noc1o1 said: I just played my first game with the Assassin and won. Things really went well as I assassinated 2 dragons on back to back turns early on. Everybody else, basicly didn't have a chance from there. I have been thinking of a way to better balance him. I came up with this. To use his assassinate special ability he has to spend a Fate, and he cannot assassinate the Sentinal or any Inner board spaces e.g. werewolves. Having to use a fate to assassinate wouldn't give him many chances to use his ability at all through the game. I feel that would restrict him too much. I would either try the op's suggestion, or be only able to assassinate face-up cards, or use the rules from the 3rd edition (assassin rolls 1 die- 1-3 lost, 4-6 won), or if you want to add rules to combat in general use my approach- if one rolls a 1 and the other rolls a 6, the one who rolls the 1 automatically loses- when assassinating, rolling a 1 loses, even though the enemy can't roll. I plan on using the 1&6 rule on my next game to stop automatic wins and to help balance the assassin if that's who is picked. This is my way of not restricting him too much, as he won our first game with him easily (same as yours) but I beat him easily on the last game, so he has a strong dependency on what cards are drawn. If the wrong cards are picked (as in my last game) he won't stand much of a chance against some of the other characters. My way, if the right cards are picked for him, there is still that slight chance he will fail, regardless of who he is assassinating.

Dam said: You take what you want, no questions asked (but need something to trade of course, can't just take an item; there is the Thief character for that ). You have Water Bottle, you land on a character with Solomon's Crown, trade. They can Evade you (by Spell, ability or Follower), but other than that, nothing they can do about it. Man I need to check up on my English. I haven't played him yet, but when I read his card, I assumed both parties had to agree to items to be traded. But the verb "trade" simply means "the action of buying and selling goods and services" which in no way implies that the other party has to agree. So yes, he can swap items without the other players agreement. Good stuff.

talismanisland said: Yes I know. But that is just blurb. Haha! I see Yes, I think I will just assume it is a different Warlock too, even though he is starting in the cave. Perhaps they are best buds. Otherwise, as I said, it doesn't make any sense.

JCHendee said: Hmmm... I do remember Zombies at some time... somewhere... as being Str.3, which is why I went for skeletons. Skeletons have been Str.2 since Talisman 2E. Hence the change, if we keep to game standard monsters, as mutiple Zombies, S3, (if my memory isn't faulty) would be too potent... especially on roll of 6. Then I am glad you changed it to skeletons, as I agree, Str3 each would be too much

talismanisland said: He is not actually THE Warlock - he is merely A Warlock. You can see the real Warlock on the Warlock Quest Ending card! Well that's what I would assume. But on your website, and I quote: "One of the four characters included with The Frostmarch is the Warlock himself! Perhaps he fancied stretching his legs after all those years in the cave". Plus he starts in the Warlocks Cave.

JCHendee said: Okay, it was nagging me, so I did a little rewording for the Deathless Ring. Do a hard refresh of the page and you'll see the changes in the post above. Now I really have to do some work for a while. Back later. Much better, and now should make complete sense to even novices I thought of zombies as I haven't seen them in the game yet (are there any in the dungeon?), but skeletons will do nicely too.

Velhart said: Yeah, it's 100% sure that he is not a NPC. You can see it, if you look to his character card AND there is a figure for it. No mistake about it The question still stands- why the hell would the Warlock go on a quest so he can reward himself with a Talisman he already has? Can "Talisman Island" shed any light on this? Can anyone else? It really does not make any sense whatsoever, unless he is a different warlock.

talismanisland said: Doesn't work for me in IE8, but this one should. Yep- works fine, thanks.

Dam said: Pfft, thorough reading of the rulebook is all you need. Little attention goes a long way . I shall smite thee with thy Doomsword and send thee to hell

All your cards look fantastic! Very good job. However, I am a little dubious about how you worded one sentence- "... roll 1 die for skeleton guards (Str. 2), and fight them all at once." Some players may not know why they are rolling the die, as you aren't really explaining that it is to determine how many skeletons there are. However, I understand that space on the card is limited, so it is a bit awkward having to find the right way to describe it without running out of space. Top job otherwise

JCHendee said: A new quest card is now available for review HERE. Is it just my computer or is this link not working? I tried to do a link myself and had the same thing too.

Jimsan Ixata Centarus said: ... or more uses for water battle (like event: Drought ... every turn you lose something if you haven't WB or something like that) ... There simply aren't enough ways to get a water bottle for that imo. As I have said elsewhere, I think they should be available for purchase at the City and Village, but they aren't.

Velhart said: You can also cast evade spells to evade the sentinel or maybe other spells etc This is also a tactic to get to the middle region.. Yes there is that too. It's a pity we couldn't chop his arms and legs off like in Monty Python's Holy Grail though- "It's just a flesh wound!"

katana_one said: Well, it doesn't help that "Craft value" is only defined once in the last paragraph under "Craft" early in the rulebook. It's easy to glance right over it. Since this distinction is so important, it probably should have been mentioned first. Or maybe a glossary? Maybe in the next printing... In any case, now I know - and knowing is half the battle ... Yes it is easy to mistake Craft Value with total Craft, as you'd think they were one and the same. It does tell you in the rule book as you say, but it should be made clearer. Even I was confused when I first read it.

JCHendee said: Go any further suggestions or ideas? I'm in the middle of proofing a book, so my imagination is elsewhere. But any notions or texts you can provide I can turn into more cards easy enough. How about this one: The Warlocks Ring - You must travel to the Graveyard, where you must roll a die and face that many zombies, str 2 each, battling them as one enemy. If you succeed, take the Warlocks Ring from the dead thiefs hand that stole it (place this card with your objects to act as the ring in your possession) and return it to the Warlock. If you fail, you must try and land on the Graveyard again and re-roll for the zombie count before trying again.

I don't find the outer region boring as such- especially when you end up with lots of Place cards or objects left on the spaces. That's the beauty of this game- it is different every time you play. All those boring "Pick a card" spaces you see at the beginning of the game can soon be taken up with enemies that are too tough for everyone, weapons that are only for those with certain alignment, fountains of wisdom etc etc etc. Going back to the Sentinel, how come we haven't had any quests that defeat him? The creators are perhaps assuming that everyone has already levelled up enough strength and defeated him before they reached the Warlocks Cave, but as we have discussed, not everyone chooses to go that way.

JCHendee said: I have always considered the assassin to be poorly written up, and most certainly making him roll means he should be suceptible to a failure, always. And just between you and me, that rule example for the Wizard able to choose to "attack" something that just jumped out of the adventure deck is one of many ways the game has been shifted hard to just mechanics and away from an actual fantasy realm game. Nyx on that. So yeah, a natural 1 as a failure for assassination is a possibility if using the 1&6 rule. But only if it's acceptible that the Assassin now has a greater chance of failure in assassination than in normal Battle. Rolling 6 and 1 on two dice is a 2.7% chance. Rolling 1 on one die is a 16.7% chance, so the Assassin now has worse odds. Maybe that would further balance such an out of balance ability anyway. Exactly my point. In the 3rd edition of the game, you didn't even add to Strength when assassinating- rolling 1-3 would be a failed assassination and you lose a life, 4-6 you win. That gave an even greater chance of losing! But you always had the option of a normal battle. The way I mentioned above (only 1= failed assassination), he has a greater chance of success, but there is always that slim chance of losing, making it that bit more balanced. Not only that, playing the Assassin can be boring (as my wife found out on her first go with him), as the latter half of the game saw her have automatic win after automatic win. This would change that.

JCHendee said: So... the only reason the Sentinel is there is to encourage people to look for some other way to get to the Middle Region? I think that's the point exactly. Otherwise, why would they have included the raft and boatman? The Sentinel is a quick way to get across, if you have the strength to do so. If not, you have to find a less straight-forward way. Simple.

Velhart said: vandimar77 said: I rather like the knight to be honest. Think it's because of the rather handy up to +2 preying bonus. Yeah, i think i will also like that. Praying at chapel to get spell cards, and at temple to get the strength or craft counters:) Good balance and starting with armour too. I still want to try him out.. I did like playing the Knight. Plus, he won against the Assassin, which is a VERY good thing indeed- vengeance was mine!

Velhart said: Maybe you need a hand www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp Cheers mate. What do you think of the battle rules above? Not only do they stop automatic wins, but also add just a bit of risk with assassinations.

As the link isn't working above, you will find that thread in the Home Brews sub-forum, under the heading "Combat variant- anyone fancy having a go?"

Back on topic with the Assassin's ability. I have been reading up on alternate battle techniques on this thread: HERE [edit: is it me or are these **** links not working any more? I hate this forums software!] Where if, for example, the character rolls a 1 and the enemy rolls a 6 in battle, it is an automatic win for the enemy- and vice versa. I think this is a very good idea for removing automatic wins from the game- when you character has a strength of 12 and you come across a boar of str 1 for example, you can still roll and be unlucky! Now, I mentioned the Assassin's ability on that thread, and came up with the extra little rule for him. As his enemy can't roll when he is assassinating them, he only has to roll a 1 to automatically lose the battle, regardless of their strength. This will add a tiny bit of strategy to him- should he partake in a normal battle, where he will have less chance of automatically losing (as the opponent/enemy will also have to roll a 6 as well as him roll a 1), or assassinate, where they need not roll the die but he could lose if he rolled the 1. Basically, if he has enough strength, he may decide to have a normal battle to have less of a chance of losing. See? What do you guys think?

JCHendee said: Hi W.Y.... If you want to eliminate the ol' automatic win, you're going to have to make some house rules.... Hi !! As for the Assassin, we have gone over his "ability" in a dedicated thread in the main Talisman board. Some people interpret that a character does the attacking when landing on a face-up card already on the board. But it NEVER says that in the rule book, not even in the 2nd edition. In the 4th revised edition, there is even a contradiction as to who attacks who when an enemy card is drawn (in the rule example, the Wizard decides to attack the drawn card, the Giant). There is even a quote somewhere from the creators I read, that said drawn cards should be treated as us finding out what is already on that space, so in effect those events and creatures are already there. It is therefore decided that his ability can be used on ANY creature he encounters in battle, regardless of if they are drawn from the deck or already on a space. Of course, house rules can be made so that he can only assassinate face-up cards, but that restriction is not meant to be in place for this revised 4th edition. As for the 1&6 rule, what ever we will call it, I like it a lot! It sounds a fair and easy approach to removing the automatic wins from the game, which is what I would like very much. Going back to the Assassin for a second, we could even make a house rule so that even though his enemy is unable to roll the die, if he rolls a 1 when assassinating, he has automatically lost. That is the risk he takes when assassinating, and adds just a little strategy to him deciding to assassinate or partake in a normal battle. This still keeps it simple and straight-forward to non-RPG'ers. What do you think?

I like the Royal Ransom card- good stuff!

JCHendee said: So in other words, so many ways into the Middle Region with no sacrifices or decisions to make with ones entourage and treasure horde (for the sake of game speed) have made a longstanding aspect of main board completely obselete. How very sad. They should've just axed the Sentinel all together, put up a toll bridge, and required that you land on it by exact roll (or not) to use it for 1G. At least then it would be semi equal to all the other easy ways to get across the River. Thanks to the members correcting me- I called him the ferryman instead of boatman. Apologies. As for the Sentinel. I think he is still worthy of being on the board, as he is the option that is always there. Whereas other ways aren't always available/possible. So, with him being the option that is always available, he should be a tougher than the other options imo. The toll bridge is how it was in the 3rd edition, and worked quite well. However, it did make it TOO easy to get to the middle region. However, there was no way to build a raft in the 3rd ed, so they needed to make it easier. I haven't seen anyone take on the Sentinel yet in the few games we have played with the 4th edition, but it is nice to know he is there if we can't get an axe (not enough cash), or can't wait to keep attempting to roll a 6 for the "Boatman" at the Tavern. After all, if there is an easy option to cross the bridge (pay 1g for example), why would you ever want to buy an axe and build a raft?