Jump to content



Photo

Missed turn, are they cumulative?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Kilazar

Kilazar

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 02:31 PM

Previous player drew the marsh, and misses his next turn cause his str is less than 5.

 

Next player draws the storm..

 

Does the first player now miss 2 turns or 1 turn?

 

 

 



#2 DomaGB

DomaGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 519 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:37 PM

LoL, this is funny. Yesterday we played a game, and there was a question I was gonna ask afterwards and it was this one, but I had completely forgotten it!

 

I had lost a turn, don't remember why, then someone on their turn drew a card and everyone lost a turn. I had yet to lose my 1st turn when this happened, so I wondered if lost turns would "stack". I didn't think so, my friend believed they did. As I wasn't a rule mongerer, I decided to lose 2 turns and ask later. And so here we are.


RoboRally, then Talisman. That's the way it is... ;)


#3 DomaGB

DomaGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 519 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:40 PM

It looks like this has been briefly discussed earlier, as I hadn't looked it up, but here it is:

http://community.fan...the-same-round/

 

I would like to hear more input.
 


RoboRally, then Talisman. That's the way it is... ;)


#4 Rigmaster

Rigmaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:51 PM

I'm quite sure they do stack, but I can't remember where I read that. 



#5 The_Warlock

The_Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,745 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 10:12 AM

There are several good reasons why they should stack (check the thread quoted by DomaGB), but the rules about re-Toading when already a Toad give a completely different picture (Base Rulebook, page 16):

 

If a character is already a Toad and is turned into a Toad again (for example, as a result of the Random Spell), the character remains a Toad for three more turns starting from the second transformation.

 

Turns as a Toad don't stack. Do missed turns stack? By analogy with turns as a Toad, NO; by commonsense, YES. The current FAQ seems to enforce the positive answer (Chivalric Knight, page 10):

 

Q: If the Chivalric Knight aids two characters during the same round, does he must miss 2 turns or only 1 turn?
A: 2 turns.

 

This is all the officiality we have for now, but I still hope FFG will provide a rule clarification instead of many spot answers.


  • DomaGB likes this

#6 Alfax

Alfax

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:36 PM

I look at it this way. If it says "miss your next turn" .... If we have 3 people playing, we'll call them A, B and C and I'm C my next turn comes after player B. I am going to miss my next turn so the order becomes A > B > A > B > C and my new next comes after B has gone twice but then something happens to make me miss my next turn again so the order becomes A > B > A > B > A > B > C so every time I have to miss my next turn it would stack but if it just says I must "miss A turn", regardless of how many effects I have that say "miss A turn" the requirement for all of them is satisfied when I miss A turn.



#7 DomaGB

DomaGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 519 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 06:20 PM

One may think there is a difference between miss your next turn and miss a turn, but the longer I look at it, they seem the same for me. Or they make the same equivalent. A + A should equal B not another A. But that is if one believes in stacking at all. The Warlock has 2 great arguments for both. Its a toss up for me. But it doesn't bother me either way.

I would like more opinions and discussion for fun tho...

RoboRally, then Talisman. That's the way it is... ;)


#8 Alfax

Alfax

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 09:23 PM

There is a difference between A turn and Next turn.
If 5 different people say they will give you 100 dollars to stack 50 pieces of wood. You would stack 50 pieces of wood and  collect one hundred dollars from each person and have 500 dollars.

 

if 1 person says they will give you 100 dollars if you stack 50 pieces of wood and then another person says they will give you 100 dollars for another stack and another person for another stack then you have to stack 250 pieces of wood for the same 500 dollars.

 

Not the best analogy but it does show there's difference. I realize it's perhaps arguing semantics but that is almost always the case with Talisman rules.



#9 talismanamsilat

talismanamsilat

    Talisman Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,344 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 12:14 AM

Cards and abilities stack therefore missed turn effects stack. Toadying are different because it is a specific rule in the Rulebook.

#10 The_Warlock

The_Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,745 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 12:14 AM

There is a difference between A turn and Next turn.
If 5 different people say they will give you 100 dollars to stack 50 pieces of wood. You would stack 50 pieces of wood and  collect one hundred dollars from each person and have 500 dollars.

 

if 1 person says they will give you 100 dollars if you stack 50 pieces of wood and then another person says they will give you 100 dollars for another stack and another person for another stack then you have to stack 250 pieces of wood for the same 500 dollars.

 

Not the best analogy but it does show there's difference. I realize it's perhaps arguing semantics but that is almost always the case with Talisman rules.

 

You're right, somehow.

 

There IS an effect that says "miss your next turn", trying to convey that you shall not follow the same procedure described in the rules for "Losing a Turn", but you shall end your turn normally and miss your next turn instead.

 

The wording didn't help very much, as people kept asking if they shall handle it as per rulebook or if it is a different concept. This comes from the FAQ, page 10:

 

Q: If the Highlander charges into battle, does his turn end if he wins the battle?
A: No. When the Highlander charges, he continues his turn normally and then must miss his next turn.

 

But the truth is that there's no actual difference between the two wordings, except in the Highlander's case.

 

You can get a good example if you compare the Siren and the Storm Events from the base game. Siren says "miss their next turn" and Storm says "miss 1 turn". Shall they be treated differently? Of course not, since they are Events encountered before everything else, so they're are meant to end your turn immediately if you are supposed to encounter other cards, otherwise miss your next turn. What's the purpose of different wordings, then? No purpose, Siren was strongly reworded in Revised 4th edition, while Storm kept its 2nd and BI 4th edition text besides some small adaptations.

 

There are dozens of cards that use "miss 1 turn" just because it's shorter, but in Revised 4th edition "miss your next turn" has become more popular for some unknown reason. Since the Rulebook has a chapter about "Losing a Turn", it would have been shorter and easier to always write "lose 1 turn" instead of many fancy wordings (lose 1 turn, miss 1 turn, lose/miss your next turn, lost for 1 turn, etc...) that only create ambiguity. The Highlander FAQ was required because they pretended to introduce an effect which differs from standard using standard wording. They should have added a line of explanation, since the Character card had plenty of room available.


Edited by The_Warlock, 15 July 2014 - 12:16 AM.

  • Alfax likes this

#11 Kilazar

Kilazar

    Member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:19 AM

I happen to think there is a very big implied difference in miss A turn, and miss your next turn. From a literal rules stand point.

 

If you treat them as "triggers" based on "events" then they could work like the following.

 

Think of a player turn as an "event" for this scenario. You pull "miss your next turn" putting this "trigger" on the "stack" waiting for an event to satisfy it's condition. The next player in the chain pulls a card that makes you "miss a turn" putting another trigger on the stack waiting for the event "Your turn". Now here is where it gets tricky. It now becomes your turn, the event "Your turn" is now active or "on the stack", do the triggers resolve one at a time? If so what trigger gets priority, Can multiple triggers resolve against the same event? Can the "your turn" event have multiple triggers resolved against it? Does "miss your next turn" fire off before or after "Miss a turn". If "miss your next turn" fires off, does that also satisfy the condition of "miss a turn" since you are missing a turn?

 

Can items be resolved in a stack format? It seems FFG hates to have instant speed kind of things and prefers to stay away from any kind of an event stack. So what is the mechanic in Talisman that keeps us from "stacking". The answer to that may solidify which way this argument goes. As right now it seems like it is 50/50.

 

I'm not sure I have everything in order, but I think anyone who knows how to work with a stack will understand what I am trying to get at.



#12 DomaGB

DomaGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 519 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:23 PM

Yeah I think the next turn would be both triggers, that's why I think in essence they are the same. However, I am abiding by the majority's voice, as well as my friend who agrees, that lost turns do stack.

RoboRally, then Talisman. That's the way it is... ;)


#13 Rigmaster

Rigmaster

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 17 July 2014 - 03:01 AM

I've always played that lost turns do stack. But on the other hand we have been discussing from time to time the different wordings, as Talisman is in the front line when it comes to make huge difference with small wording changes. We usually end up agreeing that when you've to "miss your next turn" you've to miss your next turn and not just the end of your current turn. What we usually discuss is wheter or not missing your next turn means that your current turn is lost as well and not as in the highlanders case where you may finish it.

 

So if you get to effects making you "miss your next turn" then we're not always agreed that they stack and it usually depends on where we are in the game how we rule it. But, on the other hand, if at least one of the effects is "miss 1 turn" they always stack.

 

Does this make any sense..? Or am I just making it even more confusing..? :)



#14 GrimGuvna

GrimGuvna

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 18 July 2014 - 06:20 AM

I beleive there is a difference between "miss 1 turn" and "miss your next turn"

 

Miss 1 turn effects tend to be timed environmental effects that last a specific amount of time such as the storm.

 

If you are already due to miss a turn due to say drawing the siren and then someone draws the Storm then the storm wont last 1 turn longer just for you and not the others.  In essence you are standing in the storm entranced by the Siren.  The effects happen at the same time but wont stack.

 

I do believe that miss your next turn worded effects will stack though.

 

Wording is very specific in talisman and I believe the designer took that into account but it just hasn't been explained fully.


  • DomaGB and Alfax like this

#15 Alfax

Alfax

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 18 July 2014 - 08:00 PM

I beleive there is a difference between "miss 1 turn" and "miss your next turn"
 
Miss 1 turn effects tend to be timed environmental effects that last a specific amount of time such as the storm.
 
If you are already due to miss a turn due to say drawing the siren and then someone draws the Storm then the storm wont last 1 turn longer just for you and not the others.  In essence you are standing in the storm entranced by the Siren.  The effects happen at the same time but wont stack.
 
I do believe that miss your next turn worded effects will stack though.
 
Wording is very specific in talisman and I believe the designer took that into account but it just hasn't been explained fully.


This is what I was trying to say. There are some missed turns that will stack and others that will occur simultaneously depending on circumstances



#16 Artaterxes

Artaterxes

    Member

  • Members
  • 331 posts

Posted 18 July 2014 - 10:30 PM

I'm with The Warlock and Elliott. I don't think wording matters here.
Digital Edition treats Storm and Siren identically.

#17 DomaGB

DomaGB

    Member

  • Members
  • 519 posts

Posted 18 July 2014 - 11:05 PM

And how does the DE treat them? besides identically...


RoboRally, then Talisman. That's the way it is... ;)


#18 The_Warlock

The_Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,745 posts

Posted 19 July 2014 - 03:55 AM

I don't care what the DE does. It's not the board game and its behaviour can just be the result of automated computing logic, bugs, oversights or choices made by programmers who are not board game designers.

 

You're free to discuss as much as you want, but there's only one rule about missed turns in Talisman. If you feel that two words should make up for a completely different rule when it comes to stacking missed turns (if they do stack, after all), then be my guests. There are so many other little inconsistencies in Talisman wordings that we may discuss them eternally, instead of playing the game.

 

Examples:

 

The unexisting difference between "add/subtract to attack roll" and "add/subtract to attack score".

 

Base game Cave: lost for 1 turn; Highland Cave: Lose your next turn

 

"After rolling the die when praying, you may add up to 2 to the score." and it's applicability to the Temple and High Temple.

 

The Shrine 6 result saying "Teleport to any space in this Region"

 

Concealed Pouch: Neither the Pouch nor the Object on this card counts towards your Object limit;

Dervish: One Weapon you are carrying does not count towards your carrying capacity

 

Forest: 4-5) Safe

Crags: 4-5) Safe; no effect

 

There are many others, if you care for this kind of discussion.

 

I usually set up these semantic disputes saying that not always the developers can keep consistent wordings between game components, and that slightly different wordings are not meant to say completely different things. I'm ready to stand corrected whenever an official clarification is given, but I expect FFG to be consistent in their answers and to seek clarity, uniformity and simplified gameplay. I hate exceptions and spot answers that we have to remember during play.


  • Nioreh likes this

#19 Nioreh

Nioreh

    Member

  • Members
  • 178 posts

Posted 19 July 2014 - 09:03 AM

I don't care what the DE does. It's not the board game and its behaviour can just be the result of automated computing logic, bugs, oversights or choices made by programmers who are not board game designers.

 

You're free to discuss as much as you want, but there's only one rule about missed turns in Talisman. If you feel that two words should make up for a completely different rule when it comes to stacking missed turns (if they do stack, after all), then be my guests. There are so many other little inconsistencies in Talisman wordings that we may discuss them eternally, instead of playing the game.

 

Examples:

 

The unexisting difference between "add/subtract to attack roll" and "add/subtract to attack score".

 

Base game Cave: lost for 1 turn; Highland Cave: Lose your next turn

 

"After rolling the die when praying, you may add up to 2 to the score." and it's applicability to the Temple and High Temple.

 

The Shrine 6 result saying "Teleport to any space in this Region"

 

Concealed Pouch: Neither the Pouch nor the Object on this card counts towards your Object limit;

Dervish: One Weapon you are carrying does not count towards your carrying capacity

 

Forest: 4-5) Safe

Crags: 4-5) Safe; no effect

 

There are many others, if you care for this kind of discussion.

 

I usually set up these semantic disputes saying that not always the developers can keep consistent wordings between game components, and that slightly different wordings are not meant to say completely different things. I'm ready to stand corrected whenever an official clarification is given, but I expect FFG to be consistent in their answers and to seek clarity, uniformity and simplified gameplay. I hate exceptions and spot answers that we have to remember during play.

 

I so agree with this, well written.

 

I find inconsistent wordings rather annoying, "the die when praying" in particular since the opposite is ruled regarding singular/plural in movement effects (the Riding horse can't be combined with the Clockwork Owl if I'm not mistaken).

 

But regarding the many variations of "lose your next turn" vs "miss 1 turn" etc we've just accepted that this is one of the many instances where the developers have not been consistent. My guess is that they as well are somewhat annoyed by this and maybe wish they had been absolutely consistent. 

I also agree with that DE should not be considered to always be right in rule questions. Just like The Warlock said "computing logic, bugs, oversights or choices made by programmers who are not board game designers".

However I do believe that "add/subtract to attack roll" and "add/subtract to attack score" is something that should be kept an eye on. Right now I can't think of any combination/effect were it would currently matter, maybe one of you can or maybe well see it in future expansions. The Wrathborn Witch is as close as I'll get at this moment, if something would effect her attack roll it could deduct/add her extra die while something meddling with her attack score, like The Blood Moon Time Card, would not.  :)



#20 Artaterxes

Artaterxes

    Member

  • Members
  • 331 posts

Posted 19 July 2014 - 09:33 AM

Yeah sorry the I didn't mean the DE should be taken as the best source.
But I meant as an aside it illustrates the warlock's point because it works like he described so you can see the effects by playing it.




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS