Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kilazar

Missed turn, are they cumulative?

23 posts in this topic

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?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Alfax likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

No problem Artaterxes, I understood your intenstions.

It's only that I don't take DE as a reliable source to support what we discuss here. If it resolves game situations the opposite way that we all use to do, I wouldn't mind it the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that there is no simple answer to the question since the reasons for missing the next turn could vary. For example, if the Chivalric Knight went to aid someone and the next player drew the Storm, the Chivalric Knight would first miss a turn for the Storm and would then miss his next turn as well since the Storm interfered with his chance to have a turn to miss. 

 

However, if a character was missing turns due to a card or effect that states "miss the next turn or turns," then the missed turns would not stack.

 

Really, though, as fun as semantic games are, it is ultimately up to the playing group to decide how to enforce the rule for the fun and good of the group. If it was at a gaming convention tourney, the game judge would have to make that call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if a character was missing turns due to a card or effect that states "miss the next turn or turns," then the missed turns would not stack.

 

Unfortunately the Chivalric Knight says "miss your next turn" and the FAQ says that turns missed this way should stack.

 

You're right, there's no simple answer here. I just think it requires a rule clarification more than many other topics of lesser importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0