talismanamsilat said:

No, it isn't clear, and that's part of what's underlying here besides some of us needing to find the clarity beyond the words. This is a longstanding game of multiple editions, where the wording wasn't really changed until now, and it wasn't done right. I know clarity of wording; it's my business, my whole income. As stated before, in 2nd edition (and possibly 1st) the Village and City said

"You may visit one only of..."

In 3rd edition, the same clarity was kept, though the City was just a market and the Village lost its blacksmith. This is not the only example of ambiguous language in 4th (look at the Cave card for the same problem). The wording could've been so easily changed to

"You must visit one only of..." 

I'm not sure why this wasn't addressed along with other typos or missing text. It's ambiguous, regardless that we now understand what is intended. The only thing clear by the wording is that it implies (by "or") that you pick only one person to visit in those spaces.

JCHendee said:

No offense but I think you're reading way too much into this. The Forest, Chasm, and Crags do not say that you MUST roll a die, the Chapel does not say that an evil character MUST lose a life, the Deserts do not say that you MUST lose a life, and even the other board spaces do not say that you MUST draw a card. Yet it would appear that  most players automatically assume that you must do what the space instructs because that is how it is explained in the rule book.

The village says visit the blacksmith, healer, or mystic. So you must visit one of them of your choice. Unless I missed something, what is so hard to understand about that wording?

Losing something automatically or making one roll on a square that has always been manditory is not the same as making choices on spaces previously optional. 

I see your point in part; I don't see why wording in previous editions wasn't paid attention to. The better clarity for a change was obvious, especially since they went back to 2nd in moving forward to 4th. Someone wasn't paying attention in pre-production oversight. I and my group are not the only ones (on the forums and elsewhere) who've been hesitant and had to seek clarity beyond the game.

I sincerely hope that FFG moves forward with more expansions; I also hope more attention is paid to details, so that errata, corrections, and explanations, like we are often dealing with here, are less necessary.

And specifically for the wording, a mandatory visit is implied not stated on those squares. Any writer knows that in transmitting meaning, statement overpowers implication, a difference between stated meaning and implied meaning. One is wholly clear; the other is not (and can be used to advantage for its lack of clarity). That is how language works in portraying meaning. 

I was emailing with some high school students of a teacher friend of mine. I suggested the game to him for a genre fandom club among his students.  They were a little overwhelmed, as was he as a first time player. Guess what was among the first three questions they emailed me? An adult and a group of late teens weren't certain; some guessed it was mandatory, and that's as far as they got.

I want to add one more thing: translation of the foreign versions of the game makes it more complicated, unfortunately. You are the only source for now, where I try to find solutions to many problems with the rules. Anyway, thanks for helping.

JCHendee said:

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I just think that some of this confusion is based on players expecting the new edition to work exactly like the old versions.

Page 10 of the rules book states that "Characters must follow the instructions on the space if their player chooses to encounter the space instead of encountering another character."

Okay, so the rules say that when you encounter a space you have to follow the instructions on the space. With me so far? The village says "Visit the Blacksmith, Healer, or Mystic. Therefore you must visit one of those encounters at the village.

Since the rule book clearly states in black and white that players "characters must follow the instructions on the space" I do not see any need to reiterate the rule by adding"You Must" on every single board space in the entire game. Otherwise you would also have to add "You Must" to every adventure card too, as well as every spell card in the game. Authors get paid by the word so maybe this option is preferable to them but personally I think it would clutter up the game with unnecessary redundancies.

Our current group has only played 4E (from BI) and have always understood that you MUST do something in village/city. It's clearly stated in the rules.

Carrion Prince said:

And again... I see your point... so I guess we differ in that new players shouldn't have to run to the rule book since previous editions made things easily plain without doing so. There was a reason it was that way, and changing it produced some problems, as evidenced. And we've definitely beat this issue to death now.

Well said. Thread finished me thinks;-)