here we go again. ice sceptre is a magic object that states " if u defeat a character in battle or psychic combat and CHOOSE to take a life, that character also misses their next turn" it is worded just like icefang and frostrazor. (IF YOU CHOOSE). spellsword says "when u use the spellsword in psychic combat to defeat a character,AND CAUSE THEM TO LOSE A LIFE, gain a spell if your craft allows" it is worded just like runesword and fatestealer.

so, what is the reason for these cards repeatedly being worded this way. does icy sceptre , frostrazor, and icefang do their ability regardless of whether the defender prevents damage. i think so. i think its perfectly clear.. these 2 new cards from the same set are worded differently because the work differently. we need real clarification on this since there are now 3 items (all related to cold ) that are worded this way and it comes up all the time.damage prevention will save you verses the runesword, fate stealer and spellsword,,,but your ass outta luck if someone uses a cold based weapon on u and chooses to take a life. you can still prevent it, but u will still lose a turn

Yes, we need the final word on this. Do they really work in a different way?

it seems obvious to me that they do. these cards are from the same expansion so its not a matter of cards being worded differently from expansion to expansion as some have previously said.

so what is the answer to this question??

hello , hello , hello ....is there any body in here? ... just nod if you can hear me ... is there anyone at home?

If the life is saved with Armour, the weapon causes no effect - no life lost, no missed turn.

Not all cards will be worded the same. Some will be worded slightly differently than others. However, if a character saves the life the weapon or magic object does not affect that character.

Ell.

talismanamsilat said:

I will add this to my Unofficial FAQ.

if this is true, then i guess ive been playing the card wrong,, BUT, we did play it as it is worded. the sad part is that simple stuff like this could be fixed during playtesting. i still wonder why the only 3 cards that are worded this way are cards that deal with cold and cause a loss of turn....as if the weapon freezes an enemy with magical ice. oh well, the game is full of these types of rule questions, but i still love it. i think i will keep playing the cards as we have been, exactly as they are worded. to me , the difference between the words CHOOSE and CAUSE are significantly different, and for a good reason. i dont think it went over the heads of the game developers that it looks as if all u must do is choose to take life rather than actually cause a life to be lostwhy doesnt runesword and fatestealer and spellsword say " if u choose to take a life. im really having a tough time swallowing this one

Fair enough. It could be as you said... worded differently to mean a different effect. Or it could just be that someone worded it differently on a FRI afternoon, and that passed through the cracks... and further editions just copy / paste the same text. This company is under no special dispensation from QA deadline for the product to ship than any other company.

Feel free to ignore the official ruling if it bothers you though. For example, we’ve ruled against one of the few official rules that is against player power. (We tend to like things being tough). It has been made VERY clear is the use of ONE armour in combat, whether suit, shield or helm, and we’ve routinely ignored that since Edition #1. Otherwise, a Magic Shield that saves on a 4-6 is just plain old purchase deck armour with a new coat of paint. If you do the same with CHOOSE vs TAKE, no Talisman police will knock on your door and wrap your knuckles.

But you should be aware of what’s official, in case friends that have their own games come over so they know it’s a house rule.

Tons-Home-rules said:

Just notice that Magic Shield is a Magic Object, while Armour is a normal Object. Transmute will not work on Magic Shield.

I agree with your general thoughts about ruling. I also dislike many of the official rulings, especially when they're contradictory (i.e. when they told that you can't voluntarily lose a Follower like the Hag, but you can freely alchemise the False Grail); I stick to official ruling though, because I feel it's a good way to avoid questioning during play. Too bad that the current FAQ encompasses about 1/4th of all the Q&A that we've read here... I cannot ask my fellow players to check this forum if they don't believe me.

wow, i never knew there was a one armor limit. we have played without that rule because we didnt know it