Playing last night and my friend stuck his golden statue in the concealed pouch.

I assume he MUST give the statue to me if I beat him combat, overruling the the instructions on the concealed pouch?

I don't have the reaper yet, but i have read what the card does from the second edition, and it says that the victor( in combat) may not take the pouch or the object in it. and neither may be stolen by the thief.

I don't know. GS has states "they must" (meaning the winner), but CP states "victor may not take", so neither places any forcing on the possessor (and in this case the loser of the battle) to pull the GS out of the CP. In fact, I'd go as far as say that the winner doesn't even know there is a GS anywhere on the loser's person. Now, I don't see anything wrong with you pulling out the GS before the attack (even if not your turn), putting another Object in to leave the GS in plain sight, thus protecting a more valuable Object (why that Object wasn't in the CP to begin with is a whole new discussion). I wouldn't allow one to change an Object to the CP for the GS after the battle/psychic combat has started.

I agreed with Dam

You cannot see that someone has a concealed pouch. It is hidden.

If the winner wants to take a item, and you put it in the concealed pouch, or you switch items in the concealed pouch at that time, then it is not hidden anymore. That makes sense !

i say that you must make up your mind before a player can take a object from you. ( so choose wisely)

Dam said:

Well it is still a little abusive, it allows you choose who you "protect yourself" from against a combat. Keep the GS in the CP, and if pull it out only when a more likely victor attacks you (or would be at a more strategically advantage to take an item from you).

The reason I mention it as after beating my mate with both, he tried to put forth that I had to take the GS, but as it was in the CP I couldn't therefore it protects him against all combats. Obviously not the case, but like a some other Raper cards, it weasn't clear.

I suppose "cannot" trumps "can", but what about "must"?

Maybe we must not think so much lol;)

You can switch the item to the pouch anytime if a player wants to steal it. But you can only have one item in the pouch, so it's useless to keep on switching. Put the object in the pouch, that you don't want to lose.

-end

( Don't think too much of reality. How can you put a armor in your pouch then lol:) ( you need a really big pouch for this

I presume you would end up having to take something else instead.

The whole point of the concealed pouch is that you are not aware that your victim is carrying anything in it, so you would not know to take the Statue.

Now, if the Statue forced the carrier to give it to an attacker it would be different, but the card is not worded so. I guess you have to assume that if the Statue is on display somewhere you are overwhelmed by its beauty and cannot help yourself!

It's an interesting one though!

Velhart said:

Though perception of reality should really be suspended whilst playing Talisman, there are some things that people try to do which really spoil the spirit of the game because something isn't specifically fordbidden.

A case in point from older editions would be someone trying to put a Mule or Horse & Cart, which used to be Objects, into a Concealed Pouch along with everything they were carrying! I believe this was addressed in the later QnA that was printed.

Isn't there a golden rule about this?

talismanisland said:

Its good this has been fixed in 4e as well with Mules and Horses as followers.

I think that it is best that you MUST take the golden statue as Jon put it.

Hey Richie, sorry to see you've got someone who tried this trick. Saw it years ago in my 2nd days.

The Golden Statue is not magical, though it should've been for what it does. That would have clarified how it works long, long ago. And once again we have another card thrown in that wasn't adequately reviewed for undating.

It doesn't matter if it is in sight or not, concealed or not, it is automatically taken when you are defeated. It may not be labeled as Magical, but that's the only rational that works. And yes, ten years ago we "reasoned" it that way. No exceptions, whether it be carried, on a mule, in a cart... whatever. That was also in some very old FAQ I remember from 2nd edition.

And Jon, I don't agree.

Versimilitude (perception of reality or its likeness) should not be suspended during the game. What is the point of graphics, personas on the board and cards, overall motifs, etc. if they don't matter or shouldn't be recognized in part for what they represent? Yes, trying to interpret a sense of reality... excuse, verisimilitude... has its problems. Sometimes it offers power-mongers, megalomaniacs, and similar something to manipulate... but they do that anyways with the rules (and loopholes), like the one dealt with here. They will always do it.

Rules of thumb:

1. If the rules don't work, think it through reasonable, and rationally, and realistically... as far as the game allows
2. If verisimilitude gets exploited... and its obvious when it does... make another ruling, since you'd be doing that anyway for a loophole.
3. It won't be the first time, or the last time, and so long as you check the rules (and optionally the FAQs), do what seems reasonable and make you're own choices.
4. Either way, after enough times, if the power-monger cries foul and runs off to pout... problem solved.

Well, my point was that there are times during games of Talisman where the rules are at odds with "reality". As to the Golden Statue, I don't think it should have been made magical as the rules merely suggest that the character who has the chance to take the Statue will do so because of it's beauty and worth (read greed!). However, if the Statue was in a pouch, you would not be able to see it and would therefore not be in awe of it. Anyway, that's my take on the situation and anyone is free to make their own decision on it until a ruling is made.

Okay, I can see the awe factor; that's reasonable, but it doesn't address the loophole used by Richie's comrade. If awe is at stake, and the Statue is hidden (in that little pouch/pocket?), then Richie should have been able to wack that comrade for a LIfe, a gold, or another object... or so it seems. If the statue is hidden, then awe factor wouldn't distract him. Either way... another house rule is needed I guess.

Can vs. Cannot
In any instance where a card’s effect indicates that a character
cannot perform an action or use an ability (such as casting a
Spell or using an Object), the character cannot do so. In other
words, the forbidding effects of cards override other abilities
and effects. For example, if a card indicates that no Weapons
can be used when fighting a certain creature, the Warrior may
not use any Weapons, despite his ability that allows him to
use two Weapons at the same time.

Doesn't this fix the problem? I don't know all the writing on the cards, but doesn't the pouch say "can't"?