Hello adventurers and developers,
this post is about characters and items that grant you at least 1 spell anytime (wizard, prophetess, any character with the wand). We can call em "spellcycling" effect. A spellcycler will always try to use the spell and draw new one, to maximize this ability.The duration of a game can be excessively extended because of this, and the problem grows with more people playing, even more with newbies to the game!
With 5 players in a game, any spellcycler has to evalutate his spell, choose the target and draw new card 5 times any round, while other players just sit down and wait.
Our group counter this with a house rule: the spellcycler draws spell card JUST BEFORE THE START OF THEIR TURN (instead of immediately). Following the previous example, with this house rule a caster will use at maximum 1 spell/round, instead of 5.
I'm curoius to read the opinion of other players and the developers of the game. Do anyone else think that spellcyclers drains too much time from the game? See you!

I use the very same house rule, it nerfs casters just the right amount, they are still powerful but don't dominate and don't slow down the play.

The Sage character from the new expansion reads that way (if you do not have a spell at the beginning of your turn, draw 1 spell). I just got the revised 4th ed upgrade pack and hadn't looked at the wizard or prophetess, but had just assumed that their text had been changed as well since this method does speed up game time.

costolaz said:

I'm a big balance junkie, so here are my 2 cents.

The solution to this problem is twofold. One comes from players and the other comes from the developers.

Player Solution: In revised 4th, there are many spells that cannot be cycled. Counterspell, for example, in the hands of the sole spellcaster, can prevent him from using his spell for as long as half the game (on average). This is done quite simply by player intuition. If there are 2 spellcasters who cycle (there are only a handful in the whole game, so it's unlikely), then this hold doesn't take place to prevent cycling. Fortunately there are many other spells that can also stop the cycle. Healing, for example, has held up spellcasting in our games for 20 turns or more. When a spellcaster starts grumbling and stops casting spells, the other players know he has either a counterspell, healing, or prevention. So we start playing it safe and dodging enemies that are likely to beat us and avoiding taking life in combat to stick the caster with a healing spell (easiest with 2-4 players) by keeping everyone at full life. Plus, mesmerism can be useless in the early game, as can acquisition until players get things to steal. Psychic Blast is stuck in their hand until they pull a non-craft enemy or can land on a character they can beat with it (the warrior, for example, can still dish out beatings on occasion). Dispel Magic prevents cycling for an entire turn. And then there's always the amulet. I drew it in a 2 man game against a Prophetess and they just about conceded on the spot. As for the Wand, just beat the character and take it. Or use Psychic Combat on them. Or cast Acquisition on them. Or Gust of Wind. Or Random, hoping for "Toad." Or just use the strategy above, taking care to stay at maximum life and letting the natural spell catches in the deck prevent them from ever drawing a new one.

Developer Solution: Buy the Reaper expansion. Of the 20+ new spells, nearly half of them do not cycle well. Things like the summon spells only work against Strength-based opponents. Early in the game there are often enemies like this around, but later as Strengths ratchet up, it can be very difficult to find someone to attack (as they're all killed as they're drawn). Particularly in a late game where Fighter-types are in the middle realm and a caster can't make it there. You can always waste a turn throwing them at the Sentinel, but you've basically blown a turn then, which is a fair tradeoff for getting rid of your spell. Because the number of "catch" spells increases dramatically and there are no new acquisition or mesmerism spells (easily the best spells in the game with all other things being equal), the overall power and castability of spells is decreased, further balancing spellcasters.

I firmly believe that the Wizard is the strongest character in Revised 4th, but with the addition of the Reaper, the characters (aside from the Priest, see an earlier post) are much better balanced.

But wait, the problem you're raising is covered by a specific rule (see manual page 13):

The maximum number of Spells a character may cast during
his turn is equal to the number of Spells he had at the start of
that turn. A character may only cast one Spell during another
character’s turn. This does not apply to the Command Spell,
however (see “The Crown of Command” on page 20).

There's no "spellcycling" effect at all. A Character may cast in a single Turn just that many Spells he had at the beginning.

If you were able to "spellcycle" that way, you would cast lots of spells in your turn and also in other Players' turns. The only way to stop you would be a Spell that's not possible to cast (as librarycharlie pointed out). Consider also that some combinations were considered illegal in 4.0 Ed. FAQ by Black Industries. Most important are:

- you cannot cast a spell that has no effect (Healing if you have max Lives, Psionic Blast with no combat and so on...)

- you can't counterspell your own Spells or cast Nullify on yourself

The_Warlock said:

He's actually taking that into account already, I think. The language wasn't 100% clear. He said:

"With 5 players in a game, any spellcycler has to evalutate his spell, choose the target and draw new card 5 times any round, while other players just sit down and wait."

Basically he's casting a spell during each of the other players' turns (a "round?"), which, while not completely ridiculous, still slows the game down tremendously. With two or more such spellcyclers, however, those healing and prevention spells add up pretty quickly, and sooner or later they'll get both stuck with a heal spell. I even threw a healing spell on the table the instant someone was injured once, just to beat the other spellcaster who was also stuck with one to the punch.

Remember that not all spells can be cast at any particular time. Plus you have to remember that you need a valid target for a spell - Healing for instance cannot be cast if everyone is at 4 Lives.

The only spells you can cast during someone else's turn (base set) would be - Counterspell (if someone has cast a spell!), Healing (if someone needs it!), Immobility, Invisibility (only if you need to evade another character), Nullify (only if someone has spells), Preservation (only if someone has died), Psionic Blast (limited to you being attacked by another character) and, of course, Random.

Obviously Reaper adds a few more, but not all will have valid targets or timing.

Sorry for unaccurate english and thanks for your posts

"The Sage character from the new expansion reads that way (if you do not have a spell at the beginning of your turn, draw 1 spell)."
nice one! just like my house rule

i was aware of timing limitation in spell casting.. like in the old good "magic the gathering", you cannot launch a spell without a valid target! But in a talisman game with many players, it is easy to find a valid target!

librarycharlie said:

Yes, I misread his post. Sorry, it was an interesting question.

I actually experienced this in a 5 player game with Wizard, Prophetess, Sorceress, Druid and Thief (and a Wand to be taken). I remember when I was trying to cross the Sentinel with the Thief (and Wand): Psionic Blast! Counterspell! No, I have the other Counterspell here for you!, then you're Immobilized, said another one.

This was a fine spell exchange, but experienced players (I would say morons, no offense) could keep going on with spell burning to obtain specific spells. Well, I liked the Spell FAQ on the old forum (perhaps someone can bring it back) because it limited the misuse of Spells. It is done in compliance with rules, but it's annoying, nonsensical (in terms of atmosphere) and a waste of time.

Costolaz's house rule is fine. I'll think about it in some particular games like the above one.

costolaz said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember a rule stating that the game has to be on hold while 1 player "evaluates" his spell draw. If it's not his turn, the game doesn't need to wait for him. When he decides he's casting a spell, fine, you need to pause and let him do his thing if his spell meets the criteria, otherwise I say keep playing and ignore his fun-ruining shenanigans. Maybe - eventually - he'll get the message

talismanisland said:

It states that in the rules??!?? That really sucks, I am not a fan of spell cycling but it doesn't seem to make the game any more exciting to be stuck with a spell you can't use for half a game! I think they got it about right the first time in the BI version.

We tried this once with 2nd edition as a house rule. If one person is the wizard the other players wouls simply try their best NOT to gain spells in order to try to get him stuck with counterspell or nullify. The strategy should be focused on winning the game, not preventing/trying to cast spells.

Speaking of the other old forum, someone mentioned that not shuffling the spell cards when they finished worked well. We tried that and found that it worked well for us for a 3 player game.

Agreed - making players stuck with spells completely ruins the game, if that is what is being suggested - that a spell must have an effect to be cast. Fate, watered down cards, gap in balance of characters and now being stuck with spells... this edition of Talisman is quickly becoming the worst.

If I'm going against one of the spellcyclists, I prefer they get stuck with a "useless" spell instead of whoring the spell deck through dumping/casting them for no effect. If I'm playing a spellcyclist myself, I try to set up a situation where I can cast the spell, rarely waiting for the best opportunity.

RiCHiE said:

There's a statement in the rules that says you can't discard spells in your hand and to use them is the only way to get rid of them. Casting spells with no effect is the same as discarding them.

The chance to get stuck with a spell you can't use is a typical feature of Talisman. I always played it that way and never thought you could cast spells with no target.

In my last 2-player game I was stuck with 3 spells: Invisibility, Acquisition and Counterspell. I had the Priest, the opponent had the Wizard but was stuck with a Healing spell too (and happy with it). I hadn't a chance to cast my Counterspell. I wasn't attacked by his Character or other Creatures so I could not use Invisibility. Finally, I couldn't use Acquisition because he had only the Runesword and I could not take it (perhaps here you may say I can Acquire it and immediately drop it).

You can Counterspell your own Spells I think, but they must have a valid target/effect. In the above situation I was stuck and must look for other ways to get victory instead of spellcasting. I believe this is a plus for the game, not a reason to complain, but everybody plays it his way...

Dam said:

The problem we have is that if there is a spellcycler, everyone tries to get that player stuck with spells, which diminishes the fun somewhat IMO. the whole game gets reaped with people trying not to gain spells etc, and to 'stuff up the wizard'. I have tried a house rule in 2nd edition on this several times.

Since 2nd edition, we only allow regneration on the player's turn to limit the number cast in a flurry (which is the rules now I believe or in BI anyway). We also don't re-shuffle the deck, it gives the spell cyclers a need to retain spells as once they are cast they are gone. Often when players play the wizard, the keep cycling waiting for the 'good' spells and then hang on to them, as they won;t come up again. they are still powerful, but it puts a limitation on their power, and losing spells to nullify and such can really hurt.

RiCHiE said:

Sounds like people playing spellcyclers around there care more about cycling spells than actually trying to win the game . If I get a spell I can't get rid off, I start to focus even more on getting power-ups. Spellcycling to me isn't what the game is about, regardless of the char I play.

Dam said:

Yes, thats right. Thats the way it turns out. As spellcyclers have to focus on when they can cast spells, it makes it a stronger element of the game, so other players will try to counter act it. It doesn't really deter other players from progressing, but reduces the enjoyment. Players should want to gain spells rather than not in order to get other players stuck. The enjoyment factor of spells is diminished IMO.

Thats why we keep it simple and don't reshuffle the deck. Usually someone has won before the spells have expired. When you know all the spells will be gone, spellcyclers will keep spells strategically rather than constant discarding (will I cast aquistion now and take the magic belt, or hold off and wait for the ring? ect), and if they don't their power is short lived. There aren't really a lot of powerful spells in Talisman. Playtest and see for yourself ;D

Not being able to discard spells is a really unworkable rule for 2 player games as well, so I am surprised it is an official rule.

With 10 games done using Upgrade + Reaper (so 194 Adventure and 50? Spell deck), neither has yet to exhaust. Closest was 20 cards left in the Adventure deck. Demigod (IIRC) let's you pick any spell from the current spell deck and then reshuffle spell discard and spell deck back together. That card keep popping up in my games.

The_Warlock said:

Assuming the BI rules and FAQS are outdated and replaced with the revised rules.... where in the rules?

RiCHiE said:

I think you're asking where I found the second sentence. The first is at page 13, just under the Example of Spell Limit ( "If at any time a character has more Spells than his Craft allows, surplus Spells must immediately be placed on the Spell Card discard pile; they cannot be cast. The character’s player chooses which Spells to discard. Spells cannot be discarded unless the character has more Spells than his Craft permits, however. The only other way to get rid of a Spell is to cast it! " ).

The second is the natural follow up. If I can't discard a Spell that I don't want to have, I cannot cast a Spell just to discard it. Casting Healing on a Player with all Lives is the same as discarding it, or casting Transference on a Character which is already on your space.

By the way, there are many places where you can acquire Spells by rolling. Just try to acquire more Spells than your Crafts permit and discard the Spell/s you don't need.

The_Warlock said:

You can't get more Spells than your Craft allows. e.g. if you have 3 Spells, you can't replace them with any other Spell - casting or losing them is the only way to acquire new one. Spells and Objects are not the same and the rules are different for them.

8janek8 said:

I play like you say, but are we sure the rule should read this way?

Spells are always "gained or lost", they're never restored or something like that. The rules specify the max number of spells you can "have" (not "gain/acquire"), according to your current Craft.

Then there's the above mentioned rule. Do you think it's intended only for the (rare) case of a Character losing Craft and the Ability to cast all the Spells he has got? I always thought the same. But if I "gain" one Spell I might be able to take it and discard another Spell, if I'm above the maximum, 'cause the rules only state the max number of Spells that I may have.

Well, I'm only saying it needs clarification.

i agree it's needed a clarification about drawing spell. the manual reads

"All characters may acquire and cast Spells, if their Craft is sufficient to permit this"

does it mean that Craft is a requirement for drawing spells? or it's only required to keep and cast em?

i'd say, the second statement..

We had a probelm with this. Our solution was; One spell a turn, do not replace until beginning of your next turn.

Fixed the issue

Other people's mileage may vary but we really needed some limit as one player was pretty abusive of the "Always have a spell" ability.

My understanding:

If the Troll (craft 1) gets a "draw one Spell" effect in turn one, a Spell card is moved from the Spell deck to the discard deck. It's never drawn in any real sense, is never held by the Troll, and could never be cast by the Troll, but it does push through the spell deck (a useful rules tidbit perhaps for the Sage, who knows the next spell and how "uncyclable" it may be).

I do have a separate question though, specifically about Invisibility and Alchemy. The text (at least classically) gave an effect that was optional to use (rather than mandatory as the Heal spell is). We always play with Invisibility as playable at any time (even if you don't/can't use it to evade, its effect lasts until the end of the turn). We also allow Alchemy of 0 objects. Any thoughts on those 2 specific spells?