Mattousai
-
Content Count
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mattousai
-
-
Several solutions have been proposed, but the best one I've heard is to allow him to discard both Objects and Magic Objects for 1 gold only, like the Alchemist Follower. This would also fix his OP stance in a standard Crown of Command endgame.
This was our solution as well; it's simple and effective. The Alchemist is one of the strongest characters without the city and completely broken with it, but if he only gets 1 gold for a Magic Object he retains his fun/dynamic style without being OP.
-
And also.. what other "power-loops" have I forgot to mention?
I'm having trouble recalling the exact cards right now, but there is a Magic Object/Follower combo in which one allows you to gain a Fate every time you use you last one, and the other allows you to choose the result rather than rolling when you use a Fate. If your character has both you can basically choose all of your rolls.
The way I usually play is that just about anything goes; Talisman isn't a good game to be competative about, so if someone gets an over-powered combo than thats just how it goes. The one exception with that is that we usually impose some limitation on the Alchemist in The City expansion, because it's a coin mint for him and there is no element of chance.
-
I'd say that fate basically never increases the length of the game; if you lose a fight it's a waste of a turn/time, and if a character dies the player draws another character card and basically starts the game over again. The only way that using fate would lengthen the game would be when a player uses a fate re-roll but the outcome remains unchanged, which only add the 3 seconds it take to pick up and drop a die. So if you see dozens of re-rolls in a game it would add couple minutes of play, but if there are a couple deaths it can easily add hours to the game. (Unless, of course, you play without redrawing characters)
-
I have a scenario I'd like someone to help clarify for me. This hasn't actually happened in a game yet, but I have been wondering if it would be a valid move...
I'm playing as the Conjurer, who has the ability to 'conjurer' a face up adventure card from another space in the region instead of drawing one. So what I am wondering is if I land on a space that has a red dragon scale on it and I choose to encounter the space which says "draw one card", I then choose to conjure the green dragon whelp from a few spaces over. If I defeat the green dragon on this space do I pick up the red scale?
Another example in the same vein would be if there was a yellow scale and two yellow dragons on a space, a character defeats one dragon and claims the scale but looses to the second. Later a red scale is placed onto this tile, if a character defeats the yellow dragon can they claim the red scale?
I want to say that the character cannot pick up the scales, but the rules only say that when a character defeats a dragon card they can take the scale and doesn't mention anything about colors needing to match.
thanks for the help!
-
Nioreh said:
Haha, yeah.. though Ive never given the character gender ratio much thought I think its noticeable that all rules/cards etc always says "he must...", "he draws cards...". It clearly states that girls never play talisman ^^
My girlfriend and I have discussed this too. It doesn't seem so hard to just write "the player" instead using a gender specific pronoun. The original version came out 30 years ago so I'll cut them some slack, but I think FFG really dropped the ball on the Fourth edition by not making a change. It's just a silly little game, but a lot of people believe that subtle sexism like this is to blame for a lot of the gender bias we see in the world today. By saying "he" consistently the makers are vey clearly saying that this is a game for males.
Though, like the OP said, I do have to give them some props for including a nice variety of ass-kicking female characters!
-
Before anything else let me say that I agree, Talisman isn't the best example of diversity in terms of skin color, but I think you approached this subject from the wrong perspective.
First of all, you say that the game lacks "ethic" diversity and then go on to list the skin color of the characters, skill color and ethnicity have absolutely nothing in common, ZERO, NADA, NIX, NOTHING. An ethnic group is a group of people that share the same customs and habits; so a white guy, a black guy and a wolfman that grew up together and eat the same food and laugh at the same jokes are said to be of the same ethnicity.
Another term that was used in this thread in "race". Race is an even less relevant term, and in fact the only time the term race is even applicable is in the context of Fantasy/SciFi. Race, when applied to people, is a term that was used hundreds of years ago when people thought that Caucasians, Blacks, Asians, and the rest, where all different species of animals. In modern times, however, anthropologists (the people who study people) don't even use the term race anymore, because it's archaic and irrelevant. There is ZERO scientific evidence that supports a world view that takes race into account. If you really want to see an example of race you need to look toward games like Talisman (and other high fantasy). Talisman includes the race of Elves, a race of Humans, and even races of Orge and Orc. This is the only place you'll find different races because on Earth there is only one sentient race, humans.
So if you actually look at the characters of Talisman, despite the overwhelming whiteness of their skin color, there is a good deal of ethnic and racial diversity.
-
Why not follow what it says on the card "Cast at the start of another characters turn" and be done with it?
These rules all seem very arbitrary to me, and all they do is create more and more exceptions. If the Sage's turn is in progress once he has drawn a spell and cannot be the target of Immobility then it takes only the smallest logical jump to make a dozen assumptions based on that precedent. For example, it's not a stretch to say that the "draw a spell if you don’t have one ability" is activated at the start of every single turn but only goes into affect is the Sage doesn’t have a spell. In this scenario the Sage can never be the target of Immobility, or what if I touch a dice the moment play passes to me, am I safe?
We can even leave the ability out and still have contradictions; Play passes to the Warrior and the player picks his nose, then checks his spells, then rereads the text on his weapon. Can he no longer be the target of Immobility because of the 30 seconds that has passed in the Warriors turn? If Immobility can only be cast when it makes the character loose the entirety of their turn it needs to be cast in the exact instant that play passes to that character, which is impossible.
(I don’t play this way, but my friends like to argue and there is no way we could finish a game with these rules.)
-
I like the sound of this. I've had the same thoughts about the Highland region, too much reward and not enough danger. Most of our games involve a mad rush for the Highland right at the start, but this might make people a little more hesitant.
My only concern is that the Guardian wont effect all characters the same. What I mean is that characters with larger Fate values will be able to use more rerolls (for both their movement and the Guardian rolls) and there by gain an advantage. The Warrior, for example, would see the bad side of the Guardian more often than the Minstrel. It might balance things out if there was some sort of strength/craft roll to fend off the Guardian.
-
Velhart said:
Mattousai said:
In the above scenario, lets say that the Sage drew a spell that can has the text "cast at the start or your turn". Would the Sage not be able to cast this spell until his next turn?
The sage can cast his spell.
The only difference is that his abillity goes first, before he cast (start of his turn spells)
(But other players can cast immobilty at the start of the sage's turn.The sage can not using his ability then, because he must skip his turn before he can do anything)
This doesnt make any sence though, and it leaves out the bigger issue. If another player cannot cast Immobility on a Sage that has just used his "draw at the start" ability then why can the Sage still cast "at the start of your turn" spells? It can't work both ways, there's no logic to it if it works that way. The way I see it there are two options here;
1)Play passes to the Sage who immediately uses his "draw a spell at the start of your turn" ability and draws a spell. This ends the "start" of his turn and spells that can only be cast at the start of a players turn are no longer legal.
or
2)Play passes to the Sage who immediately uses his "draw a spell at the start of your turn" ability and draws a spell. From this point until the Sage begins the "Movement" stage of his turn any spells with the "at the start" text can be cast by any player.
With regard to the Wizards comment on ditching:
"Yes of couse you can just ditch your objects and gold etc, but as you cannot pick them up in your next turn and take them with you, you might just end up loosing it/them anyway. But i fully understand the way you want to play it. mush less discussion around the board"
In this senario it would ALWAYS be better to ditch an item rather than let an oponent take it. No matter what the object is it will always be in your favor to just lose (ditch) it than to let another player take it. If one were to play this way the Aqcuisition spell would be useless as would any follower stealing abilities.
(also, I dont mean to hijack this thread, I can start a new one for this if the OP likes.)
-
talismanamsilat said:
Regarding the Immobility Spell vs. Sage:
If player A casts Immobility on the Sage at the start of the Sage's turn, his turn ends immediately before the Sage can activate the text on his card to draw a Spell.
However if the Sage had already gained a Spell by activating the text on his card, player A cannot cast Immobility on the Sage, as it is no longer the start of his turn.
So, if I am playing as the Sage if I make sure that I never have a spell at the beginning of my turn, then I can never be the target of Immobility or any other "at the start of their turn" type spells? I thought that the "start" of ones turn only ended once they move their character. If I were to use the rule above as a precedent then only one action is allowed to take place at the start.
In the above scenario, lets say that the Sage drew a spell that can has the text "cast at the start or your turn". Would the Sage not be able to cast this spell until his next turn?
-
Daefaroth said:
I apologize, but I don't understand why it works like this. My group would have gone the opposite way (but then again we play "friendly" at my table). We generally play our games that if you say you are doing something then you have done it at that point, regardless of how quickly you can dive across the table to grab life counters. Is there anywhere in the rules that talks about interupting actions, because I can't find it.
Does everything work like this? If my opponent says that they are casting temporary change on me but haven't grabbed an alignment card do I have time to cast magic shell (or whichever spell it is as I am too lazy to go grab my box right now) to prevent them from casting on me? Or is it just generally assumed that spellcasting trumps everything and everything else stops until the spell is finished?
I have to agree with this, it seems foolish to judge whether an action has taken place or not by something so arbitrary. By these rules whoever is sitting closer to the box of counters gains a massive advantage. If fact is you play with these rules, if player 'A' on the chapel is able to shove player 'B' (the caster of Temporary Change) out of the way and grab Life counter before player can put the evil alignment card down then he's finished his encounter with the Chapel before the spell went into effect. By these rules the most effective strategy would be to constantly slap cards out of people’s hands or throw the bag of counter across the room!
We play with rules where once a player has declared their action it happens. If you play this way there is a degree of separation between the character and the player. The Character lands on the Chapel and heals and then the player picks up a counter to keep track of their character's health. If character 'A' is on the Chapel and says "I'm going to he.." and player 'B' interupts with "Spellcasting Temporary Change" then 'A' looses a life, and no one gets shoved!
-
Thanks for the input, it's much appreciated!
-
I recently began playing Talisman and have been having a lot of fun; I was hoping someone could help with a couple questions we've run into.
First, what exactly constitutes the "Start of your Turn"? For the most part we have been playing that the start is basically an indefinite period of time before a player physically moves their character miniature. What I am wondering about is can an infinite number of things happen during the start or is there one moment that is the “start”.
For example; a player ends their turn and play passes to a Warlock with two spells (lets say they are both "Cast at the start of your turn" spells). The Warlock casts one of these spells at the start of his turn, and then uses his ability to gain his full compliment at the start of his turn. Now he again casts a spell and again gains his full compliment. I haven't been able to find anything that says character abilities can only be used once or anything that defines the end of the start of your turn, so I'm inclined to believe the above actions are legal. (I hope they are not legal because this seems like a cheap way of playing.)
Secondly, we have been playing with 2d6 combat recently and I'm wondering what others do in the case of cards/abilities that say "roll two dice" or "don’t roll a die" for your attack roll. Let’s say someone was playing as the Assassin and is using their Assassinate ability on an enemy, would that enemy not make an attack roll or would it roll only roll 1 die? Generally we have been playing that the enemy would only roll 1 die, unless the card/ability in question says something to the effect of "do not roll for your attack".
Lastly, do cards that say "Miss your next turn" end your current turn?
Thanks for the help!
House rules to speed up Talisman!
in Talisman
Posted
The house rule my friends and I use most often to speed up the game is that at the start of the game each player takes any 3 tokens (craft, strength, life, fate, gold) from the box. Craft and Strength are usually viewed as the best choices, but a couple extra lives and/or fate can be a boon as well. The basic idea is to jumpstart the game so that at the onset it's as though your character has been running around the board for a couple hours without you.
Additionally we've played that once the Portal of Power is opened it stays open, this allows lower level characters to make a last ditch run for the CoC. The thematic justification we use for this is that despite the fancy name the PoP looks like a regular wooden door, so once someone has used Strength to kick it open or Craft to pick the lock anyone can walk on in.
Lastly, I personally don't like the idea of disallowing players from drawing new characters if they die and I'm not even convinced it would speed up the game. A 'quick' game of Talisman is still going to take 3hrs to play, so if someone is killed 30min into the game they might as well go home (Sorry Frank you're dead, you can't hang out with us anymore). This highly incentivizes conservative playing; for example fighting a dragon would be a bad idea because holding onto lives would be more valuable than gaining a Strength. On the other hand using the optional 'Inheritance' rules greatly mitigates the cost of dying and thusly encourages risky play.