I recently had a game where one character drew three cards. They consisted of two strength enemies (encounter 2) and one craft enemy (encounter 3).

He then cast the invisibility spell allowing him to evade.

We were unsure if this applies to all enemies encountered during his turn which is what we did.

But I would like some clarity.

If encountering more than one enemy with the same encounter number, can you only evade one or all of them?

If you then encounter another enemy (i.e. a higer encounter number or landing on another space) on the same turn, would the spell still be in effect or must they be encountered?

Invisibility

Cast as required. You may evade any creature or character until the end of this turn.

"You may" means always that it's a decision by the character who cast the Spell.

He could evade any, all or none of the Enemies he encounters during the turn when he cast Invisibility.

Slightly off-topic, but remember that Immobility must be cast on a target before a player moves! I see lots of people use Immobility and Invisibility identically to evade creatures. If you want to evade the Sentinel, you have to cast Immobility on it at the start of your turn and hope you roll enough to move there! On the other hand, Invisibility can be cast at any time, even once the enemy is engaged.

That's wrong. De isn't doing it correctly yet!

Slightly off-topic, but remember that Immobility must be cast on a target before a player moves! I see lots of people use Immobility and Invisibility identically to evade creatures. If you want to evade the Sentinel, you have to cast Immobility on it at the start of your turn and hope you roll enough to move there! On the other hand, Invisibility can be cast at any time, even once the enemy is engaged.

That's a very old problem, caused by insufficient space on the card to accomodate explanations for different timings between casting the Spell on a character and on a creature. The Rulebook is puzzling in the example about crossing the Sentinel Bridge, where the Sorceress uses Immobility to evade the Sentinel in the middle of her movement action.

We can only hope that this will be clarified officially in the next FAQ, if it ever comes.

That's wrong. De isn't doing it correctly yet!

Well sir... I hate to burst your bubble, but I emailed FFG (more accurately my friend Evelyn did... there's three of us who email when rules problems come up, and she stumbled upon this one)... and the response was that the rulebook is wrong... the reply further clarified that Immobility is useful against faceup creatures but not newly drawn ones...

She emailed today and got a reply today! Very speedy (thank you FFG!)

"In this case the example is wrong (not the only example in the rulebook that is >.<). The Sorceress would have had to cast Immobilize before moving if she wanted to Evade past the Sentinel. This makes Immobilize useful against Enemies that are face up and creatures on cards and spaces, but could not be used against a new danger just drawn."

So I think the Digital Edition is actually correct here...

I'll never agree with that ruling! It was decided that the Spell wording from 2nd edition would be changed so that it didn't interrupt a players turn. Unfortunately there is not enough space on the 4th edition Spell to enter all the Spell information. If FFG are changing their mind on the matter then that's up to them, but their new idea makes the Spell nearly useless as you don't know if you will even land on an Enemy. I think the reply is in error.

I know... it's always an adjustment when transitioning between editions. Raiders were changed, Assassin, Monk, now this... all we can do is assume FFG is doing this because they are experienced game balancers and these changes are "supposed" to be for the better. But hey... perfect balance in Talisman? Really?? That's the beauty of board games! You can play however you want! I know Mr. Dam loves his classic Raiders!

Let's wait for an official statement to clarify this, a.k.a. FAQ.

We've been waiting for 5 years since that Rulebook was issued, we can wait some more.

On the topic at hand, I guess I'll have to disagree with Warlock's assessment of the Invisibility Spell. My reading is that the "any" means "one", not "all" so if you encounter multiple Enemies, you can evade one of them, have to fight the rest. What a difference a letter makes, if the card said "any creature s ", then I too would go with any and all.

That's an English Grammar issue, a subtlety that might confuse non-English people like me and you, Dam. Perhaps some English or American user could shed some light for us.

As far as I know, "any" doesn't mean neither "one" nor "all", it is referred to a quantity which you don't need to specify.

If the Spell doesn't specify the number of creatures and characters that can be evaded, then I assume that I can evade what I want.

I think any vs. all is ambiguous too... we have played both ways because we were unsure but most often Dam's way.

And yes I suppose we should for wait for a FAQ... I got the email so I'll play with more restrictive timing but Mr. Elliot (and Jon's) names appear in the Rulebook credits so they have special license to play however they want (Well just kidding... anyone does)