I am glad that ffg has taken over th Talisman franchise, but why screw around with a proven format? After looking at the new locations article, it seems fate is replenishable easily at the graveyard (to full). The fate rule sucks as it is... the ability to re-roll is bad enough but, for evil characters, it will now be pretty easy to have protection from all negative effects.

For me getting toaded is what Talisman is all about, we chant when the leading character is rolling and there are small cheers when it happens. How boring it is with fate... 'ok I'll just roll again'. The chances of double 1's are just too slim. A major advantage in combat too, it will be even harder for other players to catch up the most powerful.

it will speed up the game by eliminating risk, but that for me is really the heart and soul of Talisman, and what makes games memorable.

What are everyone elses thoughts on Fate? I know this has been mentioned in other topic forums, just wanted to put it in its own section.

I'm SO with you on that (SO with you in fact, I'll add you to my friends list ). I've been harping about "Fate-crap" on BGG and to re-iterate my point: I'll house-rule it null and void from the get-go. If my friend happens to ask about it, I'll just say "ignore it, it would ruin the fun".

Fate lets you re-roll your own die roll. If they haven't changed the Random spell that means the caster gets two tries to toad someone as it was the caster who rolled the die!

Geoff

Cidervampire said:

Hmm, I checked my Random spell. Key part being:

"They roll a die..."

I interpret that as the target rolling a die to see what effect Random will have on him/her. Thus Fate could be used to re-roll that 1 that would Toad you.

I'm actually charmed by the Fate mechanism. I had vague plans of using the 2nd Edition cards, characters and board (aspecially that one, I find the artwork much better!) with no changes, and just lifting the interesting bits and pieces of rules from the Revised 4th Edition rulebook FFG kindly provided as a pdf. That, however, changed when I read more on Fate.

The sole fact that this new mechanism makes Evil an option equal to Good, without re-using the same rules on multiple cards and locations (turning the Graveyard into a carbon copy of the Chapel, for example), makes it a winner for me. Because of this, I'm exploring ways to get hold of the Revised 4th Edition even as I type this messege.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris

Cult of Nagash

I am cautiously optimistic that fate will help the game more than it hurts it. While I have pretty good luck with my dice rolls, I have seen other players have a horrible time trying to roll higher than a three. Watching them get frustrated and have a miserable time isn’t fun for me either. I’m glad that there is at least something in the game that can help you out on the super important rolls.

What I don’t understand is why people rant about something that they haven’t even played yet. It’s like the little kid who refuses to eat his broccoli but once he finally gets a taste it becomes his favorite food. Try the upgrade game first and then rant about the things that bug you.

So what if you can reroll the Random spell? How can rerolling one spell in an entire deck ruin the entire game? Even if one spell is “ruined” by a reroll, fate can have many other bonuses in the game so in the big picture it may be a really good addition to the game.

Carrion Prince said:

Maybe because, some, like me, have been playing Talisman for years. I've "only" played it since late-80s grant you. It never would've become one of my all-time favourites without the harshness involved. Have you played Arkham Horror? An investigator in that one has the ability to allow any investigator to re-roll all the dice for 1 check that failed. So you could roll 11 dice, get 2 success, then re-roll the other 9. Powerful, without a doubt. Fun, not so much. Fate takes away much of that.

As for the super important rolls, Fate does nerfs the Dice With Death even more. For me, super important rolls should be important, not "oh I failed, I'll use a Fate point and just try again" .

Carrion Prince said:

To me, Random is the perfect spell. It can either help your opponent or Toad him (or hinder him in a lesser manner). Ruining the best (or at leat the most fun) spell (I believe there is 2 in the deck) is SO wrong.

In our games, nobody really wants to go to the City, unless they need healing (and have money) or have a "worthless" object to give to the Alchemist. Suddenly, the 1 in 6 chance of getting Toaded becomes 1 in 36. Yawn, where is the excitement there? Or they could re-roll their movement if the choice were between a bad enemy already on the board vs City. No thank you! You gotta live and suffer and die by your roll, not rolls.

As to fate having bonuses, that's pretty much the point, Talisman is already an easy game, it doesn't need to become frickin' Candyland. If anything, it should be made harder.

“Maybe because, some, like me, have been playing Talisman for years. I've "only" played it since late-80s grant you.”

Since you’re obviously a very experienced Talisman player, I have a few questions for you.

“Have you played Arkham Horror? An investigator in that one has the ability to allow any investigator to re-roll all the dice for 1 check that failed. So you could roll 11 dice, get 2 success, then re-roll the other 9. Powerful, without a doubt. Fun, not so much.”

So why is Arkham Horror your highest ranked game when rerolls are so much more prevalent and powerful with clue tokens compared to Talisman? As you said, you could reroll 9 dice with a single clue token where fate tokens in Talisman only let you reroll a single die once. Shouldn’t you be ranting on the Arkham Horror forum of how much rerolls are ruining your fun since they so much more powerful in that game?

“Suddenly, the 1 in 6 chance of getting Toaded becomes 1 in 36.”

Correctly me if I’m wrong, but isn’t rerolling at the City still a 1 in 6 chance of getting toaded? What mathematical formula did you use to come up with 1 in 36? Or perhaps you are using a 36 sided die instead of a standard 6 sided die that comes with the game?

“Talisman is already an easy game, it doesn't need to become frickin' Candyland. If anything, it should be made harder.”

Talisman should be made harder? Are you serious? Most sessions already take several hours to complete and the epic games with lots of players and every expansion takes an ENTIRE day to finish. If Talisman was made any harder it would take an entire weekend to finish a single game. I just don’t have that kind of disposable time these days. If anything, I wish playing time was reduced so that a game will only last around two or three hours. How many days do you propose that the average Talisman game should last?

Hi Carrion Prince,

If you use fate, the chance of becoming a toad is 1 in 36, because it takes into your consideration your second die roll if you use a fate point. Take into consideration it can be used at anytime, you can walk down easily street without having to worry about aa lot of adverse effects.

All fate does is reduce all the risk elements out of the game. How crap would it be that the character that gets the best lead can just keep on going without little challenge as he can rely on his fate. It is extremely powerful and too easily replenished for evil characters (replenished to full at the graveyard). Players will end up constantly rolling at the enchantress, witch etc without any concern as long as they have some fate for insurance, as there is little risk. Players make decisions based on risk, so fate has a major impact on the game's enjoyment.

I played second edition with all the expansions (including dragons - this really added time), and I agree that games can be a little long (4 hours would have been our longest game though), but I don't think fate is the way to reduce game times. It just ruins the essence of the game. You would better to simply add on a few extra craft and strength to all players to speed up games in my opinion.

Carrion Prince said:

For one, AH does solo, so that alone ranks it high for me . For second, AH is a HARD game. As to rerolling 9 dice, you'd need more than 1 Clue Token, I was talking about Mandy Thompson. Also, in AH there are plenty of times when you need more than 1 success (which IIRC never happens in Talisman).

Talisman is roll and move, if something bad happens, so be it. Turns are quick. Arkham Horror is about planning, co-op, battling for mankind, usually in an uphill contest. Also, Clue Tokens have more use than just rerolls, namely you need them to win the game by sealing.

Carrion Prince said:

Like Richie said, instead of 1 in 6, you'd need 1 in 6 followed by 1 in 6.

Carrion Prince said:

Well, that's just weird. Talisman around here never last even 2h 30 min. You'd get some longer games with the 2nd ed + Expansion + Adventure combo, but most of the games with 4th ed have been well under 2h. Are you guys just hoarding and hoarding more Strength and Craft? Objects? In our games, once you hit about 8 in either one and have Talisman, people generally start looking to get to the Inner Region. Mind you, 8 is usually the minimum, 10 would be better. Of course, if you're the Dwarf or got Gnome, you can get by with Craft 6-7, easy. All you need in terms of Strenght is enough to have a better than average shot on Pit Fiends, so 6 if you got weapon, 7 if you don't.

I just registred to reply to this tread:P

Fate is a gambreaking mechanic. I got relly worried that it had breaked the game when I read some of the peoples comments here, but then I thought, hey. Just dubble the cost:P.

Fate cost 2 fates to use (This makes the fate has less impact and more rarely used)

Or

Fate cost 1 life to use (This make fate more intressting and more thematicly "evil")

Or

Replenisch a fate cost 1 life (This make fate more intressting and more thematicly "evil")

So the solutions are very easy to implement for those that are vary of the fate game impact!

cheers

Don't know about anyone else but if was to get Toaded from a Random spell I'd keep the roll, losing all your strength or craft is far worse!

I'm happy to wait and see how much difference fate makes.

I'm sure we used to spend all day playing games of 2nd ed though. I think we used to spend too much time trying to screw up the other players and even the game itself and rarely used to go to the middle unless our strengths and crafts were about 15 or so. I'm busy playing 4th edition with all the expansions from 2nd and 3rd added. I've tweaked a few cards here and there and we still get finished in around 2 1/2 hours. I mainly changed the cards which altered player movement eg. horses and horse & carts which stops players being able to pick on each other. Player death and the ropey alternative endings were pretty much why the game took so long.

Geoff

I have yet to receive my preorder Upgrade (which is now getting annoying), but the more I hear of Fate, the more it sounds both interesting and once again poorly implemented. Aside from other things, it should not be linked to alignment in any way - or rather on favor one alignment. That isn't what Fate is really about in myth and legend... it's individual. Sigh. And Alignment already has servious issues in the game.

I'll have to wait and see more about how it is handled by whatever rules before I make any decisions, but playing it against other character attributes (costs and deficits in its use) simply complicates the matter. It's not a suitable or balanced way to rectify Fate's poor implementation. More problems and issues pf imbalance will be created than corrected.

If Fate can be replentished (and I'm talking blind here), a simpler approach might be that Fate can't be replenished. What a character starts with is all it gets. This might fulfill its objective to speed up early stages of the game where characters struggle to achieved a survivable power level. Later, Fate as it were, is needed less and so shouldn't be replenished. The Powers That Be (to borrow a pop culture reference) in relation to any alignment (though the poor Neutrals have always been left out) would expect their proponets to stand on their own - not continual come back begging for another hand-out.

Having read John Goodenough's entry on " The Vagarities of Fate ," my position has shifted... slighlty. Enough so that I will test out this new character attribute and game feature. Its prime purposes are (1) to balance pure randomness of game play (sans exterior strategy with a particular character) and (2) to speed up the game overall (with helping characters struggling in early part to achieve survivable states).

I still believe there was / is a better way to handle the second purpose, but the first purpose is enough to pique my curiosity higher than my skepticism. If you have not read John's post, please do so with apt attention to what it says as opposed to details misrepresented by a few in the forums. Replentishing Fate is not as easy as has been sometimes implied. It appears to been no easier (perhaps harder) than "gaining" (not healing) a life.

JCHendee said:

Actually, reading on the changes made to the Graveyard, replenishing Fate is as easy for Evil characters as replenishing Life for Good characters. I hardly find that "game-breaking". One could easily argue that the ability to replenish Life at the Chapel free of charge is game-breaking too. Indeed, all the arguments against the rate at which Fate is replenished can be easily altered to a rant against Life.

Furthermore, I'm sure there will be changes in the Adventure Cards, that will allow for a better rate of replenishing Fate (at a price) to be availible to everyone. I can only hope that some changes will be made to the board to balance all the places replenishing Life to any character (City, Castle and Village). Perhaps the Castle and the City could replenish both, while another location (maybe something between the City and the Inn, there were only locations to draw cards there) would allow anyone to replenish Fate?

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris

Cult of Nagash

Comparing life to fate is just problematic. Fate is a resorch that a vise player can use to avoid death. I wold say that each fate is woth little bit more than a life since it can be used to avoid loosing life among other things. So almost every charactar gains effectivly 4 extra life . That makes the game significantly easier. Is the threaths twise as deadly in the adventure deck? I dont think so. Fate is a huge change in game machanic. Just becouse there is Action Points in D&D or fate points in WFRP and works well there, it wont nesesarry work well in Talisman.

Ah, but you are now assuming each character gains 4 Fate points. This isn't necesserily the case. The Troll, for example, gained just 1 Fate point. Admittedly, it also got 2 extra Life points, but that does not mean other characters will be getting a lot of Fate. I imagine 3 will be the highest starting value, with 2 being the most common.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris

Cult of Nagash

Gorthuar said:

Gorthuar said:

Actually:

Druid: 4

Troll: 1

Wizard: 3

Assasin: 3

Elf: 3

Thief: 2

Prophetess: 2

Monk: 4

Dwarf: 5

Warrior: 1

So the highest is 5. Don't get me wrong, I like the fate value, I mean technically the Warrior has this ability built into his character which I have found exceedingly overpowered for a LONG time.

Dwarf 5 fate, ha ha so we will se a lot of evil dwarfs running around now

Seriously why is avoiding your fate themed to evil, thats strange, I would have likeed it more the other way around. "rituals giving you unlife" While praying gives you fate:P Or bettir still have life to good, fate to neutral, and give magic to evil. That would go much more in line whit marcookian law/chaos ideas that gw has implemented in thier games and which presence is shown in talisman as well since its an early gw game.

I was another person in the camp not really liking the fate mechanic when I first heard about it. Though, after thinking about it a bit more I don't think it will change the game too much. Think about just how many times you roll a die in a game of Talisman. Only having a few re-rolls out of all of those rolls won't change things too much, especially since using a fate token doesn't necessarily guarantee a better result.

Also, people are making a big deal of re-filling fate at the graveyard, but being able to land on that space itself requires a bit of luck. I guess someone could go out of their way to try and land there by wasting a few turns hanging out close to that location or by wasting fate tokens for more chances to land there, but both of these options mean that the player is wasting time he could be using for other things.

So yeah, I don't think it will change the game as much as people think. I'll wait till I can try it out for a few games before I judge it any further.

I don't like fate at all- it is sompletely broken in my book.

In our games there are few 'breaking points' - points where the most powerful character can be overwhelmed and this will make the cause even harder - even 1 fate point can change the game.

I agree with RiCHiE about the risk factor - players won't think twice or about the reprocusssions if they have a fate point under their belt. Also I do agree that it makes the downfalls of the game memorable - Talisman is not a strategy game.

But not fair to jusge without playtesting.... I am having a game tonight, so I'll try it out with second edition, thanks to all for the fate point postings.

SubElement said:

Proves me wrong then. Oh well, I still like the options Fate presents :] Plus, I can always tone the numbers down if they proove to high. Better then ditching the whole mechanism, I guess.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris

Cult of Nagash

On the issue of getting Fate in the Graveyard (or Lives in the Chapel), sans a spell or some beneficial Event, you still have to get there by a roll of the dice. We are not talking about just making a run for the Chapel or Graveyard, then stopping there if our roll exceeds the needed number to do so. It is still going to be difficult to do it to some degree.

I'm guessing, like the Pool of Life, there wil be an equivalent added to the Adventure deck for Fate. Even that will require one to roll lucky (sans assistance), and only one point will be gain on any visit (to a max pool of 4).

Question: did any one note if Fate at the Graveyard says "gain" or maybe "recover" Fate? I'm wondering if a character's starting Fate operates in same way as Life. It should. "Heal" can only take one to starting quota, and "gain" is required to go above it. One would hope (or am I just wishing) that such a distinction (little as it is) was place on Fate as well.

The complete new rules for the Graveyard, as found here: http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=267 are: Neutral players may replenish their starting Fate there, by sacrificing 1 gold for each Fate point. Evil players will automatically replenish their starting Fate points or can pray. On 1-4 they'll be ignored, on 5 they'll gain (as opposed to replenish) 1 Fate point, on 6 they'll gain 1 Spell.

It seems people here should check out the Talisman section of FFG's website (as opposed to forums) more often

One thing that seems a bit scary is the alignment-changing Druid with 4 Fate. Will have to see how it works though.

I thank you for your time

Lord Gorthuar de Veris

Cult of Nagash