Hi,

This situation occured last night.

• Player A: Spellcycler with 2 spells & Scribe follower.
• Player B: Spellcycler with Spell Recall spell.

So Player A cast a spell, immediately player B cast Spell Recall to pick up that spell but Player A then used Scribe to take back the initial spell and discard another spell from his hand.

Now an argument started about how to play this. Player B argues that his Spell Recall works to pick up the initial spell, but Player A argues that Spell Recall would allow player B to pick up the discarded spell from the Scribe.

How do we play this by the rules.

Regards

Allawi

allawi said:

Thanks for pointing this out. It's not an easy situation.

Player B can assume he may use Spell Call if he played it right after Player A cast his Spell. Since Player B declared his action first, he can take the Spell INSTEAD of placing it on the discard pile. The Scribe can't retroactively change this, because he puts another Spell on the discard pile instead of the original one and this has no impact on the Spell Call, because it acts on the cast Spell, not on the Spell which goes to the discard pile.The Scribe can't be used at all if Spell Call is cast first.

What bothers me is the other case: if Player A says he wants to use the Scribe to discard another Spell, Player B might think he's able to take the original Spell in any case, because it acts on a Spell just cast. The only counterargument I can find is that Spell Call should be cast on a Spell JUST CAST; if any effect is triggered after casting, the correct timing for Spell Call is lost and the Spell cannot be used anymore.

Basically, it's a situation where "who yells first, wins".

I would say that spell call takes precedence; after all, the spell was just cast, while the other spell was only discarded. In fact, I would say that the player who used spell call would get the spell that was just cast, but the player who used the Scribe would still have to discard a spell. After all, the scribe is more than powerful enough as is, and this would be one of the few ways to stop the broken combos that she enables.

Thanks for the answers guys!

best regards

We removed the Scribe follower as we felt it is too powerful, first game we played the sprite got this card right at the start and one of his spells was Temporal Warp so he then started playing by himself since we couldn't play anymore.

He lost his spells because of the Magical Vortex but by that time he was already too powerful.

This happened to our game last week. The Scribe being played with a spell book and a acquisition sell so it was not possible for me to have any items including a talisman needed to win the game....

I cant decide if im going to take the card out or house rule that the scribe discards after being used, which i think was how she should have been designed in the first place....

Blame the developers, they should have known it would be too strong!

Warlock + Temporal Warp + Scribe = Solo game?

Warlock + Temporal Warp + Scribe = Solo game?

Once per round can't do other players have not missed any turns or had turns. Temporal Warp just gives you 3 turns it doesn't give you 3 rounds.

Yep just read the cards myself Spell Call trumps Scribe, Spell Call is casted straight after a spell is cast once cast Spell Calls effects cannot change unless countered. So Spell Call is much like a counter but does not counter the spell.

So there you go a counter for the Scribe .

Obviously 'intent' has a lot to do with how factors are handled in the game.

My wife and I are not incredibly competitive in this manner (but ask me about the last one over last weekend; I did demolish her!) but both of us have had the Scribe and used reasonably well, without making play too annoying for each other.

With that, I agree that the Spell Call or any other such factor would temper the Scribe's ability.

My personal reason for not wanting to remove any components because of overpowering, is because there are always factors that can mix it up. The Randomness if you will.

And I think Doma said it, that there are cards that have not been played/discovered, because we too use the full shebang set with the 500 or more Adventure cards. Each game, anything can happen.

In all our games (we're not playing as often as most seem to), the Scribe has only been a follower to us, a total of 3 or 4 times.

Also, we completely cycle through the characters, so characters like the Alchemist, also deemed a game-breaker, only happens once in whatever amount of games it would take for the two of us to go through all characters.

So there are ways to temper effects, per that idea or perhaps other things.

I don't think its has anything to do with 'intent'. Its a timing issue, unless you mean its the intent of the designers and even then I think its more than the designers 'intent' I think its the way Talisman is played.. Plain and simple.. Intent leaves dought I don't see any dought..

i will have to disagree.. i do agree that its a meter of timing.

spell call: " Cast immediately after any character casts a spell. Instead of placing the spell on the discard pile, you may take it."

scribe: " If you have 2 or more spells , you may keep a spell after you cast it and discard 1 of your other spells in its place.

You can only do this once per round"

both of them take place at the same time.

page 3 of the FAQ

Simultaneous Effects

so the player that in turn chooses which happens first. in a case that both of them are casting out of their turn i think that first comes first served

All comes down to the word "Triggered" is a spell cast be a player triggered? Or is it chosen and resolves when played. Effects like hex are triggered "when" a play lands on its space it is cast on. Thats triggered its a effect that happens when something else happens not when its chosen or timed. Thus you need a rule on how these effects are triggered and in what order.

We all agree that a spell causes a effect and other cards also cause effects so its just down to when and where and how? Personally triggered means effects that happen outside the normal playing or casting rules to me. Otherwise it wouldn't use the word triggered in the rules if it was just every effect that happens together.

If the Druid lands on a Woods space with the Hex Spell and another character, the Druid may gain his full complement of Spells and then decide to encounter the space or the character in the space. If he decides to encounter the space, he immediately loses a life due to the Hex Spell. Otherwise he encounters the other character instead. If there was no other character on the Woods space when the Druid landed there, he could still gain his full complement of Spells BEFORE losing a life to the Hex Spell if he so chooses...

If the Druid lands on a Woods space with the Hex Spell and another character, the Druid may gain his full complement of Spells and then decide to encounter the space or the character in the space. If he decides to encounter the space, he immediately loses a life due to the Hex Spell. Otherwise he encounters the other character instead..

Excuse me, but the Hex is a "land on" effect, so it triggers as soon as a character ends his movement on a space (=lands on it). This is the same timing of the Druid's ability to gain his full complement of Spells. It cannot be avoided by encountering a character instead of the space.

If this wasn't true, then probably I've been wrong all the time, but it's what I read in the rulebook about the wording "land on".

Back on topic,I agree with Uvatha about the word "triggered". When things happen at the same time, in response to the same action or condition, there's need for a rule like "Simultaneous Effects" to discipline the order in which the effects are resolved; Spells are voluntary actions and cannot be simultaneous in any way.

Using Simultaneous Effects to resolve Spell stacks has no sense in Talisman, I've explained it a lot of times but I have the impression I'm talking to myself. I'm only trying to figure out a way to handle this in absence of detailed rules.

First of all, Spells do not stack. If a character casts a Spell and another one follows with Spell Call, nothing is simultaneous. The original Spell comes first and Spell Call second, so the Spell Call is resolved immediately after the original Spell. Having played Spell Call, the first Spell doesn't go on the discard pile but it is taken by the Spell Call caster instead.

Technically, a Spell shouldn't go to the discard pile until resolved, so a character cannot declare he is discarding another Spell with the Scribe until this happens; having Spell Call played in the meantime negates this option to the character with the Scribe.

The problem is that in a real game of Talisman players tend to cast a Spell and immediately discard another Spell in its place, even before resolving the Spell. Such haste makes everything more confused than it really is and gives the feel of Simultaneous Effects where they do not exist.

Oops. Will reword my earlier answer!