JCHendee said:

Hi JC,

But what i want to know is, if the 2E Horse is too overpowered or not?

I don't know yet how the trained horse will play, but getting a +2 extra free space can be very important if you want to reach something..

So if the old horse gives 3 extra spaces....

What is your experience with it? Is it fun to play or overpowered etc

-----------

It was both fun to play AND overpowering in the hands of just one adventurer on the board. Later, when more horses were added for draw or purchase, it even out a little more. But there were still some adventurer's left out... left behind.

I chose +2 max. on the Trained Horse because, thinking back, the old 2E Horse had some overpowering affect that you pointed to in the Fay Stallion. Originally I also wanted the Stallion to be the more potent of the two. Both reasons led to reducing the Trained Horse to +2 max.

And even now, having decided to pull the Fay Stallion, looking back I still chose to keep the Trained Horse as it is, slightly less than the original 2E Horse and containing Jon New's contribution to take some sting out of using it. As much as I'm an pro Control and playing the game (vs the game playing me), I still think the original 2E Horse went a hair too far in potency, and Jon's addition makes it more acceptable to 4ER players who aren't used to the harsher challenge of using the 2E Horse as it was.

ADDITIONAL: Later I will be issuing yet another update to the Trained Horse, which will include returning it to the title of "Riding Horse." These 4ERR cards are not intended to be used with the cards they are derived from... though some may choose to do so. They are intended "optionally" replace those cards, so using the same title is more to the point. I will eventually be adding Purchase Card versions of some 4ERR cards as well, with notation as to where they can be bought and for how much according to know past rulings. That information will be listed on the cards themselves for convenience.

What do you think of:

Roll 2 dice, choose the highest and you must add 2 to the score.

Players have no control to choose where they want to land, than only walking as usual..( but moves al ittle further than the die says..

I must say that i don't like the add up to 2 or 3 ability..( even if you can't use your followers, you can still reach your destination...( too much control)

Someone who has the trained Horse, does not have to use fate anymore to roll again for his move...( if you get my point)

( you could say that it is a update of the 3E Horse with a adding effect of 2E Horse)

Then its a matter of preferrence, my friend. I prefer control rather than the game playing me more than I play it. And one card is not going to change the game as whole by that much. But it does bring in a bit more tactical capability, and tactics strung together also then lead to strategies. What's been discussed as strategies concerning Talisman 4ER (or other editions) as it stands aren't strategies but forethought contingencies. And strategy, though minimal in Talisman from the beginning, has been reduced further a hair at time over the varied editions in small changes. And there are distinct mechanics differences to be considered in movement (and other rolls) between...

• die roll with modifier
• multiple die roll
• additional die roll and removal of one die
• and even die multiplier, one die result that is multiply by a number

They each have there uses, and beyond what they do by pure numbers, they each have implications of meaning in context within a game as a whole or a game component. There is some degree of Control implied in a Horse, the control being over the range of movement vs actual navigation. Much as I can see that in both our methods... I see more hope for tactic/strategy vs contingency planning in my own approach, now that's it a bit more refined in changes or my own and Jon's addition.

More cards to come in the near future... and when I get to redoing the Torch, you may see some of what I mean in the differences between these die roll methods and how this changes (or even corrects) inter-card mechanics.

Hi JC,

Oke. I think it was a good discussion about the cards.

Especially the Fay Hound.

I look forward to other cards that you maybe make in the future

Greetings,

Velhart

One quick update for those few who are following this topic. I'm going to have to take a break for a while, as I have two novels in different stages that just collided in my schedule. I hope to be back around in a few more weeks.

Best to all, JC.

And finally I'm back with more 4ERR alternative cards. The article covering the history of standard cards leading to the ones below can be found at my LiveJournal as new entry. At the end of that article is an explanation for the implementation and use of these cards.

The images here are reduced size to avoid bandwidth overload. You can download a temporary archive of print size graphics HERE. Once I have completed evolutionary looks at "equines" and related cards currently released, I will package all cards developed with the articles in PDF and place them in total for download at Talisman Island.

The following version of the 4ERR Mule should be used instead if you play not replacing the standard Riding Horse

I like the art of the Horse&Cart and Porter.

I see that the Horse&Cart carry more objects.. , But why should the Horse&Cart carry a follower?

You can get followers as many as you want..

The Porter is nice, i still hope that FFG make a official card of it..

Velhart said:

Look back at the 4ERR Riding Horse and consider what happens to Followers on foot. The H&C doesn't have a lot of room for extra notes on the same issue, but it's in the same 4ERR series as the Riding Horse... so it operates by the same mechanics standards... or rules if you prefer. So what happens to followers on foot if you use the H&C's +1 in movement?

I may try to tweak the H&C a bit more to cover this issue before official packaging for TalismanIsland... then again, maybe not. There's a limit to how far exact wording should be pushed, and when looking at cards together, the shared principles (if not exact wording) can be found.

Most players aren't going to use these cards. They don't offer any illogical and magical benefits in cards not even classified as Magic Objects... like hauling all Followers along whenever you bolt off on a Riding Horse. I'll leave serving that desire to the standard cards.

Velhart said:

The Porter is nice, i still hope that FFG make a official card of it..

That would be good... though I doubt it would be worth it. With changes made to other carrier/bearer cards, the Porter has pretty much been put out of business.

JCHendee said:

what happens? let's see.

If you have the horse and cart and you put a follower in the cart, then you don't leave your followers behind if you use the + 1 movement?

You got it. So if you manage to get your hands on a Riding Horse and an H&C, you can continue to use a +1 (with space limits on the H&C) and up to four followers can keep up. Or for the lean adventurer just wanting a special Follower or two, get yourself a couple of Mules, which can still carry a few items as well, and they'll keep up now and then to a Riding Horse's full range of movement.

It's a given that most people will still prefer the standard cards, since those break all sensibility in simplicity for their more limited advantage, but hey... life's full of preferences and choices. The cards I've put out have advantages over the standard ones, but require a little thought for tactical use. That's just my preference I guess.

Some similar interpretation will be needed with four more 4ERR "equines" coming soon... including 3 variations on the Warhorse.

JCHendee said:

I must say that, you really have think about this one

A mule in the Horse and Cart that can carry items, and you still get the + 1 without leaving followers behind.

It's a little more advanced i see.

As you said, if you have the Horse too, then you can use his full ability

Full speed ahead !!

Ah ha, I hadn't thought about putting a Mule IN the H&C... that's probably one of those many, many, many beyond the rational and "realistic" options which could never all be covered on one little card... or even by one very, very, very big FAQ.

Back atcha

Hmm... reminds me of back in the day when people would try to put a Mule on a Mule on a Mule..... or even try to squeeze a fully laden Mule inside a Concealed Pouch... <sigh>

"But it is an Object"

*smack*

talismanisland said:

This is so laughable

OH! I hadn't even thought about the Pouch trick. Rules lawyers... don't you just love it?

**To anyone wondering, the Mule used to be an Object in 1st/2nd Edition**

I was personally glad to see in the new edition that they did away with movement bonuses for Horses and Horse & Carts. It was all too easy for a character in the lead to constantly pick on the other characters and repeatedly take their objects away from them.

Mind you, this pales into insignificance compared to an evil sage on a flying carpet !

Geoff

It's true that true control over movement versus just a big random range does give a tactical advantage... then again, some people do prefer playing the game more than the game playing them. And they can only take an Object if they have room for it. The H&C's +1 was little advantage in that. It's unlimited capacity in old versions was the true contributor to what you're talking about, since then that lead adventurer could do as you say in truly unlimited fashion. That's where the problem lay.

But the real issue was that using movement modifying cards didn't have any limits on their mechanics based in the cards' concepts. The concept (in image and title) was nothing but an excuse for the bonuses and didn't provide like deficits... such as a horse and cart being able to add that +1 no matter what kind of space it was on... or a Horse being able to haul along everyone and everything the adventurer had acquired (as it does now). It amazes me how little thinking through choices is acquired (less and less with each edition) in how to use what is gained, but there it is.

My group uses a lot of the cards (not all, not every game) that I've created; the 4ERR series is even preferred to what I did with In the Balance non-Enemy cards. (Which tells me I need to review that whole package for a possible 2.0 version.) What you speak of doesn't happen in our games because of (1) the limits built into the cards, and (2) the availability through Purchase to gain a like card that someone else got (somehow) through dumb luck. In a few games, we've even tried removing all Objects (not Magic Objects) from the Adventure deck. Players were forced to buy or trade for equipment rather than trip over it. It was interesting, though there were admittedly mixed feelings about from player to player.

We did add two new rules during such session; PvP Trade, and Force March.

PvP Trade could could occur anywhere and replaced other options in the moving player's turn just like any choice to encounter another adventurer. When encountering another adventurer, you now have three options: Attack, Special Ability, and Trade. Whatever you declared, that was what you were stuck with and you couldn't change your mind. If you chose Trade, the two adventurers could exchange Gold, Objects, and Followers by whatever deal could be struck and agree to verbally before all the players. Once agreed to, no changing ones mind. End of encounter.

Forced March was a movement option that allowed an adventurer to hit a badly needed space... but only a non-draw space. It other words, it wouldn't help anyone reach a Pool of Life or a objects dropped by another player. A destination have to be declared outloud in the adventurer's turn before anything else was done, including any abilities or actions that were to be take "at the start of turn." And it could only be used with rolled forms of movement.

The adventurer could then do nothing but move and defend itself until it reach the declared destination. No personsal or Follower special abilities could even be used. The advantage was that once a movement roll provided the needed range to reach the targeted space or go further, the adventurer could stop short at the destination. Forced March ended, and normal movement and turn phases began again for the adventurer on its next turn. We established the limitation of activities taken in a turn to balance the advantage of being able to stop on say the City or the Village or the Chapel for healing, other service, or goods. Forced March was then an advantage, and a deficit, for it could make an adventurer vulnerable to other adventurers with some nasty intent.

Balance of advantage and disadvantage is what makes a game interesting unto itself rather than just a bunch of poorly justified bonuses. There should always be a catch to exceptional advantages. Most especially when the lean to nonsense... like the new Riding Horse.

Personally, I prefer the “game playing me” in many circumstances, movement above all. Otherwise, some squares (like the Chasm, The Torturer [torture chamber? I forget the name, but the Dungeon spot], less so for Desert without a water bottle or the Cursed Glade) will be avoided 99% of the time. Might as well blank them out on the board.

That being said, if you want the +1-3 movement off a card, without the awkward “leave followers behind” for verisimilitude, then going back to the square, here’s a suggestion.

Followers aren’t “left behind” but are running to catch up. All followers except the one giving you the movement (i.e. riding horse, etc…) still get to you, but are late. They arrive at the beginning of your next turn. Meaning, if you use a Riding Horse, say, you get NO bonuses from any other followers (+1 ST, +1 CRAFT, the 4 items held by the Porter are unusable, etc…) until the start of your next turn. They are, essentially, a mile behind, but in the same area.

Penalties stay (“Hey, you’re the one with the Hag. I don’t want to join you.”). They still die in the Chasm, can be Mesmerized, etc… but nothing good comes from having them. Any “kill a follower” event or enemy still kills them, but the followers aren’t around to help you in a fight, give you misc. bonuses, etc…

Again, though, for me, I hate movement control, since it negates too many spots on the board (Ex: not counting having to pick vs The Chapel, being evil and losing a life, vs a Craft 10 bad guy that you can’t beat, say, both of which are avoided with movement control).

But that’s just me. And it’s not all about me, hence the suggestions above… that I’ll never use myself. But, hopefully, it’ll be useful to someone else.

Tons-Home-rules said:

Heh heh, great minds think alike! That is almost exactly what we did based on a suggestion from Jon New when he was reviewing initial drafts of the new Equine cards. But it was decided that Followers would catch up at the end of the adventurer's current turn. Like you said, they couldn't be counted in the same "turn" as when using the movement mod of a horse. But it was considered too much disadvantage to be without them for the rest of the entire "round." That limitation on Followers was put directly on the new (old) cards.

Tons-Home-rules said:

And again, same here. These details were not put on the cards, obviously because of space limit, but they were ruled exactly this way.

Tons-Home-rules said:

I see your point here, and can't see a fix for it that straight off. But my group so rarely visits such spaces anyway, even when standard cards and purely random movement were used. Afterall, in most areas of the board, you have at least two directions to choose from. Some positionings give you up to four (if you are in the Middle Region in reach of the Sentinel's bridge).

Most of my cohorts would rather face the nastiest Enemies left on the board (and do something) rather than willingly go to the Chasm, Forest, or Crags... sometimes even the Desert... to face another random roll or a space based mechanic. (And the mechanics of those spaces, by the rules or official rulings, aren't even applied uniformly to all who land there; that's a whole separate issue that I take issue with.)

As you say, different strokes for different folks. I'd never tell anyone they had to play my way, but sometimes it is fun to debate standards and variations. Once anyone buys the game, it's theirs to play as they please. And I do appreciate alternative views that are well reasoned, and I'm grateful you took the time, especially with this old topic.

I have another set of Retro cards that'll be back into process soon. If interested, you might look at my LiveJournal, if you like, and tell me what you think of the first card. I thought I'd created a topic herein linked to it, but I guess I forgot that when the holiday grind hit.