Since discussion in the Disspell (Dispel) rule topic has turned in another direction, a more apt separate topic was in order. Below is a reiteration of two possible cards so far.

Overall, they are treated like Spell cards for most rules but are not discarded when used. They still count against Spell limit, and for keeping them to reuse they have a cost, usually discarding another Spell. And they count against Spell limit. Before anyone asks... Yes, since these are Spell cards themselves - cards out of the Spell deck - you can discard one itself (if one requires a Spell card discard) for using it. Thereby it also operates just like a normal Spell (a trick that Mr. Brogger suggested).

All cards are layout reduced for easier reading; right-click and View or Save to get the print resolution version. Suggestion for revisions and other cards based on known Special Abilities that are based in magic are welcome.

Someone must have been working on forum code again. I seem to be cut off from editing the opening post even thought edit link still gives me access (changes won't post).

ADDITIONAL: These cards also have an advantage. You can discard them at will to open another slot in your spell limit; unlike actual Spells where you must wait for a chance to caste a crappy one you just want to get rid of.

And here's another possible card. After hearing from people here, and more who've contacted me likewise, there seems to be some interest in these as new additions and new mechanics in the use of these Spell-but-not-Spell cards. One point was raised.

Though these aren't truly Spells but rather abilities, aptitudes, talents, conduits, whatever., they may still need to be labeled as Spells as well. The point was that unless the word "spell" is on the card, it isn't clear without instructions that the card itself can also be discarded to use it once. (Aside from the option to discard it when presented to draw spell and caster is already at spell limit.) But to call it a spell would might require counter explanation on every such card, indicating that it isn't discarded in addition to another spell "card" for its typical use. I await any thoughts.

Also... in looking at standard characters and other "ability" based discussions, using the term "ability" might be confusing as well. And I think each title might be shifted towards a noun indicating a type of operation (Transmutation, etc.) vs. an action/verb (Dispel) to further give them the "feel" of something different. I know... some standard spells go both ways... and its only a notion anyhow.

And a little something more... yet less than a full Teleport spell...

Continuing with this notion separated from Addon Abilities, here's another card. Also a rework of "Dispel" to match changes in later cards.

I'm also considering adding another mechanic to make Magical Abilities a little more flexible. Along with discarding 1 Spell Card (including the M.A. itself) to use the M.A., I'd thought of adding the option to discard 1 Fate or 1 Life instead. Anyone still watching can post some feedback.

Hi JC, I was wondering if it would be better not having them counting to the spell limits. It can be frustrating to draw this "spell" when you only have the option to have one spell for example. Maybe they should be considered as "gifts" comming from the magical dimension. Here is a list of different ideas for the concept:

• You can keep this ability if you pay 7 craft trophies. Otherwise discard it immediately and draw a new spell.
• If you lose in a phycic combat, you immediately lose your ability. (not right sure if that would be fair due to the cost)
• To maintain a spell ability, you need 7+ craft, to have 2 ability, you need 8+ craft and so on.

Not to mess up everything so far, but just had to come of with these ideas.

cheers

Those are all very viable, but perhaps too many at once. With Jon's mechanic that they can be removed by being hit with some other spells, it does mitigate them. They may not last once other players know you have them. Like spells, they can be kept face down, but once you use one, others will know what you've got and try to remove it. In addition, having them count against Spell limit means some hard choices. When you know it's time to draw another Spell "card" and you have three, then you have to decide if keeping an M.A. is worth it, considering the cost to use it... or ditch it to draw the third real spell. Overall, perhaps calling the Magical "Abilities" may be a little misleading.

In many cases, because of the costly discard of any Spell card, they would likely be used like a Spell. You would discard the Magical Ability (as a Spell "card") to use them. (Yes, the wording of the Spell " card " discard is means you can use them immediately like a Spell ... once!)

These two features of M.A. cards mean they will likely not be kept permanently throughout a game.

I could see the Craft Trophy rule, for that matches what we're trying with the Addon Abilities; three problems are that

1. Craft is harder to build than Strength (almost twice as hard, if one discounts freebies and those nonsensical Gain 1 Craft spells).
2. If you have to toss 7 Craft trophies (equal to gaining 1 Craft), that slows down Craft build up, compounding the necessary achievement of Craft 7+.
3. Losing in Psychic Combat already loses you a life, gold, object, and in rare cases something else. Again, the loss of the M.A. compounds this further.

That's a lot, even if an M.A. is allowed beyond current spell limit

So that's two compounds in keeping/using (3 if a Spell discard for use is required). Then 1 addtional compound for losing it in Psychic Combat, while Special Abilities (some of them "magical") have no way to lose them, and shouldn't. The Addon Abilities so far are being worked toward 1 to 2 compounds for gaining them. There are also events and other things in the game that can remove a Spell card, and Addon Abilities don't have that risk.

Overall, any one new requirement that you mention would be okay... maybe two at most... but not all three. They would then become highly unlikely to ever keep, or even to use just once. In which case, they become nothing more than Spells that are undesirable. Keep in mind, that with the size of the Spell decks and a recommendation that no more than 1 M.A. be added per 25 to 50 Spell cards, most of these won't pop up in every game.

Note that all M.A.s so far are utilitarian or defensive; no real attacking spells, for those should be straight up Addon Abilities. The only attack one I've considered is Psionisism (Psychic Combat); even in that you have to 1) encounter another character directly, and 2) discard the M.A. or another Spell to use Psychic Combat. You would also have to be the one to do the encountering. If another character lands on you, you don't get to choose to use Pionicism.

Counting M.A.s against Spell limit also mitigates how much they can used against others. Even the heavy handed Dispel could only be used up to three times. If you had the natural ability to always have one spell, and you used up all but the Dispel M.A., then you don't get to draw another Spell "card." (Because it is a Spell "card.") At best against the Command Spell, you would be able to re-use it only 3 times. BUT... if the M.A. doesn't count against spell limit...

If you fulfill the requirements to gain and keep it, in addition to normal Spell limit, and then use up your last real spell.... in combination with the "always have 1 Spell" ability, you could use the Dispel continuously forever!

You would become untouchable by any spell... You would be untouchable by the Command Spell!

This is why M.A.s must count against Spell limit, no matter what other requirements for gaining / keeping them. Some other M.A.s likewise have a severe abuse factor if not counted against normal spell limit. That leads back to perhaps calling the something other than a Magical "Abilitities." However, their mechanics are worded to imply all of these limitations and costs. They may not (will not) last in normal use. Eventually, they will be used up and discarded.

I would be highly amused to watch someone try to keep one M.A. for a whole game. Even those who always have one Spell would be siting on it until some other opportunity came up to draw another spell. More likely they'd use up the M.A. to use it once. If ever anyone drew 2 M.A.s, we both know one of them would quickly go bye-bye without another player doing anything about it.

It may look like the mechanics are too easy and simple... but they aren't. They are tricky, and will keep these from being overpowering. Jon's simple notion of using up another spell was a good one. The M.A.s by mechanics are are simply Spells no more potent than others, except they can be reused up to a point by channeling other spells.

I agree with JC, but I've a question for him: I like very much the first version of Dispel card, even if the second is more simple. could it be possible to make a different name for one of the card, so we can put both cards in the deck without confusing them?

Sorry , but the original Dispel will not come back. There were some rare but complicated mechanics conundrums involved. Boiled down and over simplified, in using a mock Psychic Combat (which is the way all Spells should really work), the interaction between the two Players (not characters) is pulled out of normal Spell use and may negate the use of certain spells as counter to the Dispel's countering of the original a spell.

NOTE: Talisman's spell system isn't really characters using magic, otherwise their craft would matter to success just like Psychic Combat (or Strength in Battle.) Spells have nearly nothing to do with characters; they are mechanics singularities that PLAYERS throw at each other, and thereby may affect the characters. Much as I would wish it otherwise, it's the way it is. Unless the whole spell system is changed, things like that original Dispel will only make things worse... as well as more complicated.

I will be adding the Psionicism M.A. later on, as well as some others, but that's that.

I understand. Anyway I think that M.A. is a great idea, and if balanced (actually, without homemade expansions' spell, my spell deck counts 90 cards) it could give deeper gameplay. of course Warlock (my favorite charachter when i wanna play a magic-base ch.) could be dangerously advantaged, because with just 1 craft bonus (starts with craft 5) he can take 2 M.A. at the same time and use one on every turn (3 spell at his turn's beginning, 2 MA "equipped" and one spell you can discard to activate MA effect; next turn he obtain a new spell and he could use the MA effect again.).

I prefer having 3 spells instead 1 spell and 2 MA, but every player will choose how to play it.

So the dispel MA allows you to be safe from the Command Spell too? that's a great thing...Warlock will be wanted every game!!

thanks for the great job!!

double post, sorry

Yes, there are issues with those characters who 1) start with a high craft and/or 2) always have one spell. This is why I'm considering Mr. B's suggestion to have a trophy cost for making an M.A. active (see the Addon Abilities topic for where that comes from and what its about). Essentially, the M.A. could be kept, but you couldn't use it until you pay and activation cost in trophies. Whether its a standard 7 Craft trophies or variable by M.A. type I haven't decided.

Overall this topic is just me playing around; I never decide whether or not to make this into an actual expansion. I'm more interested in seeing where the Addon Abilities topic goes, as that has more possibilities for all characters based in the standard abilities and their play. And it is less problematic since any ability with effort can be gained by any character. Whereas, M.A.s will most be access by spell weilding characters, which means an inherent imbalance regardless that with adequate craft, any character could draw one.

If you're interest in printing and using any one of these, right-click a card and "Save." What you'll get is the full 300ppi version vs the reduced display version. Then go off to Talisman Island and download the 4ER card templates Jon New made available for all of us. In there is the backside of the Spell card.

And yes, if you really want it... that first version of the Dispel can be snatched as well, but if an expansion ever comes of these cards, I won't be including it.

JCHendee said:

I like playing around like you JC - That is how good things sometimes gets created

In your answer ealier, I can understand that having MA's counting toward spell limit is nessesary. The 7+ requirement could also do some problems when thinking about it, such as advantages for spell casters and no advanges for non spell casters (thinking of those who go the strenght way).

Ohh, this post will stop here - my wife is going to use the computer (I promised her)

The issue about Strength path characters is a good point. Even though giving up Craft trophies to activate an M.A. would be pricey for those on the Craft path, they would still have the better chance to do so. Maybe the trophy approach isn't a completely sound way to do it. Perhaps IF an activation mechanic is used, it should be like the cost of using the M.A.? Maybe discard 1 Spell card to keep it? I don't know... I'm just winging it here. Even so, if you have no spell cards what do you do when you draw an M.A. Perhaps this as well is too complicated, and activation shouldn't be part of it.

Overall, a better approach might be to keep the effects of the M.A.s to a minimum... with very powerful ones requiring discarding 2 Spells. On the other hand, with the discard requirements, and M.A.s counting against Spell limit, they are already pretty hobbled... except for as AirShow pointed out concerning characters that start at a high craft and can always have one spell.

On the other hand, most of them could find themselves too attached to a particular ability. And when hit with an opposing spell, they may not have a way to stop it. Also, perhaps a general rule that any character can only have one M.A. at a time. If they draw a second one, they must discard it or discard the one they have to keep the new one. Of course there will always be groups that ignore this rule in being power hungry. And the only way someone could maintain 2 M.A.s is with a Craft of 6 or more and "Always have 1 Spell."

That brings up another problem. Characters with "Always have 1 Spell" will draw M.A.s more often than any other character as they cycle more quickly through their spells. SIGH.

I begin to see this mechanic meeting lots of problems. Maybe the abilities should be kept to Addon Abilities that are in this topic . MA's could be part of Addon Abilities.

If the Addon Abilities will be an expansion, I think MA's will make things too complicated. I can imagine learning a new player to play Talisman would be confused about abilities:

1. Abilities on character cards
2. Addons Abilities
3. Magic Abilities

I am afraid It takes away what Talisman is: A simple and easy to learn game.

Very likely true, which is part of why I (1) started the spin-off discussion of true Addon Abilities and (2) only kept this topic to play around. I will likely keep playing with these, but my primary interest at this point is the Addon Abilities. If these herein [which I will change to "Spell - Ability" or maybe "Spell - Conduit" or something] ever get anywhere, they will be rigged as listed to be discarded or taken away through Nullify, CounterSpell, etc. These cards, though intended to be re-usable within limits, should still be temproraries, whereas the Addon Abilities should be permanent once gained.

And of course no new player should ever be introduced to fan additions until they can play the official version without running for the rule book... which itself is convoluted brain twister in places. And my advice is don't ever show them the flowchart until they reach a point where they need to face the fussy stuff it was designed for.

I believe only Warlock is really overpowered, because with only one craft add he could obtain 3 spell at every own turn's start: so he can obtain 2 MA and with the third spell he can use only one MA effect every time his turn starts. BUT it's true that in a 4 or 5 player game he cannot use 2 times the effect without losing one of the MA:

es:player A, Warlock craft 7, at the start of his turn draw 3 spells: Psionic blast, Dispel, Disambiguation. he choose to use Disamb. MA, so discard Psionic blast and uses the MA effect and his turn ends. Player B cast transmutation on player A: at this point A must choose if use MA Dispel or not, but if he uses it he must discard Disamb. or the same Dispel MA. ok, he choose to discard Disamb.

OK, another character cast a spell on player A (fireball), A has only Dispel left: he choose to discard it to "evade" the fireball.

at this point the warlock has 0 spell and he lost the MA. new turn starts, and warlock draw 3 new spells, but MA are gone. Surely, a warlock with MA cards will be probably the favorite target for other players, so i don't know if is so unbalanced. The real problem occours if other players are all strenght-based, without characters that can always have a spell. if Warlock is the only one (and sometimes happens) that uses spell fast he could be really advantaged in the game.

About characters that can always have a spell, I don't remember if there is a specific timing about WHEN you must draw the new spell (at turn's beginning?after casting the last spell?at turn's end?anyway, if you have one spell at turn's beginning,you can cast one only ) but if the MA is the last one, to use it you must discard it, so no problem.In that case I don't think they have great benefit.

Of course, IMO! ^______^

Good scenario example. And as with all things in the game, it always depends on the mix of characters per game. That's why my group took to enforcing some randomness into selection. (That, and we sick a two players choosing the same character every time.) All player are "dealt" 3 character cards face down form the character deck. If there are too many players for that, they are dealt two instead. They may pick one and discard the other two.

Only one character that I know of has a timing on drawing a new spell: the Sage. The rest apparently can draw a replacement spell whenever they use up their last one. My group has since started considering using the Sage as a model. The rules say you can only cast as many spells in a turn as your Spell Limit... but that doesn't stop people from drawing and using them in other people's turns. Ruling that all spell draws are at the beginning of one's own turn solves this problem AND decreases the spell at which the spell deck gets cycled. Spells become more strategic, because if you use them all up in your own turn, you may be vulnerable to those who have a spell when your turn is over.

I think the scenario you present shows that with the current max of 3 Spells, 2 M.A.s (or Spell Abilities now) might increase versatility, but force even harder choices. That's an acceptable balance. Of course there are rules for increasing spell limits (there's an actual calculation, but I won't get into it) that are played in a number of groups I know or have seen. Then high Craft characters would really have an advantage with one these cards. But that's an anomaly that isn't something that can be addressed.

Thanks for the feedback. It brings a little objective perspective into an otherwise subjective concern.

Perhaps you can provide your own perspective on how to label these cards (the term or terms to be used in the card's midbar). Lack of the term Spell could lead to confuse or forgetting they can be used to power themselves or another M.A. The term "spell" seems necessary, since each cards basic instruction refers to discarding another spell card. But a subtype, like found on Enemy cards, should be there as well to distinguish them as something specil. "Ability" is a possibility, but I wonder if that will confuse matters... cause other misinterpretations... based on the Addon Abilities project (should that ever actually become a distributed expansion). The label "Spell - Conduit" was suggested by an off-forum reviewer. It works, but I don't know if it has enough meaning to general players at large.