Vampiress & Followers

[Vampiress & Followers]

If she steals a character's follower after landing on him, can she still engage that character as usual?

[Priest at the Crags]

"You may choose to automatically destroy ANY Spirits without resorting to psychic combat." -- Priest Special Ability

On its own, this should speak for itself, and settle the matter; the Priest CAN destroy the Crags Spirit without resorting to the dice.

Opponents of this ruling may argue, however, that the continuation of this text implies ambiguity for their case against his being ableto do it: "When you destroy a Spirit [unqualified] in this manner, you may not keep the Enemy [qualified] as a trophy but you may gain one spell."

Assuming my first ruling allows for the Special Ability to circumvent the dice battle (and win it outright, which I strongly suggest), it is still literally true, per the Priest's Special Ability requirement, that "a Spirit" has been destroyed "in this manner", and notwithstanding the apparent redundancy of disallowing the trophy acquisition (which of itself does not rule anything out, but merely reiterates that no trophy may be acquired), the Priest should be allowed to take a Spell, craft limit permitting.

Not to mention, of course, that there is already a Crags Spirit Adventure Card which would allow him as usual to utilize this ability; a Crags Spirit is a Crags Spirit. If the Flavour Text doesn't differentiate them, why should the game mechanics? (Which I still contend do not anyway.)

[Imp + Cursed by a Hag]

I have always played cautiously enough that, when leaving multiple cards with identical ENs on a space for the first time, they are "collated" to indicate the ORIGINAL order drawn. The topmost should be the first encounterable, etc.

[Night in the dungeon?]

I see no problem with anything, from Blood Moon night effects to Blizzards, or anything in between, occurring in the Dungeon.

If you are willing enough to suspend disbelief in playing a fantasy game that involves magic and spells, etc., but still require some logic to it that would depend on "no blizzards in a dungeon"-type reasoning, then you probably shouldn't be playing this game in the first place.

Anti-"blizzard in dungeon" advocates surely wouldn't contest a hypothetical spell card enabling its caster to affect other characters with a magical "indoor" blizzard--especially if it worked to their advantage. So why the protestations that one develops potentially against them?

IMO Anything in the game that can be REASONABLY* rationalized through the mere existence of magic at all in the world of Talisman is a fair explanation, so there.

*[relative term]

[The City Movement Question]

I have seen something like this happen to me; one time an effect blew something INTO a shop on its last "clockwise" move, from Town Square right into the Soothsayer.