Last night we played a six player game of Talisman only to run out of Alignment cards, we already had four players that changed Alignment, when the fifth player needed to change his Alignment we had no cards left to show he had changed. l know this is an unusual situation but this is supposed to be a game for between 2 - 6 players so why don't they have enough cards for when this sort of situation arises.

First, make certain that an alignment card is only being used by a player when the character's alignment differs from what is on its character card. If that is the case, then you've run into a problem I've seen a number of times with 4ER in large counts of players in one game. There are many random changes to alignment in Talisman, too many for my tastes, though alignment is purely mechanical and has no active use in the game.

Your only other solution is to make additional alignment cards, since I don't think any of the commercial expansions include additional ones. Go to Talismanisland.com , "Resources" >> "Expansions" and download "In the Balance #3". Inside of this part three of my homemade expansion you will find JPGs for Good and Evil, as well as a new one for Neutral (Balance) and an Alignment "back" should you like to make one-sided alignment cards. (Yes, there's a game option described in that package for playing "secret alignment" games.) Print them off on card stock, or take them to a print shop to have them done on photo card stock. Cut them to the appropriate size and you're ready to go.

JC's suggestion sounds great to me, and I'm a big fan of making fan supplements as similar as possible to real components so the added artwork is nice. If you don't have the time/money to make such fancy cards, however, you could also just cut out card-sized chunks of paper and write Good/Evil on them. Not as pretty, but serviceable for those who aren't inclined to do a little arts and crafts.

Granted, only play 3-player, but seeing even 3 Alignment cards has happened only once if that, can't recall (and tool lazy to check). Adventure deck has 1 card that can cause the change (Mephistopheles something), then you have the Druid and then Druid Staff. Finally you have two results in the Village. Seems like a very rare game where a lot of those come into play, even the Village isn't as frequently visited as it used to be.

Back in the 2nd edition days, we used to track all Alignment changes, that is even if you started off as Good, then rolled a 4 at Village, you got a Good-alignment card. I think the best was 4 or 5x Good on one char .

I am still hoping that FFG will make the neutral allignment card.

Then they can add maybe 2 other good and evil allignment cards to the game, for if you play with 6 players..

Dam said:

If you respect that "2-6 player" thing you can probably get away most games with just the alignment cards they provide (although there will be some days when stuff happens.) My group of friends and I have rarely felt the need to be limited to 6 players though. Both with the older 2nd edition and now with 4th, we generally play with as many people as we have (sometimes upwards of 12+ players!) so we've taken to just noting alignment changes on paper as a matter of course. One of the things I like about Talisman is that it can support as many people as you can find (and have characters for.)

Dam said:

ASIDE: Yeah, and isn't that kind of strange... and sad.

JCHendee said:

Of course, the Thief has increased his visits there exponentially. Mules, Mules, Mules, that's the ticked .

Yes, the thief getting mules out of the Village when they aren't for sale there is another loophole. Our group plugged it; he can only steal items that are actually there... the ones for sale.

JCHendee said:

Ah man, why you guys taking all the fun out of the Thief ? Did the Merchant get nerfed in the same way?

Yes... any character capable of acquiring Purchase cards is limited to objects available at a location... they do not get to "magically" acquire something that wouldn't be there in the first place. That's nonsense mechanics that breach the verisimilitude of the game. There's too many growing aspects of that already that put characters out of balance with each other.

Of course that's just the way we play, as our house rules, and not a claim that everyone else should do the same. Play the game the way you like too... within the regular rules ... or not.

I just look at the Thief and Merchant as having the ability to scrounge up more than other characters . One can get more deals, other can just get more.

Yeah... and I too can come up with justifications outside of the actual make of the game. For instance, a thief can't steal something that isn't found in a location. And the merchant has to make a deal with someone who actually has an object to make a deal on. So the reasoning works either of our two different ways.

I'd suggest using JC's Neutral card whilst we are waiting for FFG to come up with something.

If you fancy using something a little smaller to place on cards instead, I've made this file from the images used in the 3rd Edition game -

For instance, a thief can't steal something that isn't found in a location. And the merchant has to make a deal with someone who actually has an object to make a deal on

Not that justification is needed, since it's a fantasy board game and not a reality simulation, but the way I look at it is that the Thief can steal mules from the Village even tho they're not for sale because he's stealing the mules from the hardworking villagers that live there. Just because it's not for sale doesn't mean that it's not present.

My car isn't for sale, but it can still be stolen.

Same for the merchant. "Hey, how much for that mule? Not for sale? Hm. Hey, what if I gave you this shiny water bottle? ..."

katana_one said:

Merchant's just not good enough (yet) to get that trade done, since he can only "shop" for Objects. All the bling-bling he has isn't enough to trade for a Mule !

Don't have the expansion with the Merchant, so I wasnt sure of exactly how his ability was worded. So I was just running with a facetious example.

Funny thing is, unless I'm mistaken, the Merchant can do exactly that to another player.

Oh, wait. Now I know what you're getting at - Mule is a follower, not an object. Duh.

katana_one said:

Oh please... I've seen 11 year olds mid-game knock down that lame ol' argument.

katana_one said:

Yes, that is the way I see it too. Good example!