Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MegaDestroyo

  1. Hello. If a combat token that is on a doubler is removed by an ability of the opponent, is the doubler also removed? Thanks
  2. Thanks to the both of you. I agree with what you wrote - it's the ruling we used in the game. JC, I'm going to check that link out, thanks for sharing!
  3. Hello all. During a game last night, the player to my left defeated the Vorpal Hunter (a card from the Dark Forest deck expansion). The reward for defeating him is his weapon, The Vorpal Blade. So, upon aquiring the blade, the player asked a question which I thought I'd relay here. Unfortunately, I can't recall the exact text of the card as I'm away from home currently, but it says something like "melee: activate to roll 2d10, if double zeros are rolled, you defeat your enemy." How to you all interpret this? Does this roll take place during the melee phase or is it an extra roll that takes place beforehand? I'll try to get the actual card text posted later. Thanks! -MD
  4. Thanks for the reply JC. The 2d6 idea sounds interesting. I'm definitely going to try it out over the next few games. Your points regarding conceal vs. reveal make sense - I can see how playing like this could be quite messy. Perhaps splitting the adventure deck into two categories would help. One for enemies, strangers & places, and another for objects. The first category of cards would always be revealed when drawn, and the second would be concealed. Of course one would need to figure out rules for when to draw which. I agree that hidden cards would need to be revealed at times, but only the ones that are currently being used. Anyway, thanks again! -MD
  5. Hello all, There are many variables within a game of Talisman - the random drawing from a well-shuffled adventure deck, the rolling of dice, etc. For every tablespoon of strategy (the will of the adventurer) there are ten gallons of of chance (the will of the universe in which the adventurers live). This is all part of what makes Talisman great and quite unique from many modern games. Variables are the unknown; the unknown often manifests itself as the back of a card. Spells are the only "player controlled" variables of this sort, in that players cannot know which ones another player has. For this reason, spells have always been one of my favorite parts of Talisman, because I cannot calculate a likely outcome when they are involved. This is not so with objects and followers: + opponent is a strength 5 warrior + with a sword and an axe. + The mercenary follows him and will remain loyal due to his pile of gold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 10 possible strength in combat pre-roll. 11 to 16 post-roll I say all this to ask you home-brewing folk if you've thought of concealing, rather that revealing, objects and followers. I haven't gone too in depth with rule-making for this manner of playing. Would it bring up too many problems with the existing standard rules? I just thought I might see if anyone has ever had similar thoughts on the matter, and I'd be interested to hear opinions. Thanks! -MD
  6. The Wizard said: Cruan said: Monk: average; he doesnt have all too powerful abilities, which makes his last ability, that is not being able to use weapons, redundant and makes him too weak He may still use weapons in psychic combat. Vampiress: average; her abilities are not so good, should have craft value of 4 to at least make use of her ability to psychic attack Think she has good abilities. Being able to heal each time she lands on the graveyard and get her 3 fate back is OP. Also the ability to steal any follower from another character she encounter is very nice. Definitely not an average character imo. ??? Not sure what this last quote was supposed to be.
  7. Everyone seems to be coocoo for optimal storage. That's awesome, and the posted pictures look nifty and well organized, but I'm completely the opposite; I enjoy looking at a shelf full of games. Heck, FFG boxes look particularly good! I tried consolidating all the contents of my Talisman collection into one box, and it worked at the time (probably wouldn't any more with the additional expansions). It was just too sad to see the one lonely box on the shelf instead of the usual stack. It wasn't long before I put everything back the way it had been before. Anyway, that's just me. -MD
  8. Yes, yes - what to do with that troublesome priest? An idea I've had (but never implemented into gameplay) is that the priest could bring a weapon to the temple to have it blessed for a certain amount of gold, which would make the weapon usable for him. So - a pilgrimage and a price would give the priest the ability to use weapons in combat. Still sucks, right? Because all other characters have this ability from the beginning. But, what if blessed weapons had unusual powers? Perhaps the blessed sword would add 2 to combat rolls, or even give +2 strength. The early game would still be rough on the priest, but he would at least have potential to be a power in the mid- and end-game. It's always fun to make mad dashes to the middle region, totally unprepared for the swarms of enemies and boosted dragons; a priest with an unusable axe and sword would have good reason to brave the journey if the outcome was great enough. I think some interesting roleplaying aspects could be added to the game through this, and that is always the most enjoyable part of playing Talisman and other board games. -MD
  9. Thanks CharlieBananas, That was exactly what I needed to know. Things will run much smoother now. -Jesse
  10. Hey all, I'm a purchaser of this game, and, sadly, that's almost all. I've played it with a group of friends as the GM, but only three times. I'll admit it - I'm a boardgamer; the RPG realm is quite foreign to me. I know this question is quite simple, but I've decided to swallow my gamer-pride and just ask it outright, because, quite frankly, I'm confused. So: How is combat damage calculated? Specifically, how do 'soak' and 'armor' work? Thanks so much, -M. Destroyo
  11. I've found that Talisman can be just as enjoyable playing with three players as it can be with five or six. Your dilemma (your very, very familiar dilemma) is twofold. The contributors are: 1.) The familiarity to the game that the players possess. 2.) The amount of enthusiasm with which the players participate. These two golden rules are true with nearly every game of any substance. If I play a game with five or six regular players who know the core rules and mechanics of the game, turns will be smoother, cards - the twin storyteller to dice rolls in a game of Talisman - will be revealed faster, and rule-explaining will be cut to a minimum. I am by no means suggesting that the game be "executed", as it were, in as fast a manner as possible. However, Talisman can be fully enjoyed in one, fluid, story-like game. Players wont have to wait eternities for their turns, cards will be revealed nearly as soon as they are drawn so the excitement is shared simultaneously by the players (this is due to regulars knowing the text of a card upon sight of its artwork), and the absence of rule-explaining will grant more time for its far more noble cousin, "rule-arguing-over" or "rule-debating" as it is known in certain sects. Secondly, players who require waking when their turn has come are simply no fun to play with. It ruins the game. The only upside to trudging through a game with one of these types is gaining the future knowledge of who not to invite to the next game! So I submit to you that it is quality and not quantity that matters. Get yourself an amount of players equal to the amount of character cards you have; as long as each player makes everyone else as interested in their own turn as they themselves are, you'll have fun. -M. Destroyo
  12. Hello all, I've had Mutant Chronicles for roughly a year now, and have played as many games as possible - which hasn't been very many much to my regret. However, on the upside of things, I've recently (fingers crossed) got one of my family members hooked on this great game and convinced him to purchase him own army/starter set during the holiday sale! I got him to play a few games with me recently and here are, as the subject implies, my questions (thanks so much in advance for any replies): 1. a.) If I play a command card that can be bought back for, let's say, two silver command tokens, can I instead pay one gold command token and one bronze command token to equal the amount of actions supplied by the two silver command tokens (4 actions 2+2 or 3+1)? b.) Similarly, and probably solvable by the above question's answer, if I played a command card that could be bought back for one silver command token, could I instead pay one gold command token - surpassing the buy back price? 2. The rules state that at the end of a round a player may choose to keep a unit "on guard" into the following round so long as that unit has already been issued an unused guard action in the current round. If the unit in question was issued a silver or gold command token to perform multiple actions in that turn - the last of which being the guard action - does that silver or gold command token need to remain on the unit in order for it to remain on guard or is it simply "to be understood" that the unit is on guard, or; may a bronze command token be substituted for the silver or gold command token to pay for the single guard action? Thanks! -M. Destroyo
  13. Hello everyone. I'm a recent purchaser of WFRP 3rd and a soon-to-be 1st time GM. I'm waiting for one of my usual game group members to return from a vacation before we all hit the first game. We're all new to tabletop RPGs, and I'm specifically nervous about GMing, so I've been scouring the rulebooks to figure things out and hopefully generate an enjoyable time for everyone. Fingers crossed. Anyway, the area I seem to be most hazy about is adding fortune dice to characteristics. I realize that they are added to dice pools through specializations, fortune points, and GM discretion, but when are they naturally added to, say, strength in general, or willpower in general, etc? Clarification from anyone understanding this muddle-worded question would be greatly appreciated. -MD.
  14. JC, There are more games around here in the winter than in the summer. The winters are longer and more isolating, so it makes sense to stay indoors because recreational options are very limited - especially when it's dark, which is most of the day in certain months. When summer arrives, we usually take full advantage of the long hours of sun that we are granted. Anyway, I see your point: the temple doesn't have a "nothing" zone like the chapel and graveyard, but I've never had a problem with it. I kind of like that the game gains potency - greater rewards and greater dangers - when players begin moving to the middle region. The assurance of something happening every roll at the temple goes along with this theme in my mind. Maybe the temple is closer to the source of all magics (the inner region/crown of command) than the spaces in the outer region? I have, of course, no valid ground upon which I could stand this statement, but for some reason that's the way I've always imagined it.
  15. Hey JC. I'm slowly developing an "Official House Rules" sheet, which is partly for a laugh and partly for actual use. For one such as me, whose venom is reserved to fight "rulebook thumping" as you aptly named it, creating more rules seems counterproductive. But, unlike the "official official" rules, The House Rules therein have been deemed accurate through a sense of logic and with a respect for and understanding of the Talisman universe accumulated over the majority of the authors' lives. Many of the agreed upon rulings have come about through hours of arguing! Sometimes there isn't much else to do on a dark, cold Alaskan night. The Raiders in our Talisman's universe steal your gold and your objects. We treat the Witch as the 2nd edition's Witch. The Temple? Good question. I don't really have a good answer. What are your/your group's thought on it? I'm interested now.
  16. talismanisland said: I've seen posts over the years where people don't include a character because they think it is over or under powered... Yuck. That sounds like an awful idea. May as well print out a bunch of the same character and play warrior vs. warrior vs. warrior and so forth. While I freely admit that I like the idea (more so the benefits) of playing certain characters over others, there's never been an instance where I - or any of my group - have said, "Oh, this character? I'll sit this game out." If anything, playing a "weaker" character makes one play more boldly. When you're weak, you don't have the luxury of scooting around the board drawing and beating up dragons and gaining +1 strength every turn without fear of loss of life. As soon as it's remotely possible to reach the Crown, you're gone with fingers crossed.
  17. Of course I hope it is understood that my signature and many other comments I have made within these posts may carry with them an amount of sarcasm which may be undetectable through the simple text on your monitors. I realize that winning the game with any character, including the priest (said for redundancy), is possible. Maybe my game group - which consists primarily of similarly aged cousins whom I have played the game with for 15 years - are too competitive with each other (myself included in this). Yeah, we love the unfolding story that each game brings, but we also want to win, you know? So seeing the priest in your hand and the prophetess in someone else's is the realization that your chances of victory are lower than those of the holder-of-the-prophetess. To say this isn't a knock against Talisman. To undo any heartache I may have caused to unbelievably defensive fans of the game, let it be known that I will mutter "Talisman is altogether good" in a rather zobified voice three times a day for the next week as a sort of penance. -M. Destroyo
  18. I feel this is an appropriate time to point to my signature. The priest is awful. Unlike others here, I don't mind the ghoul. In the beginning of the game, if possible, PvP your opposing characters when they get any item - even a sword. Keep them weak while you concentrate on building up craft. It's a chance-y strategy but sure is fun when it works.
  19. Dam said: Reaper...tends to focus all the characters to the same stretches of the board (on the Outer Region), leading to more PvP action, which is another plus for me. Amen. I have only the dungeon. I usually try to extend my list of base games rather than upgrade/expand my current collection. Maybe a bad idea, but I feel there are more options that way. Reaper sounds great from everything I've heard of it; probably my next purchase in the game realm.
  20. This again? I love it. How dare anyone have fun at the same activity in a slightly different manner than I chose to?! For the record I agree with certain rules and disagree with others. House Rule #1: Everyone understands and agrees with the house rules BEFORE the game begins. This may seem like a long delay at which the players would become irritated and lose interest in even playing. But it is not an hours long ordeal. There are only a few big ones: the Raiders still retain their former potency instead of merely taking gold, the witch is still scary, and (everyone's favorite) you get dried up and die in the desert.
  21. A-Ha. Upon looking at the rules again I see that you are again correct. I was mistaking "use special ability" for "use command card". Thanks for continuing to help me out with this, Lord Balor. -MD
  22. I don't think anyone ever said "I hate this or that game because my puny imagination cannot function without high quality artwork." I don't know if you'll find a person (around here anyway) who relies solely on looks for the enjoyability of their games/gaming experiences. However, good things can nearly always be improved, as is the case, in many opinions, with Talisman's artwork. I'll recommend Talisman to friends all day long; I'll play it more than any other game as I've done for a decade and a half. There isn't much bad you'd ever hear me speak about it except for a few minor qualms. So I certainly shouldn't be faulted for preferring one edition's painting over another, nor for wishing that the current elf's portrait didn't look so much like he just stepped out of the salon. Personally, I'm glad that game makers hire artists to aid in the bringing to life of their games. I think the aesthetics of a game are a huge contributor to its feel and enjoyability. Not so much as the lore, gameplay, and yes, the player's mind, but huge nonetheless. I'd be disgruntled if I were an artist who heard someone say of my work "Oh, that? it's nice, but me and my friends don't need it because we have imaginations." I don't doubt that Mythgardia is a spectacular game, and I hope to play it one day, but from what I've seen of it I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to hear that it didn't do well at its launch. People shouldn't be called foolish for not taking interest in a game that, upon first impression, appears to have employed a seven-year-old to illustrate the thing. I don't know much about the processes one takes to publish a board game, I'm sure budgeting is tricky, but I would've splurged a bit more in the art dept. The picture of the troll made me chuckle. That being said - Talisman and Runebound are just incredible games overall, as I assume Mythgardia is as well.
  23. It's very interesting that this thread should be started. In my free time I've been creating a game of my own with hopes to combine the strengths of the two games discussed here and with added lore and miscellaneous content of my own. Searching craft and hardware stores for the perfect materials with which to make the game board has been challenging, but I'm starting to see fruitful results! Can't wait to play it with my friends. I'll post pictures if and when it is completed.
  24. I understand why some would be disappointed in the Runebound board. I ordered Runebound after years of talisman playing. My excitement upon opening the box was slightly diminished when I saw the board, which is far less detailed than Talisman's. But one play of Runebound taught me two things: 1.) Packing an amount of atmospheric detail equal to that of Talisman's board onto Runebound would be impossible due to the grand scale of the latter in comparison to the former. 2.) While Talisman offers rich artwork, which, to me, draws the player into its world more so than Runebound, Runebound's freedom of movement is something Talisman simply doesn't have. It really feels like you're going on a journey when travelling from Talimar to Frostgate! That's a feeling I love. I do, however, have a few [minor] gripes about Talisman's current art, which is discussed in the link below: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=49&efcid=1&efidt=235945
  • Create New...