I own the 2nd edition of the game made by Games Workshop. Is the Fantasy Flight version any different(only talking about the base game here), or is it just a faithful remake of the original? I'm still tempted to buy it for the new art and presentation. Just asking if it's the same game in terms of box contents and rules.

Essentially they are the same game, but with the newer version is somewhat dumbed down and takes longer to play without using the alternate endings provided. It introduces some new elements to the game such as quests, fate and the repear, but these have all been pretty pointless additions in my opinion. There is a bigger gap between overpowered and under powered characters as well in the revised edition, while 2nd ed had a wider 'mid-range' mix of characters.

We recently played a 2nd edition a game and forgot how much more fun it is, so we have been mixing it up wiht our playing group. Some players now only want to play 2nd edition. The revised fourth edition is a good game, and worth buying but unfortunetly it doesn't top the original. (I own all expansions for both versions).

The components in the fourth edition are much better, the cards, the artwork, minatures and tokens are all better quality. There are also WHOLE lot more cards if you buy all the expansions. There is also a better community and the rules are better maintained (although house rules definetly come into play with some of the official rules anyway, as with 2nd Edition).

It's an essential purchase for a fan of Tal..... however, i'm with Roy in his opinion that the 2nd edition plays better. There's not a lot in the 2nd edition (Timescape aside) that I thought was a bit of a let down.... there is more in the 4th edition that I don't like.

That said, it looks amazing and is a really nice thing to own.... the Dungeon in the 4th edition is an improvement on the 2nd edition Dungeon.

Really wish I hadn't got greedy and sold my 2nd edition Dragons expansion on eBay a couple of years ago... otherwise I too could claim ownership of all expansions

In summary, ask Santa for it, it's worth a purchase.

I play almost exclusively 2 player games with the wife.

One thing that i have noticed is that with all the expansions, the game has become too big for a two-player game. Funny thing is, when we play 2nd edition (with Dungeon, Timescape, Expansion) we don't get that feeling. I prefer 2nd Edition.

I like the new version, but it is becoming less and less focused with each bell and wistle that gets added.

I have both, 2nd edition has a lot more fun factor.

I think Fuzz has really summed it up with the diversity of new 'ideas' just simply not working. I haven't got Sacred Pool yet, but I'm guessing the stables concept is going to crap. I also agree with Roy with new version being a lot easier and taking a LOT longer to play.

There are too many movement modifying cards that it just becomes too easy to heal. Its a lot easier to get a multiple spell caster character as well. The characters were much more playable in 2nd edition. There are also too many battle savers like the spell summons and fight in your place followers as well.

2nd Edition kept us entertained for many years and we would always finish the game. We are pretty much bored of 4th edition already, its becoming common that we can't be bothered anymore and give up. Maybe lack of toad rolls? Or too easy? Characters? I can't exactly pinpoint it.

I think maybe removing the quantity of cards and and keeping the quality might make it better, and I agree with Roy about the House Rules. Such rules as the assassin and teleporting in the inner region just seem overpowered, as does the riduculous ability to 'die instantly' from the Reaper (not that we play with him... oh so lame!) Fate sucks and is pretty hard to remove from the game. I really wonder how some of the cards and ideas make it through playtesting. Judgement day???? Why not just play the alternate ending instead of Talisman rather than invest three hours playing and not win the game!!

I do like Dungeon and Highlands (minus the bloody gold gaining trinkets). 4th edition Dungeon is better than 2nd edition (the caharcters are good too).

The figures and artwork are awesome and I have purcahsed them all the boards, but better than 2nd edition? Definetely not!

RiCHiE said:

Are you talking about 2nd or R4th here? Because in 2nd ed, Horse and Cart allowed you to add 1 to your movement, Horse up to +3, neither of the R4th versions allows any such control.

RiCHiE said:

At least spell-cycling is down since you have to have a legal target and the number of spells you can cast are limited, 2nd ed had neither rule.

the 2nd edition was full of passion. it was a fantasy world in the 80s, very classic. the original 4th edition from gwbi took the right step to remake the 2nd edition game in a new, but classic, design. when it came to ffg, a lot of chances where lost and the game now is simply uninteresting. not one of the changes from the 2nd edition and bi 4th edition was for the better.

the release time is a desaster. one of 5 mapboards in a year ! 5 years until it comes to the dragontower. plus the first year that does nothing than the same basic game as bi did one year before, now with smaller cards and micropictures. talisman with edgemaps is only interesting (for houserules) when all 4 corners and the new middle board are released, thats in 2013 , if the world then still exists. doubt the system willl survive so long.

the style changed into "dark" dark cultist, dark fays, dark unicorn, dark dark dark . thats NOT talisman, thats crazy minded us manipulators who want to bring humanity into state of postnuclear mind. thats what happens in american computer games too. blue painted devils,deathknights and werewolves on the good side in wow - everybody with a clear mind will see how right the iran is appointing the "dark" usa bosses. and ffg is one of these "bosses". grapping everything, owning every game and make it "dark".. make humans dark, thats america, thats ffg, thats talisman 4,5th edition. i hate them for violating this old game for their manipulating force.

Dam said:

Dam said:

I think just about every group I know that plays talisman had a similar house rule for the spell cycling anyway, so that was never really a concern. It was uncanny how many players I have met that had introduced the current 4th rule as a house rule. But that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the number of general 'protect me from losing a battle' spells - the ones that fight in your place or such and die for you. There seems to be a higher ratio of cyclers in 4th edition too. In 2nd edition, if one player was stronger than the others by 4 strength or so, a psonic blast, potion of strength etc could help you get the combo against another player. It happens too often now they will cast a summons spell or the like. ho hum, they can keep progressing. There's not much out there that is going to bite them because of the reduction of difficulty.

As far as the movement, 2nd edition has these cards, but you can only use one horse. Moving +3 would mean you would have to leave your followers behind too. The worst was the warp belt in 2nd edition - you could force a stalemate if you were good and moved next to the Chapel, so I do understand where you are coming from. it was a rare occurance.

Its not just the cards in 4th, but with fate you can also have the extra chances to get to healing locations. There is also a range of movement bonus options with some followers, magic carpet etc, plus strangers that allow you to teleport in the region or give movement bonuses it just all adds up and often makes a very draining and boring process to kill someone if you are playing crown of command. We often get this free-flowing move and heal effect. In stating that most of the alternate endings are great in 4th with the Warlock and Judgement day probably being the only major let downs. We never play CoC anymore for these reasons.

4th isn't a bad game (I have bought all the expansions), but after going back and playing 2nd edition again, it still is a better more playable game.

RiCHiE said:

But those can be a hindrance as well. High Craft character gets a Summon Spell that fights instead of him at Craft 3-5. Either he uses the Spell in order to cycle and misses a trophy or he takes the trophy and keeps the spell, most likely never getting real use out of it. Ditto for high Str char getting Str 3-5 Summon Spell.

RiCHiE said:

CoC is my go-to ending still, even with the alternates available (no Sacred Pool yet, but its endings don't really appeal to me at all). CoC at least provides an end-game, I think the longest any of the others have managed is 4 rounds, which basically amounts to sudden death. I certainly haven't seen the movement options you talk about leading to an endless sage of healing. For one, Fate runs out eventually and even that can fail (even when sticking to the City-Chapel edge of the board and you're Neutral/Good). Ditto for Gold, money eventually runs out and the person at the CoC usually wins.

Fourth revised is more fun to me. We now have:

• Fate, adding a strategic element.
• More cards and characters and endings (and more expansions on the way), making for more variety.
• The Reaper and Rune Gates, increasing player interaction from afar.
• Vast expansion of Warlock Quests, as well as cool new rewards beyond a simple Talisman.
• The fixing of silly rules such as spell cycling and treating mules as objects.
• Did I mention more expansions to come? Bring on dark fate!

One think fans of second edition point out is that this game is less dangerous - fewer character deaths and set backs plus easier progression. This doesn't bother me.

Personally the only thing I like better in second is the artwork, and that only barely. I would never play second edition again.

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

Dam said:

Probably depends on who you play with, but we find it pretty easy... TOO easy to stay alive. There's just too many combinations overall to stay alive. We have had several games that go on for 1hr+ trying to kill someone from CoC. Usually the non CoC player (be it myself or another), will keep playing and healing until they get enough strength or craft to match the player, and a portable healing option (such as healing spell) until they make it to the crown.

We are not the only playing to group to experience this as well, and it makes the game extremely boring. I actually do like a lot of the endings provided, except judgement day and the warlock which are utter crap.

I have also noticed younger players just play whoever kills the boss in the dungeon wins, rather than going through CoC.

RiCHiE said:

Well, given that my average duration for a 3-player game is about 75 minutes, 1h+ after reaching CoC has never happened in my games. I'd say 25 minutes is pushing the boundaries of luck, requiring horrid streak on the Command Spell and very good movement rolls and encounters for the non-CoC characters. There are currently what, 2 Healing Spells in the 100+ Spell deck?

Only one I know will catch up and win, barring utterly bizarre circumstances (go Basilisk) is the Alchemist since he never has to land in a specific space, just hoard up on Magic Objects, turn them to Gold, turn that to healing, all in one turn.

Dam said:

The big problem is the 2 healing spells in the deck! Often at least one character is a cycler (there seem to be a lot more them now) and will go through playing and healing until they get one of theose 2 healing spells - enough to make a dash through the crown. Or even better - they've got 6 lives, really hard to stop them.

With cards laid out on the table, there can end up being a lot of options in game. For the hour long games on the table, the problem is mainly due to the stranger tha bloody allows teleport, the healer on the table or cards which allow fate gains. Cards picked up on the way allow the come-back at the end. Theoretically, I would agree with you, but it just doesn't happen that way. Rolls aren't too horrid either. Games like this just become extremely boring. Doesn't happen all the time, but has happened enough.

Games take longer the 75+ for us now, even to get the 8 str or craft to get into the crown. Whoever breaks free of the 2 or 3 strength ahead, usually wins as there is not many ways to turn the game around. We often find that when the game turning battle occurs there it usually ends in a block of some kind, a summon-based spell or body guard to protect them as well. Fate doesn't help either. In 2nd, you could be cruising, and BANG - raiders, or you're a toad and the other players are right back in it.

They were my additional points to what the other guys stated, with their reasoning also being the basis of my preference of 2nd edition. Like I said, I have bought all of 4th ed, I like it although its getting boring now, but definetly not as good as the original. The younger kids have started playing 2nd as well and now they prefer it over 4th too. We just seem to have more fun playing it. Going back to 2nd seemed to revitalise the game for us, as 4th was getting boring. I don't know maybe too many cards? Quantity v Quality? There's probably some things that can be done to make the game better, but we're enjoying 2nd for now. Just hope the younger players don't want to own their copy!

Roy said:

Of course, I use the text from the BI 4th version of Raiders in R4th (meaning Objects and Gold), none of those pansy-lamer Raiders for us. Then again, as with 2 Healing Spells in a deck of 100+, there is 1 Raiders in 300+ Adventure deck, which also sees fewer draws when you have two expansion boards and their deck to draw from.

Fate nerfed Toading bad, no argument on that count.

A short fix for toading...

When Randomize is used (or any spell requiring a die roll), it is the caster who rolls (or the spell is still as worthless as it ever was). If the caster wishes to spend a fate for re-roll, it may. If it does so, only then does the target had the option to do so as well and re-roll the die itself a third time. It works out quite well, tamping down the use of Fate and making Randomize a slightly more useful spell.

JCHendee said:

What kind of fix is that ? Original (pre-Fate) Toading was 1/6, Fate made it 1/6, then 1/6, if you then allow the target to use Fate as well, that's a third 1/6 on top. It sure fixes toadings if you find them too frequent, but I think most feel game needs more Toadings, not less.

Dam said:

Dark fate will bring toading back with a vengeance! Incidentally, Toadify toads 2/3 without fate, and 11/18 with fate.

crimhead said:

Heh, mostly seem to be rolling 2-3 (no effect in our games). Also, if you're the caster and roll that, generally we take it and leave it at that. Sure 50% chance of toading the target, but it's always the 1/6 that niggles at the back of your mind, especially if you're loaded with good loot (if you got nothing, then sure, might as well). We're sissies .

If the caster has no fate, 4/6 rolls result in a toad. If the caster has fate, they'll only reroll on a one. half the (first) rolls are toad and 1/6 of those rolls will make a toad 2/3 of the time. 1/6 x 2/3 = 2/18. 2/18 + 1/2 = 11/18.

I'm sorry to hear you,ve been rolling mostly twos and threes, but the odds of that spell making a toad are over 61 per cent. Nothing is second edition came close to that. We now have a spell that can turn an opponent's roll into a one, and have had hints of upcoming dark fate forcing opponents to reroll.

Yes, toading was nerfed in base 4th revised, but they are slowly bringing it back.

Another point - without (or before) fate, we would avoid toad hazards like the plague. With fate on hand, we are more inclined to risk it. So while the odds of a toading have gone down per roll, the number of toad rolls per game has gone up. Overall that still means fewer toads, but not as few as it may seem (ie, one sixth as frequent as before). Also, players sometimes run out of fate and draw a toad hazard unprepared.

Dam said:

Couldn't agree less on your "most" as there was a reason toading was tamped down between 2nd and 4th. You didn't really think it happened by accident, did you? Don't count anything you read on a forum anywhere as being what "most" players would want. And your probability calculations are incorrect. You are using and isolated set of probabilities rather than a failure based chain probability schema. The odds are different than what you've calculated, where only the failure of a desired result triggers a re-roll. And yes, the way Fate was implemented it really doesn't do much at all.

But its true what he said about avoiding toad rolls in the 2nd edition, you can't deny it, even landing on the city spase was avoided like the plague once you had something to lose. In the R4E eveyone thinks fate will save them, and actually, it doesnt always.

----

A recent play in R4E saw 3 out of 4 players all end up as a toad on the same space (the witch), trying to win the previous drops. Another game we had all 4 players killed by death, with one player being killed again before he even got to make a move with his new character. I'm not sure what it is when we play, but Death and the Toad just seem to attract 1's !!!!!

yyami said:

It's been a long while since I played 2E, but I do believe you were NOT forced to pick an option in the City. You did not have to risk toading. In that way, for that one part, toading was less likely. The forced choice of doing something when you land on the City is (to me) new to 4ER (unless I missed the same ruling in 3E, having not played it and not having the rules file handy right now).

yyami said:

Hmm... my group chucked the Reaper almost immediately, so I haven't much to say about it. We share out buying expansions for testing purposes, everyone gets a preview, and then we each decide if we want a personal copy and can decide if they want a personal copy. As to that many toadings... well, it really does sound bizarre. Like any amusing joke, when it is told (... when it happens ...) too often, its not funny and just gets boring and annoying.

We played a game last night.

After about six hours (serious), the Amazon was making his way to the COC, I tried to follow as the Asassin directly, and land on him on the space directly above the dorrway of the middle region, (plain of peril?) - anyway - I failed on the role to unlock, and tbh, I'd need to check the rules for interaction in the inner region, but my idea was to defeat him (with a spell to help), and steal the talisman berfore he could progress to though the inner region.

Regardelss, in R4E I've had about six plays ( I know its not many), but every time (split between two groups) we have found the early stages pretty tough in terms of drops and general possibilties for char growth.

I played on the weekend. In the first turn two of us had visited the Mystic. There was over a five per cent chance at least one of us would have become a toad - we'd never have sen that without fate.

Later there was a toading with the Quest Reward (mark of vengance?) and a Reaper killing via Misfortune. I think 4th revised is plenty dangerous!