so i am running into multiple issues with the wording on spell cards and need some serious clarity. multiple points of view, no resolution on the rules here are the scenarios. please review.

Problem: When a spell states cast at the start of your turn vs cast at the start of another players turn... who receives priority first...

What Happens:

Example 1: The game begins, with 6 players, i am player 4 and player 2 casts a spell on me at the start of my turn. I havent even looked at my spells and he makes me discard my spells.

Example 2: In the middle of the game another player casts a spell at the beginning of my turn by stating at the end of the player before me he will cast at the start of my turn a spell, not allowing me a chance to react to cast a spell that effects the gameplay.

Conclusion: It is my understanding that the game cannot speed up... what i mean is that you cannot beat someone to the punch because you weaseled your way into casting something prior to having another player cast something at the start of their turn. As acting player to begin the turn, I feel it should be similar to (MAGIC the Gathering) rules where as such there need to be phases for a players turn. As acting player I should have precedence to cast at the start of my turn, if i choose to state to all players i will roll for movement, then i have acknoledged im giving up my right to "at the start of my turn" which then clockwise allows all other players the opportunity to cast spells at the start of my turn before i roll for movement.

The problem we are running into is that it cannot be a rush race to cast "at the start of turn" there has to be a stop or hold for one or the other players to react. With simultaineous effects happening the player turn needs to be slowed down in phases, or has to acknowledge to other players that they are giving up their inital in Magic "Upkeep" phase prior to rolling for movement to let others react to the "at the start of turn" phase.

Are there any rules for this complication... I am all ears... My group is highly competitive in the game and unfortunately all do not agree with my structured ruling. please advise. thanks so much.

kumara

kumara said:

That's because they're more interested in rules "lawyering" as players than playing by any sense of spirit in the game through their characters. Proclaiming they will cast a spell at the start of your turn before your turn occurs to beat you to punch?

Try looking at the Talisman FAQ , though I doubt this issue is in there. If you can't find your answer in the FAQs, then you should post the question in the Talisman Rules Question subforum . If you still don't get an official answer, then... well....

The player for the current turn should always have precedence in conflicts of "initiative"... whether by rules or simple common sense. Whoever started this bogus rationalization, tell it to get its head out of its.... loophole. Don't put up with this kind of stuff.

thats what i thought but for tournaments. its a critical rule that should be addressed.

Just for curiosity, how are you playing a tournament?

amongst my friends we do two tournaments pending amount of players.

1. if you have 6 or more we play two boards and first two to the crown of command without using the command spell then both 2 players play a final game of 4 again

2 if you have 6 or more players divide all player cards amongst players and respawns exist until one gets to the center of the board. once that happens at random choose an ending and do it that way.

we do 10 dollar buy in. winner take all

Okay... It certainly is like gambling, since there's no real skill for winning. It's good you keep those characters random because of that.

there is skill to winning. use the dungeon deck, become the monk lol if you get him, defeat the 12/12 in the dungeon by 8 and get teleported to the crown of command without a talisman game over

Kumara

That's certainly a strategy, but I don't consider skill the same thing. Talisman is too random for that. But in that it is also fair for the pot you build with 6 players... which is enough to buy 1 or 2 new expansions!!!

If a player wishes to cast a Spell at the start of another character's turn, he must do so at the very start of that character's turn.

A character always has the option to react to the Spell being cast at him, either by casting a Counterspell or Reflection Spell.

Ell.

I'd also houserule that if you really have an argument about "who casts what first", throw a dice to solve the question. If you feel the need for strict rules... avoid Talisman like plague.

The situation in question I do not believe involved any form of counterspell. The conflict was likely caused by a spell worded to be cast "at the beginning of a / any turn" whereas the other may have been word as "at the beginning of your turn ". I have not seen the actual wording on either spell, and perhaps Kumara can help with that. The conflict that could arise should have been obvious at the time of composing that strangely timed card, if my guesses at the wording are anywhere near the mark.

Until the current player takes action, its turn has not begun. The beginning of a turn is not determined by the end of a previous turn (except for those looking to actually create new loopholes in the game).

If the current player picks up the dice to roll for movement, the other player can cast its "at the beginning" spell. The current player didn't cast its spell at the beginning of its turn , which has now passed. Its first action was to prepare to move, and thereby it has lost the chance to cast an "at the beginning" spell.

If the current player chose to cast its "at the beginning" spell before picking up the dice or intiating movement in another manner, that would have also signaled the beginning of its turn. Thereby, its spell goes first. The other player may still cast its "at the beginning" spell, but its effects are accounted after those of the first spell.

It's all pretty simple when it's examined step by step, and there isn't any need for monkey-wrenching a solution ... or deciding not to play the game. The only thing simpler is that the current player always sets the beginning of its own turn no matter who has/did/does what.

We play that the "at the start of your turn" is like a block of time and not a single slot where only one spell can fit. All spells that can be cast and are cast at the start of a players turn all go off simultaneously. MtG is the system that got us all to think that one spell can preempt another.

MtG was not the first system to deal with spell order based on current turn... not by a longshot. Ssimultaneous won't always work with the loosely worded Talisman spells. Hence why the original question for this topic came up.

In addition, since the game in question is tournament with a buy in and winners pot (see the posts above), again simultaneous isn't going to cut it. There has to be some kind of order or things will get ugly around that table.

Rules are pretty clear for each spell. I would say, if there is an issue about a clear tie discrepancy, let the player whose turn it is go first. That's the only thing that makes sense unless otherwise written in the spell.