Okay, i'll prep something and then drop you an email. I'll also set up PNG templates so you can experiment with those as well.

FINAL NOTE

All previous archives for download have now been removed. All five rules cards have been packaged together and are now available through TalismanIsland.com.

Trophy-Less Trophies

This is another one created by me and my players group, though I could easily imagine we aren't the first ones in 20+ years to come up with it. It will be of special interest to players mostly focused on finding every little gain they can during play and as often as possible. As before, the print resolution card front and back have been archived for download HERE.

I have used you house rule card of 2D6 combat and I find it really adds to the game experience.

However, I find it unnecessary complicated to have completely new rules for the extremely rare situation in which both combatants roll a double 6 on their attack roll (strictly speaking 1 in 1296 chance per combat to get this result).

If the two characters are the only one left on the board. Both having 1 life left and on the crown of command. Who wins? Is the game a draw (in which case this is the only way I know of)?

I think it is mush better to keep it simple and just say it is a stand-off instead.

I can sort of see your point, and overall, do what you think is best. These are house rules and that's all. They're not written in stone. However...

The chance of rolling a 2 on 2D6 is 2.7777777777778%; the chance of two opposing rolls of 2D6 both rolling 2 is therefor 0.0771604938272% (about 7.7 times in a ten thousand such paired rolls). The chance of both those opponents, both on the CoC, both having 1 life each, and both rolling that 2 is...

So miniscule that it's not worth talking about let alone being a concern. However...

I have seen a double 2 and a double 12 come up in the same game when we've felt like playing 2D6 Combat. (How else do you think those rules came about? There are already enough stalemates in the game to make that concept itself rather old and stale.) The double 2 was between two adventurers in Psychic Combat. That utterly rare result was worth it to have those special rules AND to see the looks on both players faces. Priceless! And if it ever did happen on the CoC, I'd want to be there for that less than 1 in a million event. Who says there always has to be a winner?

So if those rarity rules would almost never ever ever be used, so to speak, then it's no big deal to use the spare space on the card, eh? But do what thou wilt be the whole of the law.

Naturally - it is your card - you can do as you like.

I just find it silly to complicate it. I think it is better to be consistent than have a lot of exceptions when it is not necessary.

Off cause the chance of being at the crown with one life each and getting 2 double 6 (4 sixes out of 4 possible) is minuscule but I prefer if the rules are water prof if possible. But that was really an attempt to give me more meat to the bones in my arguments (which I perhaps could have skipped when I think about it).

If I understand you correctly, this rule was made so that it would not get dull to get yet another of those stand-offs?

What happened to 2 double 1s? Is it not as boring to get a stand-off when rolling 2 vs 2 (or do you deserve to get bored as both rolled so bad)

JCHendee wrote:

"The chance of rolling a 2 on 2D6 is 2.7777777777778%; the chance of two opposing rolls of 2D6 both rolling 2 is therefor 0.0771604938272% (about 7.7 times in a ten thousand such paired rolls)."

as I said, 1 in 1296 chance (I find it easier to think in fractions rather than per cent when dealing with these really tiny probabilities).

The reason that I bring this up is that I want print out your card as a reference in my games but that part really nags me and my group (I know, we are sick ).

I rather not make a similar card from scratch (because you have done a great job with it) and I do not want to always point out to new players that we make an exception not to use that exception.

this was just a suggestion and you can ignore it if you want (or... listen to your fans JC )

Hinnyboy said:

The 2D6 with auto-win / auto-loss isn't really my rule. 2D6 has been a floating house rule since Talisman 2E (possibly 1E). I actually learned it from another group while in college. Over the years of play, I and others I know have seen the double 2 and double 12 (or more importantly, double auto-win/loss) come up more often than the odds say. And as I said, there was room on the card, so what the heck. And to repeat, it's more about that auto-win/loss than about the particular rolls.

Hinnyboy said:

Yes, you're absolutely right - it is boring; stand-offs are fine when comparing the the totals in Battle and they come out the same. But that's not actually what is involved here. In the standard 1D6 combat, you aren't playing the auto-win/loss on 1s and 6s (and it's a very bad idea, by the way).

The critical difference is that in 2D6 its not about having the same total in Battle or Psychic Combat. Its about the same rolled number, which supercedes all totals (character attribute and bonuses from magic objects, objects, followers, spells, etc.), and kicks in the auto-win/loss rule to override normal combat results. Take out the auto-win/loss, and there's your stand-off again... but only based on the same total, not the same roll.

It's just as convoluted to claim a standoff when...

Player A: "Hey, I rolled a 12, so I automatically win and you don't need to bother totalingl."
Player B: "Wrong! I gotta 12 too."
Player A: "What? How can we both automatically win."
Player B: "Hmmm... guess it's a stand-off."
Player A: "How can that be an auto-win for anyone when we're not comparing our totals beyond the actual rolls?"
Player B: "Okay then, I have a total of 18. You have only a total of 13. I win!"
Player A: "No you don't! I win too! Or else its a stand-off."
Player B: "That makes no sense - your total isn't even close to mine!"

A stand-off occurs when the totals (not the rolls) match; that's the standard rule. A double auto-win/loss occurs when the rolls (not the totals) match; that's a house rule that conflicts with the standard rule. To do it your way would require additional explanation for the exception in the house rule that then is abandoned for the standard rule. And so on... or the face the inevitable (and personally witnessed) arguments among the rules lawyers and point grubbers we all know are everywhere in any community for popular game involving competing rolls of dice... with add ons for totals to compare.

Again, if one can make up house rules over the top of the standard ones, then one can make house rules that go over the top of other house rules. We all do it all the time, so go for it if that works better for your crew. But don't confuse what's really involved here.

I have not even tryed this two dice rule yet, but I think I will try it in my next game.

ONE MORE THING.... For anyone who wants to make a rules card of their own, even a personal variation on one i've release, you can do so quite easily. Go to TalismanIsland.com and get the Strange Eons card maker and Jon's Talisman plugin in for it. I released the three motif rules cards templates for public use, and Jon included them in his plugin. Within minutes, you can make your very own card or variation on any rules card to suit you and your group's preferences. House rules serve the individual house, always; that's why they are "house" rules.

I guess you are right.

Do you not mind then if I include a very similar rules card in a coming expansion instead of a reference to your card? I plan to change some card text formulation of existing cards so that it will fit 2D6 combat system, amongst other things.

Thanks for introducing this game play variant anyhow.

Go for it! Do your own thing. Other than the those final rules for those rare occurences of double 2 or 12, it isn't even my rule... it's very old and I don't know who originally came up with it. And those doubles rules aren't even wholly mine; they came out of a long heated discussion in my group the first time we encoutered a double 12 in play. (Yes, that conversation above really happened, though the wording was altered ... versus some things not suitable to post.)

Personally, being influenced by the 1980-ish Excalibur movie, I’d say they both win (or lose) on a 2 vs 2 or 12 vs 12. i.e. both lose a Life. Can’t take items, gold, etc… just life. The end.

For those that didn’t see that movie, in the final duel, Arthur was essentially run through the chest by a spear at the same time that Mordred was stabbed through the neck by a sword. Not a stand off. It’s a “they both win” or “they both lose”, depending whether you’re a glass is half full or half empty kind of person.

But that’s just me.

Just stumbling back here after a while. The concept of both losing a Life on either double roll does make some sense. And of course simplifies the process. The only remaining complication for this extremely rare occurrence would be the double-win, double-lose against an Enemy. On the double win the adventurer gains the trophy; on a double-lose, no trophy.

On the other hand, I think most people trying/using the 2D6 system are simply skipping the auto-win/lose and playing the standard "draw" rule like on other tied rolls.

JC you said: "In the standard 1D6 combat, you aren't playing the auto-win/loss on 1s and 6s (and it's a very bad idea, by the way). "

Just curious what the pitfall is with auto win/loss on d6 system?

In a very quick attempt to reduce automatic win scenarios I suggested we try having it so rolling a 1 shifts the outcome 1 against you and rolling 6 turns it 1 in your favour. It seemed to work OK but have to admit I feel there's a pitfall in there somewhere.

So if you would normally have won but rolled a 1 then you draw. If you would normally lose but rolled a 6 then you draw. If you would normally win but rolled a 1, AND they rolled a 6 then you lose. Both rolling 6s cancel each other out, likewise if you both roll 1s then they cancel out.

So there is (I think) a 5/36 chance of getting a standoff when outgunned, and a 1/36 chance of getting a win when outgunned. If you outgun someone by 5 or more points then you have 30/36 chance of winning, 5/36 chance of draw and 1/36 chance to lose.

I didn't really do any maths on this as it was just a quick game with the kids, but it seemed to make things more interesting and be an overall improvement, but I do feel the underdog probably gets a good deal with this system. Maybe that's why you don't like it? Or did I get something wrong or miss a vital situation?

I did also wonder if rerolls and/or extra dice may be unbalanced for this system but again didn't really crunch the numbers on it yet.

One more point - I noticed on the True Fate card you include a rule that Fate cannot be used on Witch, Enchantress, Reaper etc. Is this directly from the Rules or is this a house rule addition?

So far we have played that Fate can be used on those spaces and cards, including Reaper, as that seems to be what the Rules suggest (any card or space instructions) but I wasn't entirely sure. I did feel Toadings were pretty rare with the inclusion of fate, but then being toaded is a particularly nasty experience so players who reserve fate for such occurences (rather than always using on lost combat etc) probably deserve a second chance!

P.S. I really like all the new stuff people have made, including your Rules cards. Not sure if I will ever print them off but I may well use them as references occasionally as we refine the game!

Nice work.

Orion3T said:

It happens too often. On a D6, a 6 is rolled 16.7% of the time. Some groups have mitigated this by making it a 1 and 6. If you roll 6 when your opponent rolls 1, the you automatically win. This is slightly better, so long as Fate re-rolls are not considered. The chance of a 1 and 6 combination is 2.78%... which to some might be a little low, but still...

Orion3T said:

Except that now a 1 and 6, with calculation of bonus included, are no longer possible rolls. By the math, your rolls would be as follows: 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. The probabilities for a win are not better against an opponent who can do the same thing. The math with a skewed die on both sides is a little tricky to explain; trust me, the odds are no better when both sides can do this vs just rolling straight D6.... unless a one opponent is 7 or more points higher than the other. In that case if the higher rolls a 1, he gets a zero, and if the lower rolls a 6, he gets a 7. And the result is still just a draw/tie.

What you propose is that on a 1 to 6 range, the range will shift +1 16.7% of the time and -1 16.7% of the time. This means that 33.3% of the time, one participant in a combat with have a total shifted beyond the limits of the normal range. The same for the other participant. 2.78% of the time, they will shift in opposite directions. Given that one opponent is over 6 points higher than the other, basing this at about a 50% chance for the heck of it, and combining with that needed 1 and 6 combination in your favor....

Then defeating or just tying a 6+ supperior opponent has an average 1.39% chance of occurence.

But why go through all of that when a 2D6 increases the range for combatants, making an untouchable opponent have to have 10 points on you instead of 6? And then you can decide if you want to add autowin/lose on top of that as well. The chance of rolling two 6s is 2.78%... the same chance of the roll of a 1 and 6 by two opponents to create and autowin.

Orion3T said:

Statistically, a re-rolled die that REPLACES a previous die dos not change your odds at all. Seriously, its and illusion. The only thing you can do is look at what you rolled and see what your odds are of rolling again and getting something higher. For example:

1. You roll a 1 in Battle and lose; you needed at least a 2 to tie.
2. 2-6 out of 6 numbers is 83.33%, so your chances are good... but its still a 1 die roll, fully isolated and not combined with the previous die.

On the other hand...

1. Your roll a 4 in Battle and lose; you needed at least a 5 to tie.
2. 5-6 out of 6 numbers is 33.3%, so your chances are not good... and you'll have to spend a Fate point to find out, which may be very hard to replace (especially if you aren't Evil).

Orion3T said:

This is a house rule addition. Fate isn't really Fate in Talisman... its Luck the way it is used. If it is really Fate, then everyone has a Fate, including personas in the game. Their Fate would be in play vs your own, hence our group (and others) long ago ruled out the use of a Fate point when the roll generates a reaction from a "being."

The Powers of the Alignments would have just as much interest in those few (and thereby) improtant personas in the game... at least as much as as any greedy, grubbing, backstabbing adventurer. The Fate of each cancels each other out, so Fate cannot be used on them. It also keeps the game dangerous. This is why the particular types of rolls upon which Fate can be used are specific in True Fate rather the anything goes of the standard rules.

House Rules are house rules. They are either additions or replacements. They are almost never reiterations of the base rules, and even when so, they may at least frame those base rules in a different context... like the difference between Fate as Luck and Fate as Destiny.

And one last thing... if you don't like the way they work, then change them. They're only rules... not laws. So have at it any way the you and yours like better!

JC thanks for the reply. I don't want to HiJack this thread so I made a new post here: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Hopefully I have explained it a bit better this time, because I think I didn't explain very well last time, so I'd still value your (and anyone else's of course!) opinion.

I've read through the whole thread and really love the idea of Rules Cards, unfortunately it seems all links aren't valid any more.
Is there a possiblity to revive them to get access to these cards?

I am a long time 2nd edition player back in the 90' - now coming back with the amazing 4th revised edition and I am simply blown away by community active support for expanding the base mechanics of the game. Hope to get a grasp of what's going on and try to add something from myself to the pool in the short future.

Drop by TalismanIsland.com and see if my Rules Pack #1 is still there. I will also be hosting it at Fantastic Divisions within a week. (See my sig for the link.)

If you are after the templates I created, you will need to learn how to use the Strange Eons card marker program along with the Talisman plug-in created by Jon New (which includes a some templates for new card types, like Rules Cards, designed by me). There is a slightly updated form of the rules card template that I now use, but I will not be (re)releasing that to the public at this time.