2 gold and collect a few things before gaining a talisman from the warlock and go for the middle.

But I took all 3 gold (because we were unsure of the ruling) and went to the warlock but it took me ages to find any more gold to buy my mule.

But now I'm unsure after seeing the spendthrift card which gives a choice of how many gold coins you can take (When revealed, roll 2 dice and place that much gold on this card. Once per visit, you MAY TAKE UP TO 2 gold from this card.)

I've got a question about gold coins, if you land on a space with 3 gold coins do you have to take all 3 of them or can you choose to take just 1 or 2 or none at all?

In the last game I played I had the deliver 3 gold quest, but I needed to buy a mule for 2 gold and collect a few things before gaining a talisman from the warlock and go for the middle.

But I took all 3 gold (because we were unsure of the ruling) and went to the warlock but it took me ages to find any more gold to buy my mule.

But now I'm unsure after seeing the spendthrift card which gives a choice of how many gold coins you can take (When revealed, roll 2 dice and place that much gold on this card. Once per visit, you MAY TAKE UP TO 2 gold from this card.)

You may take 1, 2 or 3 or even none if you want. But with quests they must be completed as soon as now this might force you to take all 3 gold because its possible for you to complete it. Some players would say that this just means once you have the 3 gold you can't just say "nah" not yet. And I tend to agree with that ruling.

Just on another note about gold coin counters being able to be ditched.

If gold coin counters are allowed to be ditch they must be Objects because only Objects and Followers can be Ditched. So if Gold coins are Objects how come the Acquisition spell says " Take one Object of your choice or one gold from any character " surely if gold is a Object it should just say " T ake one Object of your choice from any character "?

Just saw this and thought well well .