This has been said in other posts.

What is the point of FFG releasing such a weak Character, he can not choose to use Psychic Combat.

Basically FFG probably want to make some Characters that no one will play them, but the deck of Characters will grow. Seriously, there is nothing interesting in this Magus. No challange, no thinking how to use its abilities. Nothing. Boring as hell. But its image is great

Nemomon said:

I trust that FFG playtested the character enough The fact that he has 1 fate seems to suggest that he can be very, very strong.

Cynewulf said:

Alchemist is overpowered,not sure he was playtested a lot

Magus for me is a "just a "psychic combat proof" character...i don't think he's very strong.I don't hink he's very weak,but he's weak.

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

Nemomon said:

the art is great and the concept is cool.

He's a brilliant character if you don't care so much about his main ability but like the fact that he's a guy who's riding on a throne held up be weird bald people. Which I do. I think I might pick him every game...

Yes he seems weak.

But it does make me think does his ability count as soon as he gets a follower. Thus even if someone else takes it from him it can still fight with him? Seems like a BIG IF?

Wondering if there is something in the set that makes him better..

What gives me a big question mark on my head, is the fact that in my last game I barely found a follower...

Abilities based on gaining particular cards are always a big IF. Sometimes you end up with nothing, other times you achieve quick, cheap power. The bigger question behind it all is how have expansions (particularly additions to the Adventure deck) change the proportions (not the same as balance) of card (sub)types in the game? Have Followers (or any type of card) become rarer or more common compared to just the base deck?

Perhaps other cards in the Sacred Pool will address this where Followers are concerned. Then again, I don't think that will be the case here, but it would good to be proven wrong.

As with many games, there is a problem with Talisman after so many years of being played, in that everyone has an idea of what SHOULD have been done with this card or that character.

In the last round of expansions, people were moaning about how character powers were creeping up so that the older ones were obselete. Now we have a character that is deemed to be useless because he cannot instigate a fight using Craft.

Bear in mind that all characters start with a set of abilities that are akin to various effects granted by Magic Objects in the game or suchlike, but some have more than others. If there was a level playing field at the start of play it would be less than interesting and you might as well play Ludo.

Who knows what is to come in future? Only John Goodenough has an inkling, as he has to plan expansions with future releases in mind. It must only be a matter of time before the Magus would be able to start a Psychic Combat against another character by using "something". For now, he will just have to manage whilst being attacked and fighting Spirits!

Those of us lucky enough to be party to expansions prior to release have a little input, but these are only opinions and if they are proved to be misplaced after testing then so be it.

talismanisland said:

i think Alchemist and Warlock are a bit overpowered.

Anyway my main problem with Magus is that it's another character with craft >=4.

I think Talisman need a lot more of character with strengh >=4 or not spell oriented..

I really hope we will see more characters like troll,warrior,ogre chieftain,etc.

talismanisland said:

Yeah, wouldn't be surprised if it turns out Goodenough has a masterplan behind it all

SC

Or it could be just a messed up character.

talismanisland said:

Not exactly the way I would frame it from the players' perspective... but aptly stated in general. But in lumping all players together, you make them look like a pack of mercurial lemmings, aside from assuming that this forum accurately represents all players. Both are false.

Some players like the fantasy 'superhero' approach of escalated power right from the start (I'm obviously not one of them). Some of them prefer a character that is a challenge with which to succeed/win (and perhaps that chance is too slim for some). Much as I have issues with branding of the Magus character, and others have issue with what it isn't compared to other characters, there is a potential for another perspective in paying attention to both... a market savvy one. I doubt that's the case with what's happening, but let's give the benefit of hope here.

Provide the consumers with diversity in character power levels (so called) as well abilities and attributes. Therein is something for the obvious diversity of preference on this point when viewed from the minority sampling on this forum. Different players groups do gain a wider range to choose from, and will (do already) choose which ones they want on their "casting couch" before any game's story begins. Some may evening change the casting requirements from game to game. Not many, but some.

I would hope players would continue to "moan" and rave. And if FFG's Talisman development leader (and crew) is savvy, it will pay attention to both simultaneously for the valuable information to be extracted. Which leaves me wondering about your quoted statement above, Jon. Rather than looking for nothing but lauds, or railing against the moans, how else will the team gain even a micro perspective on what their consumers want? How else would they intelligently accomplish a targeted diversity of characters that in its collective growth addresses a diversity of tastes in power as well as make up?

The Magus, possibly combined with other characters we haven't met in the Sacred Pool, could serve this purpose, if my assumptions are near the mark. This possible perspective, though overlooked by many, is not hard to imagine. Then again, it isn't the consumers focus to think of it. And I for one will moan and even rave, sometimes doing both concerning the same component in review. I expect others to do the same, to represent the diversity of views in the details beyond generalities, including those who adamantly disagree with me.

Sooner or later, the possibilities of any diversity will run out, as defining attributes of characters (titles and images do not count) are limited where Talisman is concerned. Its statistical, defining structure is limited. What happens at that guessing point... well, we'll just have to wait and see. Likely the "master/second-level" characters will begin (re)appearing, which of course will immediately slant the power level issue again. But at least in those character addons/overlays (which I hate), any standard character can attempt to achieve them, and thereby change the innate power level difference between characters, and do so mid game. But that is a whole other issue for "someday," and when it comes to the present development of the game, I'm not going to wait and see someday to talk about it.

My basic point is that EVERYBODY has an opinion about Talisman and how they would like it to be and what they would like to see done with it. I am in that band of people and have been for many years (and proud of it!)

My comment was not a broad condemnation of all players and I certainly was not lumping anyone together. I was merely saying that when the Highland and Frostmarch were announced, there was a group of people who were complaining about power creep amongst characters, and now we have a new character that is less than some people might have wished for, though possibly more based on what they had HOPED it would be.

I will admit that I was surprised that the Magus did not have the ability to instigate Psychic Combat, but I am not going to be overly upset that the suggestion was not followed through. I think I actually made the suggestion/comment on three occasions, but it was decided to go the spell route rather than the all out mental fighter route, so there is little else to be done about it. Except perhaps for people to try it in their own groups however they wish and see what difference it actually makes.

I would certainly not think to blindly worship everything that FFG produces, and would not expect it of anyone else. There are certain things that I am not 100% happy with in the game and when I play there are certain rules that I choose to ignore. I guess I am a bit more mellow these days as I try to resist the urge to make knee jerk judgements.

That is the joy of Talisman though... something different to everyone

@Jon

Granted and acknowledged. Your addendum throws new context upon that one paragraph that gave me pause. And by the by, the support is what turns an opinion into a viewpoint, rhetorically speaking. It's something I do try to do, and to look for. That's the more interesting and egaging part of any forum... or any conversation. Viewpoint trumps opinion, though perhaps my perspective of the terms is in the minority. Thank you.

In defense of Magus, I ask the following question:

Which character would take the least amount of time to defeat the lord of darkness by 8+ ?

I think Magus is among the possible answers to this question, if not *the* answer. A strategy that ignores everything except building a healthy stable of followers, winning lots of craft trophies, and beating the lord of darkness by 8+ should make Magus quite competitive.

Well, I've seen the Ogre Chieftain do it in 25 minutes, I'll be hard-pressed to see the Magus do the same. Monk today could/would've beaten the LoD in 45 minutes (and by extension the Eagle King), but failed his Elixir of Rage roll, only beat LoD by 6 (going in with Str 17 in battle). Ogre Chieftain and Necromancer are my top-2 for beating LoD by 8+, both do it through the use of Enemies they turn into Followers. Necromancer has the easier task of making them Followers (no roll, just possibly boost Craft a bit, but he can hoard Craft 1-4 Followers in masses as well), but drawing them seems to be an issue. Ogre needs to beat Monsters, but if and when he does, he can use those Monsters to beat up bigger Monsters (use a Str 4 Followe to get a Str 8 Follower for example). Monsters are also the most common type of Str Enemy (haven't checked, but seems so). All the Ogre really needs is three Str 5 Followers. That way he has Str 20 when he cashes them in, 8-point advantage over the LoD, then it's down to rolls.

Hmmm... since when did speed of win (and by using an expansion board) become the prime measure of a character's value? Very sad. But that mind set did have its impetus.

The magus is a sound character, by guess without playing it; comparing to something like the O.C. in conjunction with one route to "the win" is not a measure for the construction of other characters. The only comparison therein is for the quickest bragging rights in the shortest possible game. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but its more of a exposure of the O.C.'s makeup than the Magus. It does show something else about the way the game has gone over time if this is the way we evaluate a new character.

I think the Magus can't be that crap that most people supposes him to be. I say that only because I have faith in playtesting phases at FFG.

JCHendee said:

Seriously? Since never. And where exactly did anyone claim anything was the "prime measure of a character's value"?

Is being able to roll 1 less die for Portal of Power and Mines the "prime measure of a character's value"? Of course not. But you build your winning strategy around this if you play the Dwarf.

There are lots of different routes/strategies a character can take to win the game. One possible strategy is to dispatch the LoD by 8+. Problem is, it takes a while to get buff enough to do this. Indoctrination allows Magus to buff more quickly than many other characters (thanks Dam for pointing out O.C., Monk, and Necro...point well taken). People seem to be down on Magus and I'm just trying to identify one possible game-winning strategy for which Magus has an advantage. That is all.

Uvatha said:

There's the Stable deck, which may well include rules for purchasing mounts in the City.

There are future expansions too. Maybe the Forest deck will be follower heavy?