Zozimus said:

Perhaps the "lady in the water" will be a Good-aligned wandering figure. Kind of like the Reaper only not necessarily doing bad things to the characters. I think that could be pretty awesome. People start *trying* to be in the space she'll land in rather than avoiding it. =)

One of the things I love about Talisman is the generally random nature of encounters. They aren't all bad. They aren't all "win this challenge to get a reward." Those things certainly exist, but sometimes unequivocally good things just fall into your lap, too. I don't think the "primary NPC" in these small expansions necessarily needs to be a villain to the players. I would welcome a "primary" who aids Good characters and hurts Evil ones, as well as primary who aids Evil and hurts Good. Or a primary who aids everyone regardless of alignment, really. I just want more unpredictable craziness flying around the board, really. =)

Steve... I like some of your notions for NPCs (so to speak), but in particular some with alignment orientation might be nice. I agree that surprises and the unexpected are part of what Talisman is all about... but... too much randomness can become as monotonous as too little. I'm still hoping we get something of a scenario instead of just endgames. Nothing too heavy but perhaps akin to the Warlock Quest that will throw in a slight optional variation on how players/characters play a game, without or with other additions and spice. Another change-up for players rather than just the game would be really nice.

Judgement Day by Felicia Cano that TI just posted on his site looks like an alignment based ending card.

Edit: I just thought, could the lady of the pool be Gaia ? (or equivalent in Talisman World)

Thanks for the heads up, Bantha.

I figured I wouldn't start a whole new thread just now as it is only a Sneak Peek of the Sneak Peek!

It's "silly o'clock" here in Indy and I will come back after the FFG Flight Report later to share some of the sights of Gen Con on my front page.

Until then...

According to the Board Game Geek, The Sacred Pool will feature:

- 4 new characters
- 4 plastic figures
- 72 new Adventure cards
- 16 new Spell cards
- 24 Quest Reward cards
- 12 Stables Cards
- 4 Neutral Alignment Cards
- 3 Alternative Ending Cards

===

Enjoyable days, Jon

The artwork from judgementday looks awesome!

A groep of angels are fighting against a horde of enemies

Nemomon said:

A expansion to look forward too

It's third day of Gen Con. Jon New from Talisman Island added some new pics to his site. First of all, we can see Jon's daughter - Katie . Then we can see the box back of Sacred Pool. It shows backs of Stable cards, we weren't able to see yet, as well as an Alternative Ending, named Sacred Pool, with some unicorns, wolves and magic.

Nemomon said:

Notice that the Sacred Pool ending has the "revealed" icon, so it could even be a sort of "Alternative Game". Now my biggest questions are:

1) Are all the Quest Rewards "one-short" powers like those in the preview, or some are continous effects?

2) How do the stables work?

Good questions... though I wouldn't want "powers" to be permanent as rewards. Better that some rewards, if permanent, were Magic Objects that could still be affected through game play. But I doubt that will be the case since there is already a "quest" rule option for drawing Treasure cards.

I am eager to hear / see more about that new revealed AltEnd. If it is a "scenario" rather than just an ending, that's what would interest me and mine most. And of course am curious as to how and why "stable" cards are different than purchase cards of old for equines. The specifics of individual cards and what /where their details are from is also of keen interest. The suspense is mounting!

I like the back cover from the sacred pool box.

Topic quite dead, so "reviving".

FFG made hmm.... next.. News about Sacred Pool. There we can see a Magus Character, who is a Gladiator with some abilities of Sage. And one Reward was revealed - A Favour Owned

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

Wow the magus could be quite powerful at the mid-game point.

Certainly wouldn't want to face him with even a couple of followers.

Magus is very, and very, really uber very weak Character. He may not attack in Psychic, so he may have even million of Craft, but once he will defeat LoD, he won't use it at all. Ever. Also, as a Magus he should always have 1 Spell, not get 1 once per turn. Gladiator had a lot better abilities but still he saw death in his own eyes many times, mostly because he couldn't find any Followers. And he even had a protection ability. Magus has nothing. There is no strong Craft Enemies, except one or two, also in most of games only Strength is important, Craft sometimes only, so there is no reason to have it very high. Pretty weak IMO. Magus could be better, if it would have an ability to attack using psychic combat, or at least something more useful than 1 Spell per turn.

l agree a very weak Character that can not use Psychic combat. l can not understand why they made such a weak Character.

SO its being shipped few more weeks of waiting...

Also I would mention, Magus was drawn by Felicia Cano, and bigger version of it is there.

Crap didn't even notice the lack of psychic combat. I retract my earlier statement.

Nemomon said:

Can't disagree more. Limiting the draw of new spells to beginning of a turn is the way all of them should have been done. The rule about limiting the casting of spells per "turn" to one's Spell limit has holes that have let players with auto-Spell draw still cast, cast, and cast throughout a "round."

I actually like the Magus. Wouldn't be my favorite, particularly in having to compete against some of the uber characters that have come out, but he's a worthy challenge to play with.I don't need a fantasy "superhero" if focused on the challenge of building a character up.

My only real criticism of this character is that the "magus" (plural "magi") concept is underdeveloped (and outright misinterpreted as title concept). There's some interesting notions that could have been added besides (or in place of) that Follower ability... even for the simple characters of Talisman. A magus would also not be Evil (somebody wasn't doing their homework, or taking 15 seconds on google, for goodness' sake!) They/he are part of the oldest (and still living) monotheist religion on the planet. A more generic term could have been used... potentate, dark heirophant, ... or cult lord?

[ They/he are part of the oldest (and still living) monotheist religion on the planet. A more generic term could have been used... potentate, dark heirophant, ... or cult lord?

That's generally true: 'magus' in Classical Latin means a Persian learned man or sorcerer; it's not really clear to me how much the Romans knew or understood about Persian religions (though I know they imported some of them and adopted them enthusiastically). By the time Mediaeval Latin rolls around, though, my understanding is that it simply means "Magician" of no particular order or nation (though typically it would be associated with the East, in all likelihood). If I wanted to be generous to FFG, though, I'd interpret it as a substantive adjective instead of a noun: magus-a-um : meaning "magical man/woman/thing". Just like when you say a "Canadian" when you really mean a "Canadian person", but don't feel you need to overstate the obvious.

Just my two denarii

I think the Magus will be a figure for debate for sometime to come.

But what about the "Cleric" she looks like a nice character by the look of her (well at least a good amount of special abilities),

@Zozimus

Actually, you're still off the mark. Sorry, but I'm not going to stand by for more misconceptions as justifications.

The term comes from ancient Greek, not Latin. The association to sorcery (completely erroneous) stemmed from the Maji's practice of prognostication via the heavens... in other words, astrology, though this too is partially erroneous. It was said they were better at it than anyone else of their time(s)... supposedly... and were there by held in awe or demonized, even by the Hellenists who introduced their reworked concept into classical society. They actually were, and still are, the priest/followers of the prophet/teacher/messiah Zoroaster, who taught many of the same doctrines and ideas now attributed to Jesus... though Zoroaster lived well before Jesus.

Zoroaster lived in ancient Persia, which is now known as Iran. He was matyred in much the same way as Jesus by the priesthood of a more politically and ruling class associated religion there. Does that sound like what happened to another great teacher we all know of? Iran is the homeland of Zoroastrianism, but those of this religion are put to death there. They are treated likewise in most all Islamic cultures. This ideology is slowly being wiped off the planet. There are less than a quarter million of these believers--these magi or their flocks--left in the world. And few even know about it.

Additionally, for those who understand the critical difference, early (and likely present) followers of Zoroaster were henotheists rather than monotheist, and thereby were not antagonistic to followers of other deities. Possibly this is why the three maji, the three "wise men," were so entranced and elated when they read the signs in the heavens about the birth of another prophet of peace. When we step beyond just the sanctioned Bible into the apocryphal texts and lesser known adjunct texts, we find actual tales about them.

Herod, as the monarch of the region, was the one that these three maji went to first (logically) in their search for a newborn child. Herod was the one to try help them pinpoint the birth place, but in exchange for them telling him where to find the child. The three agreed so they could find the child, and then exited the land by subterfurge, spurning Herod and making sure he never learned of the child's location. It is also speculated by theological historians that the "riches" they brought to the child were their own meager traveling funds (the three were not kings, nor wealthy, as preached in modern Christianity). They gave all they had so the child, father, and mother could escape Bethlehem and Herod's agents as soon as the mother was well enough.

The wikipedia (always suspect) entry covers a wide range of angles debunking a lot notions about a 'magus' if you step on to the entry on Zoroaster. But even it is filled with a lot of nonsense compared to actually talking with a zoroastrian... or one of the maji, so called. Historical drift of meaning behind a term is no reason for maligning even a little known and marginalized ideology. This is especially so when a 15 second search on the internet could connect anyone to a hint of what a word really means. For goodness sake, the game originates out of the UK and even the watered down, online OED could have offered up the first dust mote of enlightenment on this term. Laziness, like ignorance, is no excuse, as they say in many lands/

Enough said, and on to more entertaining things.

@JCHendee

Point well taken ... my post was linguistically motivated rather than culturally. Of course the original Greek (represented in Roman letters) would be Magos, plural Magoi. Nearly every educated Roman would have spoken some Greek, and naturally the Latin language was both historically and linguistically connected. Hence the Latinised "Magus, Magi" form. The word "magician" comes in through the Latin (by means of Mediaeval French) into English, which had 'wicce' (witch) as an alternative from the Germanic side of things (and we've all seen what's been done with THAT term! ) Maybe "mage" or "magician" would have been a more sensitive name for the character, but etymologically the roots would be identical. Over time, through the Roman imperial influence and the Middle Ages, the original meaning pertaining to Zoroastrianism (which I hold in high esteem) seems to have been lost in translation, so to speak. In the Middle Ages, distinctions between 'magic' and 'philosophy' seem to have been fuzzy. I think for most people speaking English, the term "magician" (from the same root) would refer to stage magic or legerdemain these days...maybe even with connotations of charlatanism or illusion. Quite distant, I agree, from its original meaning. My background is in linguistic history, obviously, so I tend to see things from that angle. Of course language can shape the way we think, and we do have to be careful ... you make a good point. From the same perspective, I might wonder why the Druid (my ancestors' wise men) is portrayed as 'Neutral', and in fact able to become Evil at will.

Side note: I wonder how Christians would feel if they knew that "hocus pocus" is a corruption of the Latin "hoc est corpus meum" ("This is my body"), from the ritual of the sacraments!

Good counterpoints, Z, and I applaud you expanding on the linguistic side... though we may be annoying others here. And its nice to see someone willing to dive into a bit of real conversation. More and more, people have no idea of the greater weight of meaning behind words we use. I've especially found this to be true in working in the realm of fantasy.

I still like the Magus for the way it is built. Let's face it, as simple as Talisman's mechanics are, there's not much new than can be done with new characters other than rotate, remix, or flipover abilities that have been used before... sometimes multiple times. I appreciate a new character that isn't another fantasy "superhero" from the start. I look forward to trying him, really, but as someone who has had contact with those from whom the term is derived... well... I may been in a minority for such awareness, but I still don't like such ignorance. It is more often than not the source of all prejudice, bigotry, and lesser unintended offense given.

Talisman has always been a "generic" fantasy setting leaning on stereotypes as much as archetypes for its characters. Between you and I, let alone anyone else, I'm betting we could come up with a dozen or more titles that would have been better, and stuck to the generic realm.

As to the Druid... the most sociopathic character of them all, I really don't know what to say. I suppose it was the only way to implement him, considering how Alignment was implemented in a rather slipshod way in the game. Honestly, Talisman's mechanics really are too simple to work with Alignment in any meaningful manner. The Druid was another character title misused, and its just awful if you look too deeply. And yet, he can still be fun to play if you ignore the ignorance.

But enough of that, and I'll leave off at that... time to get back to playing.