Dam, you are leaning on Talisman's "take all" mechanics for your justification of fear. One has to get a follower to follow along first. Acquiring and controlling are two separate things. Of course Talisman shortcuts this since (almost) any Follower automatically follows whichever adventurer encounters them. Its a necessary simplicity for the game.

The concept of Fate as the measure of Followers wouldn't work. Fate is hard to acquire, so unless a particular character has adequate fate to start with, basing count of special followers on it is pointless. It isn't and attribute that is built up like Craft and Strength. Then there's the accounting problem. If you spend a Fate, you may have to discard a Follower based on it. It might be fair sacrifice for a character that can easily acquire special followers, but I already know most modern players wouldn't want to play such a character... may the powers of the alignments fobid that they should have any advantage that isn't utterly without a price . I prefer the "price for power" approach, but I probably wouldn't play a character like that either.

Another approach might be to base in count of Craft tokens. For every 1, 2, 3, whatever, another special Follower can be taken / created. I think a 1 to 1 ration is too low. This would force the character to EARN craft and not simply use its starting value to gain prosthetic boosts. Some of the games I'm hearing about with Enemy-Follower collecting characters are beginning to sound ludicrous. A 20 Craft or Strength by mid game (whether temporary OR permanent) is over the top when half or less is starting + tokens.

JCHendee said:

I could see a case for either side, RAW Gladiator or my Craft-based suggestion.

I'm getting this for Christmas from my girlfriend, but it was still nice to read this review.

I have to say that I was left disappointed after reading it though.

I'm really curious to see the actual size of the miniatures. Are they really that noticeably smaller? Why would they do that?

Bonesaw said:

Apologies if my review seemed too negative; my rating is 8.5/10 which I think is very respectable; in spite of my quibbles, Frostmarch has some great new Adventure cards, Spells, Characters and Warlock Quests. The Ogre Chieftain and Leprechaun figures are fine, since they are not human; however, the Necromancer and Warlock are noticeably different in scale to the other human figures.

On a completely new note, I've only just noticed that Eastern Dragon is classed as a (1) card, not a (2) like other Dragons. At first I thought this was an error, but then I noticed that Reaper's Lord of the Pit and Cerberus are also (1)s. I guess for creatures with both a Strength and Craft value, this avoids issues of combining their scores with other Enemies in a mixed group. It also gives these three Enemies are more epic feel - their appearance is effectively an Event.

Of course it begs the question.... if an Event is drawn with one, which occurs first with the matching order numbers... Event or bi-polar Enemy? I would guess the Event, though I didn't notice any ruling on this in the FAQ. Is there something in the expansion's documents that clarifies this?

If cards have the same number, then you must encounter them in the order that you drew.

So i expect the same with the Cerberus, Lord of the Pit or Chinese Dragon

And what, if you draw the Lord of the Pit and the Cerberus or Chinese Dragon together

If you fight the Lord of the pit, and Cerberus both with strength, then they would combine into one enemy...

Hmmm... are all three player choice or by weakest character attribute?

JCHendee said:

I believe that Cerberus and Lord of the Pit are by players choice.

Not sure about the Chinese Dragon(don't have frostmarch yet..)

Okay, then there's yet another question with these bi-polar enemies that comes to mind. Traditional Enemies with a singular attribute combine into one when drawn together, so I'd assume that dual attribute enemies do the same. And again I'd assume that more than one bi-polar, or dual attribute, ones do likewise, and then the adventurer chooses which attribute to use to face them.

But... if one bi-polars chooses, and the other one is player choice, what happens then? Obviously that would be a very very rare occurence, and I don't know all three of these cards off hand, but it is a possible moment of confusion. Does the adventurer or enemy choice take precedence if to choice-different bi-polars are drawn of just encounter simultaneously? I would almost assume that two enemies of such exceptional difference from the standard ones as well differing in instructions for combat would have to be separated to avoid a rules conflict... and two combats take place. And the draw of cards would determine which is first.

Part of the reason I bring this up is also relate to the mix of commercial cards with home brew cards. A far number of home brews have bi-polar enemies of either player-choice and or weakest attribute.

Now, as per most of my posts, be aware, it's likely very home brewed.

To not make our heads explode for the all the combinations, we make everything combine every time for simplicity. 8/8 bipolar is drawn with a 5 ST creature? It combos to be 13/13. Adds spice, danger, and makes it all easy to rule on. Also allows the top dog player to never be 100% sure of wins or a draw card(s). And, it's not like a ST 2 character is any more dead by facing a ST 8 vs a ST 13/13.

Logic Rationale = Player characters have both Strength and Craft, but, most of them can only attack in Strength. Presumably, enemies are the same. We just don't need both values since they only attack in either ST or Craft. Assume all enemies have ST = C but they only attack with the one listed.

Game Play Rationale = When it's 11pm after a long day, you don't want your brain to hurt. 8+5 = 13. Forget ST / Craft / etc... they combine. We even use that when a ST 5 enemy is drawn with a C 3 one. I.e. the combined value is 8/8 and you pick. (and yeah, we toss out the encounter numbers when bad guys swarm, but keep them for events, etc...)

Disclaimer = This is in no way official, but there's a "cool factor" of seeing Cerberus, a Ghost and a Dragon all ganging up at the Portal (through prior displacement spells, or whatever they are called) to have the door guarded to the teeth. But that's just us...

Well, if it works for you, okay.... except that the bi-polars are Order 1, and other Enemies aren't... so they would be fought after the bi-polars by order number. Of course if you get your butt kicked on Order 1, you then don't get to go after (or further hurt by) the next enemy. I was more concerned about the sub-difference in bi-polars: those that let the player choose how to face them, and those that automatically attack according to the adventurer's weaker attribute. That could get confusing if they have the same order number AND subtype (Dragon, Monster, etc.) The only solution would be to separate them and face them by the order they were drawn and not order number.

I am all for the combined enemy, but with the choice factor differing on some bi-polar Enemies, it gets a little sticky... though would be a very very rare occurrence.

Well, as far as official is concerned, for bipolar enemies, as well as all enemies, you go by what's worse for the character. If one gives you a choice, and the other doesn't, you go by the one that doesn't. Kind of like the Goblin Trapsmith that makes you roll 2 dice and you pick the worse, over-riding the warrior's power that you pick the best of the 2 dice. (It's in the new FAQ)

But yeah, by the book, fight all the Order 1 enemies / events first, then Order 2, then Order 3...

But, just for us, that's a pretty Mickey Mouse fight, right up there with picking your character / quest / treasure, instead of random; so, for us, whatever makes things longer. (all but 1 of us dislikes end game / rush for the Crown)

So again, as far as I know anyways, by the book, fight all the 1s first, and use the "worst" of the card directions. It does allow for fun combos, like "You can't use a weapon" with enemy A, and "Can only be killed with a magic weapon" with enemy B, making it an auto-stand-off at best, until the cards are split, 1 is killed by Finger of Death, etc...