We were faced with the following scenario:

My character with an alchemist follower and a mule is carrying his maximum of eight items, and is being pursued by two other characters. During an opponents turn, he casts mesmerize on me, and chooses to steal the mule. This means I am now carrying four more items than I am allowed, and must therefore leave four items on the space I am on. Rather than doing this, I instead choose to turn four items into gold using the alchemist follower, in order to deny the other players my loot.

This started an argument, since they say I can only use the alchemist skill on stuff in my possession. I argued that it is not until I move away from the square, leaving the four items, that they leave my possession. I also point out that the fact that I get to choose which four object I leave, rather than them being drawn from my hand at random, shows that until I have made that choice, they are clearly in my possession, and as such available for the alchemist to turn into gold.

They argue that the taking of the mule means the stuff on it immediately drops on the floor, and since I cannot encounter the space without landing on it again, I cannot turn it into gold.

Who's right?

Ditching stuff as a result of losing a carrier happens when you lose the carrier, not when your turn next comes around, however, I would allow use of Alchemist Follower when your opponent declares he is casting Mesmerism, prior to it taking effect.

Dam said:

I wouldn't even allow that, as soon as he has announced that he is casting a spell I would allow him to resolve that spell unless someone casts counterspell etc.

I agree with Nioreh, I don't think you can use cards to interrupt what someone else does (unless a card allows that). There's no last in first out type stack. I believe everything is resolved in isolation. So Mesmerism would be cast, you'd lose your Mule and would then have to ditch four objects before any other cards could be used.

Except in your example the Mesmerism Spell wasn't cast following the text on the Spell card and therefore it was an illegal casting!

Ell.

Urabutbl said:

If the other player cast mesmerism, then you must wait until the spell has been cast.

If you must ditch the objects, because you lose your mule, then you should be able to use the alchemist on your objects, that the character carries himself. In this manner, you can create some room to get the objects that the mule has been carried. Otherwise, you must ditch those objects.

If a character loses a Mule to Mesmerism (or the Vampiress loses her Followers to the Hag), then the surplus Objects must IMMEDIATELY be ditched on the space. This is the effect of losing the Mule. A character cannot use the Alchemist before choosing which Objects to ditch nor can the Vampiress drain the lifeforce from her Followers before the Hag forces them to be discarded.

Ell.

It's always been my understanding in Talisman that there are no interrupts at all. So you can't do something in response to another player doing anything. Is this correct?

EvilEdwin said:

In regard to the example here:

The effect of losing the Mule is stated on the card. The forbidding effect of the card forces a character to ditch his surplus Objects. Therefore a character cannot use the Alchemist to turn the surplus Objects into gold (Can vs. Cannot rule).

Ell.

talismanamsilat said:

Damn Mule Read Tape :).

I like the old 2ed wording anything on the mule/porter/horse and cart/bag of carrying ect, goes with the stolen/lost dead, mule/porter/horse and cart, bag of carrying ect.