The question is: I have three gold and I draw a Warlock quest which instructs me to discard three gold.I have the gold but I don't want to discard it now,can the quest be delayed to be completed later even though I can complete it immediately?

Thank you very much!

Unfortunately in that situation you would have to complete the quest.

However if you had 2 gold and objects with the alchemist follower you wouldnt have to turn any objects into gold to complete the quest

I'm not so sure that's correct. In this case, you must choose to "do" something and then quest is completed. For something like losing 1 life, it happens to you, the life is lost unless you can stop it, and thereby the quest is completed automatically. Same for defeating a dragon or something.

When choice to take an action is involved, like discard (something you must choose to do and does not happen automatically), I don't see anything on that quest that forces one to "discard" three gold. If there were the case, the card should read "when you have 3 gold or more, you lose 3 gold" and the quest is complete. Discard is a choice, not an automatic.

But it wouldn't be the first time a card wording doesn't reflect actual meaning.

The wording in Frostmarsh regarding the quest cards at least is as follows

All other rules governing Warlock Quests continue to apply when Warlock Quest Cards are used: only one quest can be accepted at a time, quests must be completed as soon as possible, characters who have accepted a quest are prevented from opening the Portal of Power until the quest is complete, and so on.

Wording seems straight forward to me, as soon as possible, to me that is straightforward, if you can lose 3 gold you lose 3 gold. Maybe one of the rules gurus should chime in though

I see... so by the boxed rules you are 99.9% likely on the mark. Too bad the cards weren't worded better, since card text is easily interpreted (straightforward) as implying an option. Overall I think my crew will stick with the way it has been played. If a character is low on lives and needs to get gold to heal, we see no reason why it should be forced to ditch 3G built up while it's waiting for dumb luck to get it to the doctor.

This situation has been seen in a game. The characer still has to complete that held quest before it can accept another or pass through the PoP. But to nyx its chance to heal and survive is really a dumb rule.

As with all rules, if following it to the letter would make the game suffer somehow, ignore it or interpret it to its rubber limits. I wonder, in this particular case, though, if the wording is the problem. "As soon as possible" is a kind of figure of speech these days, meaning a polite version of "whenever you think of it and it's not too inconvenient". If it had been worded "Warlock Quests must be completed as soon as IT IS possible to do so", or "as soon as it BECOMES possible", it would be less ambiguous. To my mind, the irony of having to complete it and having it kill you is worth the story you can tell afterward....I love the Rock / Hard Place situations that Talisman forces on us in our games. A rueful laugh and a quick resurrection as some other fun character is the worst that can happen

Again, I see Warlock Quests as something meant to be a price to get a Talisman, the thing you need to win the game, not just a trivial payment on your way to other things. Personally, I don't just look at what the rule is, but why is it there.

For example = Why don't we count back and forth, hopping on the same squares over again so that you can turn a roll of 5 into a 1 square move? (i.e. Move 1, back to start, Move 1, back to start, Move 1 = end result is move 1.). Why not? Because it's meant to take a while, or be lucky to get exactly where you want to go. The game designers do not want you to have that much movement control, or they'd allow the back and forth thing.

Back to Warlock Quests, you're getting a Talisman (and/or, if using the optional rule... a Treasure). Lets not make it any more trivial than it is. This is about the end game unlocking item, or, presumably, some of the best items of the game. Losing your only 3 gold when you have 1 life and you're trying to get to the Castle... hurts... as it should. Most bad effects should be in the "sucks to be you" category. Mitigating it through logic, versimilitude, rule lawyering, or whatever, removes the all but plainly written rule that "This bad card / quest is SUPPOSED TO SUCK."

Obviously, it's your game. Do it as you wish. But for us, we take almost every card, space, etc... in its worst possible way. Sadly, we also have to take into account that Talisman is also a business. As per the Magic the Gathering power creep, I'm sure a way to keep players buying is to make bigger and better items, more "get out of jail free" loophole rulings and cards (hence why newer FAQs are often heavily slanted in the player's favor), and well, if you're not enjoying setbacks as part of the game, feel free to change "As soon as possible" to "whenever you darn well feel like". No Talisman police will knock on your door.

But for us, getting the key element and namesake of the game... should hurt, so we make it hurt. But that's just us.

Zozimus said:

Yes, part of why we've ruled that when ambiguous, choice is implied. If an action is reguired to complete a quest, it is the character's (player's) choice when to do so. When a result is required to trigger the completion of the quest, then that happens instantly... such as taking a life from another character, killing a specific type of enemy, etc.

We prefer to play the game as much or more than the game play us. Otherwise we might as well pull out Monopoly instead with one of its theme overlays. And resurrections are a bit of joke in Talisman. Unless some rule is used akin to a "knock out/down", like in Runebound, starting over or starting a new character is pointless most of the time.

JCHendee said:

Really? I'm not familiar with Runebound, but I haven't found that to be the case in our games. More than a few times, the character who's just sprung to life and into the fray is the one to win the game...unless you're so close to finishing anyway that it's really impossible, I find that sometimes, the jinx that has hovered over your original character disappears when you resurrect. We don't even play with an "inheritance" rule. How does the "knock out / down" rule work in Runebound, and do you think that it might make sense to include a variant in Talisman?

We play a loss of everything when you die and a required draw of a new character. However, there is a certain point in the game when restarting is pointless (usually when at least one other character has a Strength and/or Craft of 10+). The rule in Runebound adapted to Talisman would work something like...

• Return to your starting space.
• Retain all earned Craft and Strength.
• Gain all Starting Lives and Fate
• Discard all Gold, Trophies, and Spells
• Discard your most valuable Object, Magic Object, and Follower as chosen by the other players.

It provides a faster restart for the character (player) "knocked out." For those interested in a faster game WITH ALL PLAYERS CONTINUOUSLY, this works fairly well. The only time this rule is not used is if any character has every reached the CoC. If that condition has been met even once, all the deaths are permanent.

It's not to the taste of me and mine, but a number of groups do find this a way for all players for the evening to continue enjoying the game. Keep in mind the player whose character is "knocked out" does have the option to discard the character and start over with a new one randomly drawn from the character deck. If so, nothing the old character possessed or gained is transferable. Oh, and with this "knockout" variation, those required discards are not left on the board for others to scavenge.

Thanks for the description. I'll offer it as an option at our next game.