talisman with these expansions of 4r ed are just a kind of reprint. 90% of all stuff has already been done 20 years ago.

there has been the 2md and 3rd edition. The thrid edition was done in 15 months with all sets and tower . there has been a lot of cards and 3 boards new developed.

ffg took talisman 2 years ago and we do not even have the supplement, that was included in the first addon from 2nd edition. with that releaase speed, talsiman dragon tower will come in 3 years, 5 years for the same material that has been released in 15 monhs the 90s . most new are battle hulks and dark cultists.

so whats the big deal with ffg ? worst overtake ever happened, if you see the facts. i wish BI would have done the job.,

Nonsense. Two expansions per year is an exceptional release rate.

If the project had been left with BI you would have one expansion now and that would have been it - FACT.

What people also do not realise is the the Third Edition had such a quick turn around because the game was developed as a complete set WITH expansions. They could have released it all at once, but spread it out to maximise turnover.

Here, here!!!

Ell.

I think that 3E set an unusual precedent that can't be used to measure the current release rate. While a lot of cards in 4ER are re-releases of older ones, the new expansion versions do include additional elements, mechanics, etc. never seen before. Those factors combined still add up to a lot of work to get the expansions on the shelf... a lot of work. Two expansions per year is really pretty phenomenal when you think about it, especially when we remember that Talisman is only one game in their extensive product line(s)..

9 new minatures, about 3 hundreds of new cards and a new board is just what a normal group of players can appreciate in a year's time. Shall I receive a new expansion every 3 months I would feel overwhelmed, especially with the miniatures I have to paint.

The release time between expansions is exactly what's needed to play the game enough to get familiar with new cards, mechanics and possibilities. This release rate is more or less double than any other top FFG game (Descent, Arkham Horror, Runebound), which have had one expansion per year in the recent times.

Whatever reason you have to post such a comment, I think it's rash and pointless. I'm not saying that everybody should praise FFG for what they're doing, because there are goods and bads as always, but there's a huge difference between productive criticism and cheap denigration.

talismanisland said:

Should we read between the lines with this quote? Highland being the 1st expansion for 2010, does Talismanisland know more than he is letting on (probably)? Or are we just taking 2 per year for granted?

Well, I was only really referring to the average release rate so far to be honest. Let's face it though, even if FFG cut back a bit on production, there is more than enough to keep people going in the Home Brews section!!

PS @magicrealm . Sorry if my post sounded a little gruff. I have just reread it and it probably comes over that way. I am just thankful that FFG did actually take over the licence for Talisman as it has given the game a phenomenal new lease of life.

Be lucky you don't play Cosmic Encounter. The games been out for about a year and a half, and we've only just got the fist expansion.

FFG is more devoted to supporting its games with expansions that any other company I can think of. They even rival the long dead Supremacy Games (which produced 15 expansions in a ten year span).

We are very lucky FFG has taken Talisman under her wing. Even with Cosmic Encounter, other companies have produced this game with no expansion support at all, So I am more than thankful.

Incidentally, if 3rd edition produced three expansions in 15 months, that's only one every five months - barely faster than two per year.

crimhead said:

Exception that two of them were double expansions... but still, the current schedule does allow playing one new expansion thoroughly before the next.

FFG does make a LOT of games. They have a LOT of customers and fans to take care of. It is also not good to dump everything on the market at once from a sales stand point. Most people can't afford everything at once and most game stores can't afford to have the products linger on their shelves, that part is about cash flow for a buisness.

The anticipation is part of the fun and the plan. I can save my pennies until the new expansion comes out.

It depends how you count. Dungeon of Doom (3rd) has twice as many boards as The Highlands, but the same amount of characters and fewer cards. I don't think it's really fair to call that double. By boards alone the Reaper and Frostmarch wouldn't count at all.

But boards are very cool! I fully sympathise with OP that two more years to get four corner boards. But we couldn't ask for much better.

But those 3rd ed boards only had 2 "levels" on them, whereas R4th extra boards are three deep (assuming Highland board will be the same as Dungeon), so they have a lot more spaces to land on.

Umm... so having two boards in an expansion pack for 3E along with all of the cards and accessories for each doesn't count as double because ... the count of spaces are different? Does anyone else want to yawn in disdain?

Here's to hoping FFG just sticks with their current schedule of one big and one small expansion per year.

Looking on BGG, Dungeon of Doom has (a lot) less stuff than the R4th Dungeon, under 80 cards total (37 and 40) for the two new boards. That's just not a lot of stuff in the supposed double-pack, having less than in the R4th Dungeon. Only thing the 3rd edition set has more are character 6 vs 5, not a huge upside for a double-pack vs single exp. Like crimhead said.

In typical games I've played or seen, a pass through the dungeon means a draw of around 7 cards more or less. 80 cards is almost overkill for that. So for me, the number of cards in one realm really isn't a big deal. Dam, aren't you the one who talks about speed of play? Maybe not, but it is the big deal for most players these days. So why would a bigger card count mean that much? You're just going to race through there anyway for a treasure card or a shortcut to the CoC.

I still say the counts between versions of one expansion don't matter. The number of expansions "paced" in release for steady enjoyment and "refreshing" the game against monotony is what matters. Nothing said so far about 3E vs 4ER (in positives or negatives) weighs anything versus these considerations. More does not equal better, in expansion components or in the amount of expansions released at once.

More cards = more variety/replayability, since it will be a good few games before you've even seen a majority of the new cards. 40 or so cards on the Dungeon board for example, there have been games where that would've meant a reshuffle of the discard pile. It would've also most likely cut down on the number of plays not only of Dungeon but Talisman as well, since it would've quickly become meh to go to the Dungeon since there are so few cards to draw from and all have been seen tons of times already.

Can you get hundreds of plays of out just the base game? Absolutely! Would I want to? Hell no. After about 20 plays the base game Adventure (and Spell) deck were starting to get to me with their lack of anything new or interesting. Even though adding more cards to them doesn't change the base mechanic of drawing cards, it does add a bigger element of the unknown to it (even if one already pretty much knows what cards are in there). Bigger deck also means that you have one shot at any card that is drawn, if you snooze, you lose your chance with it. With just base deck, there were games where the Adv. deck got reshuffled.

To me it's not different than the Mythos cards in Arkham Horror. My current average is 14 turns. Mythos deck has 208 cards. For people who don't know, you draw 1 Mythos during pre-game, then one at the end of each turn (exceptions can occur, but basically # of turns = # of Mythos cards drawn). But even the base game has 67 Mythos cards, so just under 80% of even that deck won't be seen in a normal game. Are those "extra" cards pointless? No, variety and replayability.

Dam said:

Dam, I totally agree with what you just pointed out, if the number of cards and variety in a deck was so unimportant then why do FFG make expansion for the big majority of their games or why do fans spend time to create "homebrew" cards? (or NPC, just look at the care put by Mr. Brogger into the "Toad King and tell me again that variety isn't important!).

But I guess that there are some players who like to play with only the base deck and that's ok if you like to see the same cards multiple time and reshuffle the deck on the same game. I can see the appeal of a certain control over a deck with a lower card count for some player, as example, if your opponent pick "False Grail" and you know that there is only one out of 300 cards, then you know that there is none left in the remaining deck. As for myself, this is not the type of control that I look for in Talisman but I respect the few who like it, and few they must be otherwise the official expansion would be unpopular and FFG would stop releasing any and those like me and Dam who like variety, we would be left with "homebrew" or "in the balance" to built up the card count.

Cheers

Most cards are the same cards in expanions. A new picture and title rarely (if ever) changes how they are played. Now those few in the expansions with some new mechanics are worth consideration for real variety.

JCHendee said:

That's a little harsh, I think.

Dam has pointed out (correctly) that 77 cards, 6 characters, and 2 small boards does not equal double 168 cards 5 characters and 1 large board.

I find the comparisons between 4th revised and previous editions are often very biased on these forums. People are quick to list those things present in (either) past edition yet lacking in 4th, but give no credence to those elements that 4th has which its predecessors do not.

You provide a perfect example - you count 3rd edition expansions as doubling 4th edition expansion because you note there are twice as many boards, despite them having only half the card count and the boards being smaller. It's not a fair comparison.

And as stated elsewhere, quantity does not equal quality. I'm not saying the 4ER packages are lesser in quality, before you go there; quite the opposite. I'm saying the counting of cards and spaces in a blind fashion doesn't matter when making comparisons between like expansions between editions. It's pointless. What matters is what an expansion as a whole contributes to the "play" of the game.

There is something to be said for a variety of cards... but not simply in different pictures and titles.

And this topic has gotten overly nitpicky, even from me, and no longer serves a useful purpose.

Much has been said already so just my two cents.

I would hardly call rev 4th ed a reprint simply because number of the cards already exceeded the 2nd ed I'm familiar with and FF is not even half way through the four big corner expansions that we can expect.

An interesting statistic for you. I was just counting cards to see how big of a box I have to buy or make to hold all of the expansions in foreseeable future.

2nd Edition vs. Rev. 4th Edition

Adventure cards - 266 / 288

Spell cards - 54 / 90

Dungeon cards - 32 / 128

Grand total - 547 / 588

And again, we're not even half way through with expansions. So there

Felis said:

How are you calculating those totals?

Every rulebook or rulesheet has "Components" section. I happen to have rulebooks from polish 2nd ed as well (I'm assuming the total number of the cards in pl 2nd ed is close to orginal). The rest is simple math

PS. If you are asking about my "grand total" figures, I counted all cards including Purchase, Alignment, Warlock quests and all 2nd ed expansions not present in 4th ed yet. As I said before I needed a rough estimate of the number of cards after, lets say, four big and four small expansions.

On the subject of enemies, I would like to see more enemy cards with there own special abilities instead of your basic ST(X) enemies.

I also feel that having 80 or so cards for one section of the board is good as a variety of different things will happen in each adventure...you could play a dozen games and still see new events/enemies ect which in my opinion is a positive.

Regarding the expansions, I myself have 3-4 boardgame collections and I am happy with the distribution of expansions for Talisman in a £ respective as I can afford each expansion.

The Warhammer Invasion has an expansion out roughly each month and it does add up for myself.

Also if each expansion came out one after the other and the ideas dried up, the game may gather dust after a few months...so this is a smart move on FF's behalf. In short terms the suspense of each expansion keeps the game alive.

However if you only own Talisman then I understand how you could be upset waiting 3 months each time.

meggypeggs said:

I agree with everything,

I like it too, if enemies has his own special abilties. That makes them special.

we can add 50, 80 100 enemies with only strength or craft, but that would be very boring.

I am already happy that we get 2 expansions in a year.

And it's very important to give FFG enough time to make a good expansion.

After a expansion has been released, then we (the fans) can discuss what we have on our wishlist.

I am pretty sure that FFG will take a look at our idea's. I appreciate that !