Couple of tough questions.

Mesmerism cast on a players follower Refection casted on Mesmerism what happens. Does the player who had Mesmerism casted on them gain a follower from the Mesmerism caster or does the Mesmerism caster gain control of one of their own followers?

Also

Random spell on a roll of 2 and 3... Does a player lose ALL gained strength and craft other than starting values and bonuses from followers and objects or does the player just lose 1 strength and craft other than starting values and bonuses from followers and objects?

Tricky.

1) When You cast Reflection Spell against Mesmerism Spell, You are able to take one of the Mesmerism's caster Follower. Original Mesmerism caster gets nothing.

2) Lose all S-red or C-blue counters.

I'm not too sure on the Mesmerism answer TBH. Yes, that's how one tends to picture things when something is reflected, but in this, the wording doesn't really back that up.

"The chosen target is unaffected by the Spell; the caster suffers its effects instead."

If the spell cast were Toadify or something, then it would work fine. I cast Toadify, you Reflect, I'm now basically casting Toadify on myself. Same with Random, Shatter, etc. However, with Mesmerism, Reflection essentially turns it from "I cast on your Follower" to "I cast on my Follower". I take a Follower from myself to give to myself. Yes, you negate the Follower-stealing with Reflection, but the caster-target roles aren't swapped with Reflection, just the target changes, caster still remains the actual caster.

Dam said:

I think in this instance caster should mean the character itself, plus any objects, followers, spells or anything else he has. I imagine caster was used for the sake of brevity.

Or perhaps a better way to interpret it is to imagine you've counterspelled the original spell, and then cast another copy straight back at the original caster.

EvilEdwin said:

Yes, but there is still nothing the wording of Reflection that would suggest the caster-target roles are fully swapped, only the target changes to my reading of it. So A casts on B becomes A casts on A. For most of the targetting spells, this will work and harm the caster, but for Mesmerism it doesn't, he'll take a Follower from himself and gives it to himself.

I think the intention of the Reflect spell is as I said above, to make the original caster suffer the effect rather than yourself. To me a literal reading of a spell such as Mesemerism isn't in keeping with that intent so you need a little flexibility when applying certain spells. That's how I read it anyway

EvilEdwin said:

I agree with this, this is my reading of Reflection as well. I haven't argued against that, I don't think.

However, where we differ is does the original target become the new "pretend" caster or does the caster in fact remain the same. To my reading, caster stays the same. Yes, as caster and target, he'll suffer the effect, but in case of Mesmerism, there is no real effect. Toadify, Finger of Death, Random, Shatter come to mind as Spell where Reflection would be useful for more than just avoiding the spell.

I've just had a look at the two cards and I understand exactly what you're saying, Dam. The wording doesn't really fit in with a neat interpretation of being able to directly turn Mesmerism back onto the caster and taking one of his followers instead. The wording is all a little wooly. But I do think it's within the spirit of Reflection to be able to do that. So I'd say that the player casting Reflection can take a follower from the player who initially cast Mesmerism.

I can see this one going around in circles for a while But that's how I read it, even if it doesn't all tie together neatly. I think it's a case of semantics, but that's just me

So whats the official ruling then?

Player A casts Mesmerism on player B, Player B casts Reflection on the Mesmerism Spell. Therefore, player B can take any Follower of his choice from player A.

As simple as that guys!

Ell,

talismanamsilat said:

I'll take your word for it Ell, but seems that calls for between the lines insight, stuff that's not written on the cards .

Mesmerism Spell

"Cast at the start of your turn, before you move. Take one Follower of your choice from any character."

Reflection Spell

"Cast as required. Any Spell that has just been cast, including the Command Spell, is turned back onto the character who cast it. (The chosen target is unaffected by the Spell; the caster suffers its effects instead.)"

Therefore, the Mesmerism Spell "is turned back onto the character who cast it." and he "suffers its effect instead." This is treated as though the chosen target had actually cast the Mesmerism Spell himself.

It ain't complicated guys!!!

Ell.

I 100% agree that the target suffers the effects of the spell, but nothing states the original target gets the benefits is my point. Reflection itself states "chosen target is unaffected, caster suffers instead." Not seeing why the roles would be fully swapped from A casts on B to B casts on A. The way Reflection is worded, the original spell becomes A casts on A.

Your grasp of the English language baffles me (if you are not English it would explain things)!

Reflection turns back the Mesmerism Spell onto the caster and he suffers the effect instead. Therefore it is actually very obvious that the chosen target can take a Follower from the caster of Mesmerism. I don't know how you can interpret the wording of the Reflection Spell in any other way.

This is the correct way to handle the Reflection Spell!!!

Ell.

Ps. Next thread me thinks...

talismanamsilat said:

Sure but Dam is right in one thing. I clearly can understand him. Caster of Mesmerism is its owner. Reflection is not changing ownership of it. When it is turned back by Reflection, owner of the Spell targets 1 Follower. Then he can take it. So, owner of the Mesmerism must choose 1 Follower among all the Followers he has and join it to his team. So the Spell has no effect.

I believe the fault is not with Dam's understanding of the English language, but more the fault of the English language itelf, though to be honest either is quite irrelevent to this argument.

I think this is a case of "actual wording" used versus "spirit of the card". If you burrow down within the wording of a card each time it can sometimes cause more trouble than it is worth.

Basically, I believe the Reflection spell is a mirror (hence the name!) , so anything cast is reflected back on the caster and they suffer/gain from any bad/good effects.

I want you to lose a life, so I lose a life. I want you to gain a gold, so I gain a gold. I want one of your followers, so you can have one of mine etc.

As always with Talisman, the simple way is the best way. Quick resolution, less time consuming analysis.

So this means that the player who cast reflection on the mesmerism spell, is actually casting it back on the original caster, so he can steal a follower from the original caster..?

Yeah,

It only came up in a game I had this weekend with a player who "and lets be fair to him" is abit of a sore loser.

He kept on taking the card on its "Written Word" even though I told him he was wrong. In the end I just let him do it because he refused to see my point even though I could see his.

Also he kepts complaining about everyone elses characters being "broken" even though he plays with some of the powerful ones.

I hate these players...

I have also use the card on it's written word. ( turned back to the caster ( caster cast the spell on his own etc)

There were lots of questions about this card in the past

I am glad that we receive the answer from elliot how this card must be handled.

To complicate things even more, we have another interpretation; With Mesmorism you actually 'mesmerise' a follower, so it's casted on the follower, not the character. That's why, in the 2nd edition, Mesmerism wasn't mentioned on the Amulet for example. Therefore we think Reflection can't be used on Mesmerism anyway, since it's not being cast on the character itself.

Reflection can be cast at any Spell, not just a Spell that targets given Character.

In that case I'll aggree that the spell has no effect, so the result should be as if a counterspell was used.

In R4th, Amulet on a character protects the character, his Objects and his Followers from Spells.

Well too bad we really have a Official ruling (or one that is just as good as one anyways)