Reflecting Aquisition/Mesmerism

[Excommunicatus]

Quick question for you rules gurus out there.

If you cast Reflection on an incoming Aquisition or Mesmerism, shouldn't that effectively give you those spells cast back at the original caster, allowing you to take one of *their* items or followers instead? Currently in DE, when I do this the Reflection acts more like a Counterspell - it stops the theft, but doesn't let me cast the spell back at the other character like one would expect.

When you reflect a Random (for example), the game not only reverses the effect and casts the spell back at your attacker as described, but even supports the idea graphically by flipping the character cards around and depicting it as you being the new caster of the spell. Shouldn't this be how it works with Aquisition/Mesmerism? Or are some spells just treated as different from others in terms of reflectability (and if so, anyone know why?) Or... is this just a bug?

I'd understand it just countering but not reflecting if the original caster didn't have any items or followers, as applicable, since then they wouldn't really be a legal target for the cast. But when they are a valid target, shouldn't Reflection... y'know, Reflect, and do back to others what they tried to do unto you?

I don't have the card up in front of me right now (I'd just cast it to reflect an aquisition, which has brought up this question) so I can't carefully re-read the text on the card, and searching the net for Talisman card text has come up dry. One more reason it'd be great if someone started up a wiki for this game - could be of great benefit.

[Artaterxes]

The creative content developer at FFG and the author of the upcoming FAQ says that if you can take an item or follower, you may. If not, then Reflect acts like Counterspell.

I am working with another fan on compiling the nuances of spell rules, so if you are reading this, friend, that is what is apparently going in the FAQ.

[Excommunicatus]

Excellent, thanks for the reply. That's how I'd expect it to work.

So, I'll assume then that since Reflection on Aquisition and Mesmerism currently *only* acts as a Counterspell even if the caster has an appropriate card on them, that it's a bug (or at least improperly implemented).

[Artaterxes]

Yes you are right, but in their defense the clarifications haven't been publicized yet. :)

[Excommunicatus]

Just goes to show that what seems completely intuitive to one may not to another.

Related, I just saw an AI use Gust of Wind on another AI, who then Reflected it - and it worked just like Random does, so it looks like it's probably just Aquisition and Mesmerism not properly reflecting right now.

[ToothlessNightFury]

If that's going in the FAQ it's completely wrong. If you Reflect Acquisition or Mesmerism, it just turns the Spell back onto the caster (acting like a Counterspell). It does not make the Spell go in reverse and effect the other player instead.

[ToothlessNightFury]

I think you need to speak to the creative guy again my friend!

[Artaterxes]

Haha, see what I mean? :) I'll try to get it sorted...

[Excommunicatus]

Okay, at least I think I now understand the reasoning behind interpretations that they'd just act like a Counterspell, as well as understanding why I (and I think a lot of players) would rightly or wrongly expect it to reverse the effects as if the target became the caster.

Character A is the caster of Mesmerism, trying to steal a follower from Character B. B casts Reflection.

If it's supposed to just act like a Counterspell in this case, the interpretation is that Reflection simply redirects the target of the spell back to the original caster, thus Character A (original caster) is now targeting himself, stealing his own follower, so no change in management occurs, follower-wise. To an outside observer, it would appear that the theft merely failed.

The other interpretation (actual spell reversal) comes from the interpretation that everything turns backwards, so "you steal from me" inverts to "I steal from you". I think the other examples of Random and Gust of Wind doing just that, especially the way it's represented graphically on-screen with the character cards switching places (showing Character B as the new caster of those spells), supports that view whether it's correct or incorrect. So I see how that interpretation comes about. Indeed though, Random and Gust of Wind actually hitting the caster for the spell effect also adheres to the first version above (of simply redirecting the target of the spell), making Char A just Random himself.

I think my own expectations of how they'd work with Reflection was colored by the game's graphic depiction. A better lay-description of Reflection is probably "think of it as throwing up a magical mirror - what the guy chucks at you bounces back to affect him", but it doesn't make you the new originator of the spell.

So, rules gurus - do I have it straight now?

[ToothlessNightFury]

Jon, what's your take on this?

[Tist]

Possibly the shatter spell to break an item might fall into the same category of "reflected" spells vs "cancelled" spells

[Excommunicatus]

I just had an AI's Reflection spell cast at my own Alchemy spell, and it worked like Counterspell.

I'm sorry, but I think this is too far. Reflection seems far too undefined if it doesn't require a target set of circumstances, like the card says, where a spell targeting another character is turned back on the caster. The target of Alchemy is your own item - how is it that someone else can "reflect" that, and make it so your spell just fails, and the item isn't 'alchemized'? I'd think Reflection should fail under a kind of Invalid Target error - a real Counterspell should be the spell required to do this job.

As mentioned above, I thought the whole rationale behind why Reflection wouldn't reverse the stealing component of Aquisition/Mesmerism is because what Reflection *really* does is alter the target of the spell to be the original caster, not reverse the intended effects of the spell, nor just flat-out counter a cast (there's already a different spell that does that - that's what Counterspell is for).

I see how a theft-spell changing the target to the caster *looks* like a Counterspell when Reflection is cast - the original caster is now stealing his own item/follower, so nothing changes hands. But it's not really cancelling (countering) the theft spell - the original caster still casts Mesmerism, it still fires, he just steals one of his *own* followers. A Counterspell would be the thing that actually prevents the cast. Different spells with different effects that only *look* similar in the specific case of Aquisition/Mesmerism.

What I don't see is how Reflection of Alchemy can change the target (the item being alchemized) to the caster. That just seems like it should be a totally invalid application, since characters can't be converted to gold by alchemists. Invalid Target Error, and the spell (Reflection) shouldn't be castable in that situation.

Here's the way I see it; it's like how you can't use Aquisition to steal a follower - it's an invalid target for that spell, and there's another spell that does that job. If you want to steal a follower, you have to use Mesmerism, not any generic kind of spell that steals *something*. If you want to just counter a spell that's being cast without there being a character target to have effects reflected from, you have to use Counterspell, not Reflection - there's a different spell that specifically does the job you want done.

Does that make sense?

[Artaterxes]

I get what you're saying, but Reflection is supposed to be a super-Counterspell. If the original caster can be affected, great. If not, the spell is still countered.

I used to think like you but then I got it clarified by the higher ups.

[Excommunicatus]

Well, hmph.

If I made Talisman I wouldn't have it work that way. But since I didn't make Talisman... there you have it. So be it.

[ToothlessNightFury]

Alchemy targets your Objects not your character. Therefore Reflection would negate the Alchemy Spell just like a Counterspell would do. If, however, you cast a Spell which directly affects your character, it cannot be Reflected as it targets your character already.