gypsy: for her ability to acquire spells that have just been cast

thief: his ability to just take whatever he wants from you

these are just to start

Wizard, Prophetess and Sprite: Their ability to always have spells at hand means that they may occasionally cast as much as six spells, or more, in a single round. Bonus points for the Prophetess, who has an incredibly useful secondary ability for games with many participants.

calling BS a player cant cast more spells than they start the round with

Except they can cast one spell on each other player's turn, thus meaning that, with a little luck, they can easily cast six spells in a single round. L2P

Over the years, (particularly in 1st/2nd Edition), we tended to remove the characters that always have at least one spell from the game, as for us having one character whose main objective seemed to be to cycle through the spell deck to reach the powerful spell they wanted could really spoil the game.

Its good to see in the later versions the idea to limit spell casting (we also did this with various house rules), and with the revised 4th edition the number of spells in the deck combined with the increased deck size (with all expansions) really helps.

With all that, maybe the best thing for multi-player and player/player interaction is to play with the expansions, but with just the main boards, this really moves the action into the one place and increases player/player interactions.

right on about limiting the spell casting. one spell on someone elses turn and whatever you started with on yours. spells definately got out of hand in the older versions. who remembers the arch-mage ? the valkyrie can be dangerous in multiplayer games if going against a character like the vampiress that kills followers. i think the merchant should still be able to trade a gold for an item like the old days. the character abilities that are more useful with more players helped make this game great. should the sorceress have a better chance to beguile? im going with yes.

punk666 said:

Depends of course on whether you allow this. Vampiress doesn't state the Followers are killed, just discarded. I only allow the Valkyrie to use her ability when the word "killed" (or slain) are specifically used.

i definately agree about the valkyries ability as to wether a follower is killed or discarded. there are a couple followers that can heal you and are discarded they are exempt from the valkyrie ability. the vampiress ability regarding the valkyrie is an exercise in common sense. the vampiress is draining their lifeforce in a vampiric manner.our house rule with the valkyrie is her ability can be used when the follower dies in some manner. the followers that heal you and im sure dam knows their names, what deck they are drawn from and who did the art for the card, say they are discarded. meaning once they are used they leave you as a follower and are solely discarded. they do not die. i actually just got off my butt to look at the vampiress character card and it says she "drains the lifeforce" from her follower to gain the life. at my house that means the follower is killed.

Could just as well be that the Vampiress sucks blood from the Followers so she herself heals up. This leaves the Follower in too weak a condition to keep up and is tossed on the side of the road, spending the rest of the game recuperating, unable to participate in any way . If the Followers were "killed", why wouldn't the Vampiress make them her thralls, adding even more power to her?

I would agree that if a follower has its life drained, then it must have been killed. Similarly if a follower is lost in combat, then it is killed. If a follower is lost at the chasm, then it is killed, in situations where it says 'lose on life or a follower' then the follower is killed. In all those kind of cases, the Valkyrie can use her ability.

A follower isn't killed if you trade it in at the castle, if it leaves you of its own will/decision (such as when all followers abandon you).

I'm intrested in the situation that would arise where a character can make an enemy become a follower and fight with or instead of the character. When that enemy is killed, can it be treated as if it is a follower? If it says 'for one combat only' then that might mean the enemy can be resurected for one comabt only again, or it might mean that the one combat is over and it is now just a dead enemy. I think there might be some instances when the enemy can enter many battles, so in those cases, you could argue that the enemy has become a genuine follower for the duration of the game.

I think I know what my thoughts are, but I would like to hear yours

Similar theme, when the gladiator has trained a follower to also fight, will that follower fight for any character? i would argue that the follower is trained to fight with the gladiator , not with other characters.

we had an issue the other day with some character that could make a monster a follower. it involved the mesmerism spell cast by the assassin and the follower belonged to the minstrel but was an animal it possessed through his charm ability. the debate was far from heated but both sides had valid points. eventually the ruling was followers that became followers because of a characters special ability could be taken by the spell but would have to be discarded because the new character didnt have the ability to control them. one of the finer points within this game that makes it great. who knows? maybe the mesmerism casting character should have to fight the acquired follower? very situational. what if the spell casting character had a similiar follower acquiring ability? can you keep the follower as a trophy if you defeat it in combat?

every character that has a follower acquiring ability clearly states the said follower goes to the discard pile once it used. in our game that makes it exempt from the valkyries ability. except for the minstrel. if you look at character card for the minstrel at no point does he ever lose an animal he has charmed regardless of the combat result. the gray area has just gotten larger. this game rocks!!!

Official (party) line is that a Monster Follower on the Ogre Chieftain for example is treated as a Follower by the OC, but it lacks the Follower keyword for others to affect it. So Vampiress or Sorceress can't take it from him, Mesmerism can't target it, but if the Reaper demands a Follower, for the OC it is a Follower and thus possible to lose it (roll 2 with the Reaper is Follower at random IIRC).

if it says it becomes a follower it should be treated like a follower. simple.

punk666 said:

Becomes a Follower and is treated like one by the character who has it. Other characters don't see it as a Follower in gameplay terms, since it doesn't gain the Follower keyword.