this reinforces the fact that it doesnt really do what it says. certain enchantments are placed on a creature. and the stags ability disables them. I dont interpret the wording to state that,

imo, should be cleaned up.

ill take another stab at it.

"At the end of every action; enchantments in this sliver stagg's tile and adjacent tiles have no effect."

or.... keep it as is and add another sentence "Enchantments have no effect on Sliver Stagg."

What if a silver stagg dies next to a trained creature with less than 4 health or a iron gated building with less than 8 health? Is it the order of coming into play, (was the stagg cast before the other figure or vice versa), that determines whether the building / trainee survives, or does it get destroyed either way? I've had this happen 2 times and on both they got destroyed.

If we're talking about a hex map using the English language without TFW terms, referring to hexes adjacent to a given hex does not refer to the hex itself. TFW wants to redefine the word adjacent to mean something other than what it means in the English language, which is very unintuitive and not user friendly. It is just as if you wanted to call a "move" action an action where you may or may not relocate your figure, and do damage to an enemy, and an "attack" action as an action where you relocate your figure without doing damage to the enemy.

ANY word that doesn't mean adjacent would be preferable to actually using adjacent. You could use "local" (although that may imply only the hex in question, not adjacent ones) or "near" or "radius 1" or dozens of other terms that don't already mean something other than what you are trying to convey, then hyperlink that term. Serious usability problem, very easy to solve.

this post was from a long time ago. We don't do that anymore. Adjacent just means all the surrounding spaces.

Fine, go ahead and make me feel stupid, lol