Very interesting...you quite martial arts for alot of the same reasons I quit the SCA. The SCA also had a streak of authenticity in its political machinations that finally drove me out...just before I was to be knighted LOL.

I won't do much fiddling around with the Talisman conflict resolution system, especially if my wife is playing. It is one of the few games she likes so I won't throw in anything that ruins it for her. If we do start adding official and home made expansions then keeping it simple is even more imperative. After all, it is not RPG light it is Board Game Fantstical.

If you ever get the desire to do some live fighting I reccomend looking at the Dagorhir web site. It is full contact but with padded weapons and a few other common sense rules to keep things sporting. If you have too many concernes about the tussle agrivating old injuries you could just pick up a bow and plink arrows at the opposition and call yourself dead if some one gets close enough to hit you. They had a bit on Wrekreation Nation recently and it gives a good view of the sport. I am a little excited since spring is coming and here in Indiana things grind to a halt for the most part...

Ok - considering all that has been said, my thoughts are thus:

- What is apparent is that the combat system in Talisman, while serviceable, leaves some people unsatisfied.

- Talisman is a basic fantasy adventure game and that's the spirit that any house rule should cleave to.

With that in mind, I propose the following:

- In combat, roll 2d6 and add your appropriate stat (Strength or Craft)

- Spending a fate (indicating that your destiny has taken a hand in the matter) allows you to reroll a single die

- Powers which grant additional dice and choose the best result (Positive Selection); these add a free reroll of the lowest die rolled BEFORE fate is spent (meaning you may still spend a fate to reroll afterward)

- Powers which require you to roll additional dice and choose the worst result (Negative Selection); these require you to reroll the highest die BEFORE fate is spent.

- If you roll double 1s (Snake Eyes), you have slipped up in some fashion (maybe you tripped or weren't as aware of your environment as you thought) and immediately lose.

- If you roll double 6s (Boxcars), your attack is particularly effective (maybe you hit your opponent in a weak spot or they fell badly) and immediately win.

- Armour comes in three varieties, Light, Medium and Heavy. Light Armour is a Helmet (plus some bracers, gauntlets etc), Medium Armour is a stout Shield and maybe some Greaves and Leather. Heavy is any kind of enclosing armour (Chain, Plate etc).

Light Armour indicates that you draw on a tied roll AND if your opponent rolls just 1 more than you. E.g. you roll a total of 10 and your opponent rolls 11, this is still a tie.

Medium Armour indicates that you draw on a tied roll and if your opponents rolls 2 more than you. E.g. you roll a total of 10 and your opponent rolls 12, this is still a tie.

Heavy Armour as above, only 3 more than you. E.g. you roll a total of 10 and your opponent rolls 13, this is still a tie.

Psychic combat always ignores armour.

OPTIONAL CONSIDERATION - if armour is now too potent, perhaps a roll of doubles also ignores armour?

Hey Dth... overall I'm obviously in agreement with you... since most of what I've considered is inline with your summation. I hadn't thought of using armour as a Combat Modifier (such as is done in different FRGPs). It's a interesting notion verses making a separate Armour roll. I'm just not sure the extra calculation of win AND tie is less or more confusing to non-RPGers. If used that way, I think it might be better to word it as "saved life" rather than a "tie" (which it really isn't). There are certain Enemies where you lose a Life AND something happens to you because you lose the fight. AND....

When it comes to Player vs Player, there's a slight complication. If one player loses, without considering armour, the other player has a choice of taking an life, object, or gold. Right now, the winning player can declare taking a life, then the loser rolls for armour. If the armour roll is successful AFTER taking a life is declared, t the winner gets nothing. Putting armour into the combat roll automatically assumes a loss of life is always the case. But it isn't when Player vs Player is the case. Follow?

So suddenly we have to have an ad hoc rule. If the win isn't by enough to over come armour, then a life can't be chosen. But basically it has been chosen, because armour is always in the combat roll to save a life. It's trying to do both outside the choice inherent in Player vs Player combat (which has never made a lot of sense anyway).

ARMOUR MODIFIER VERSUS AUTO-WIN/LOSS

If you want to go with the armour modifier, I think it could still work without an auto-win/loss overriding Armour. Originally I had look ahead to the possibility of ties on auto-wins/losses. Let me see if I can reiterate AND include the Armour modifier consideration, using a 2D6 model.

• Natural 12: automatic win.
• Total roll is still compared against the opponent with their armour modifier to see if a life was lost, but the opponent has still been beated down and loses the combat. (Same as it works now.)
• Natural 2: automatic loss.
• Same as above, the auto-loser has to check the opponent's roll against its own with Armour modifier to see if a Life was lost. But the loser has still lost the combat and is subject to all conditions of losing.
• Double Natural 12s: dual automatic wins
• Both have won, but it isn't a "draw." Both must check the total rolls with Armour benefits to see if either have lost a life.
• In the case of fighting an Enemy , it has still died and can be taken as a trophy.
• In the case of Player vs Player , both (OPTION 1) may attempt to take a gold or object from each other or (OPTION 2) both may choose not to take a Life and take a gold of object instead. [One option must be chosen for the rule's standard.] It seems a bit complicated, but not really, and it might be quite amusing to see who gains/loses what in the exchange. A bit of querky outcome might be fun.
• Double Natural 2s: dual automatic loses
• same Armour checks for lost lives as for Double Natural 12s.
• If the opponent is and Enemy , it dies and is discarded; the character does not get to keep it for a trophy.
• If Player vs Player , neither won, though depending on Armour influence, either may have lost a life. (A couple of bumbling fools who probably injured themselves). Neither gets to take a gold or object from the other.

CHARACTERS WHO USE EXTRA DICE

Making them always use 2 like everyone else, and then re-roll the lowers, does not produce the same probability as rolling two and choosing the best one (or rolling three and choosing the best two). Sorry, but it just doesn't work the same statistically. To keep their advantage the same, such as the Warrior (?) rolling 2 dice, they would have to be "noted" as rolling 3 and choosing the best 2. THEN they have the option to use Fate to re-roll one die. Trust me, the probabilities are much closer this way compared to standard play in Talisman.

THE FALLACY OF FATE (THE BIG DO-OVER)

That re-roll of the lower die could come out even lower. That's the major problem with Fate implementation. It's not Fate; its a blind Luck "do-over" and nothing more. Fate (the will of the Powers, the universe, whatever) as an indicator of favor and the individual adventurer's importance in the "scheme of things" shouldn't have been handled this way.

Use of a Fate point should allow any character to roll an extra die ahead of time and choose the best one (but for a only a specific set of activities). IE: that Warrior could spend a Fate point and roll 4 dice, choosing the best 2 (in Combat that is). Considering how limited and rare Fate is, it wouldn't have happened often, so it isn't as overpowering as it might seem. (Well... maybe it would be with a few characters.)

Going back to FFG's claims (for Fate) of speeding up the game and/or giving players more control, this would have actually accomplished these goals better... at least by eliminating time for yet another roll of the dice. (And changing those corner spaces to mandatory didn't speed up anything for our group. When a character does nothing, the next player's turn starts that much quicker.)

ASIDE: On another point, Fate should be limited to only rolls related to the character's own actions: Physical & Psychic Combat, Movement, Armour, some Spells as needed, and possibly Praying/Invoking. [OH YES... when a Randomized is cast, it is the Caster who should roll, not the Target!) Fate should have been eliminated from use for rolls done for game "personae" (NPCs, so to speak) on cards or board spaces. Afterall, characters don't get to use Fate points to re-roll for Enemies in Combat, so why do they get to do it for the Mystic, Enchantress, etc.? Nonsense! These are still personae of importance in the scheme of things... who would have their own Fate (and actions) in their own hands as much as characters with Fate points.

Use of Fate for an extra die puts true control choices into the hands of the players... especially when that Demon Craft 10 pops up early in the game... or your get jumped by a Dragon when you haven't even acquired a sword! You have to decide... is it worth a precious Fate point... or should I just take my lumps and save it something later? Because this way Fate use isn't so blind, and it thereby a bit more strategic value to consider.

Still, I suppose this falls under my previous consideration for separate modules for house rules. Probably best to introduce Fate rule changes (even when overlapping with Combat) as a separate module once a group gets used to and accepts a module for Combat changes.

SIDE ISSUE: Has anyone ever seen a game where when one player had an encounter, someone else rolls for the Enemy? BUT one person ends up being banned from rolling for Enemies, because no matter what dice they use, or how they roll, the Enemy rolls seem to be habitually high?

It happened to me, and I've been told by more than one in my group that I'm NEVER rolling for their Enemies!

We finally pulled out colored dice, and everyone rolls their own dice and those of their Enemy all at once, the colored one(s) being for the Enemy.

Okay... I mean, I understand, but... it's not my fault. Honestly, I'm not doing it! It's just the dice. Yet I don't get those habitual high rolls when I *#$@*#@ roll for my own character!

JCHendee said:

**** straight

Ah, so I'm not the only one. Anyway, the colored dice and everyone rolling their own Enemies has at least decreased the number of Evil Eyes I've had tossed my way.

Oh good call on the colored dice for enemies... I kinda like that!

We also looked for small ones, so when we play a 2D6 combat aproach one's hand doesn't get overloaded with dice. Everytime a character that gets a standard 2 die roll & choose makes a roll, that's 5 dice minimum for one fight. Some of the young ones can a have a little trouble with a fist full.

stageguy99 said:

Me too! We play sometimes with my mates son, he rolls 5's and 6's so many times throughout the game - and always on my enemies!

We played with the 2d6 variant of Talisman combat. It works very well, I'm pleased to report. We had to make the following calls though which need further exploration:

Additional Dice /Choose Highest or Lowest: roll an additional die and knock out the lowest or highest. Where you have both (e.g. The Trapper and The Warrior), knock out the Highest and then the Lowest dice.

E.g. The Warrior rolls 3 dice in Battle and selects the best 2. He rolls 3, 4 and 4. He would knock out the 3.

E.g. The Warrior rolls 3 dice in Battle but must also roll an additional die and choose the lowest. He therefore rolls 4 dice, scoring 2, 3, 5 and 6. He knocks out the 6 and then the 2.

Natural Rolls: some cards/abilities trigger effects during combat based on what the die rolls. To accommodate this, we made the following judgement calls. The exact odds will never actually equal that on a single die but that can't be helped;

New System

- "Natural 12": automatic win

- "Natural 2": automatic loss

Old System

- "Natural 6": on a roll of 10, 11 or 12.

- "Natural 5 or 6": on a roll of 9, 10, 11 or 12

- "Natural 4, 5 o 6": on a roll of 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12

- "Natural 1": on a roll of 2, 3 or 4

- "Natural 1 or 2": on a roll 2, 3, 4 or 5

- "Natural 1, 2 or 3": on a roll of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

Some good additional notes, Dth. There are some things here that I hadn't thought of... which of course came out in play. This issue with the Trapper is one I couldn't anticipate, since I don't have the expansion with that card.

But now that I look at it again more closely, I am a little concerned about some problems with the probabilities. On a 1D6, each number has a flat 16.67% chance of coming up. Here are probabilities for 2D6:

2 or 12 = 2.78%
3 or 11 = 5.56%
4 or 10 = 8.33%
5 or 9 = 11.11%
6 or 8 = 13.89%
7 = 16.67%

Now here's the relationship for the target number comparisons you presented.

6 (16.67%) = 10,11,12 (16.67%)
5,6 (33.33%) = 9,10,11,12 (27.78%)
4,5,6 (50%) = 8,9,10,11,12 (41.67%)

Same probability differences occur for ranges on 1, 2, and/or 3. Greater the range of target numbers, the greater the difference between the systems... and the less impact the 2D6 system has by comparison. However, if another target number was added for the 2D6 system in each case, its probabilities would be higher than those of the 1D6 target numbers. Example: 4,5,6 (50%) = 7 - 12 (58.34%)

I am wondering if there is a way to (1) compensate but (2) not make it too complicated and (3) not shift probabilities badly the other direction (as just shown). The only thing I can think of is adding the use of what are called "Easy", "Natural," and "Hard" rolls in Craps. Obviously that would make things more complicated.

"Hard" only works for even number targets (essentially rolling an additional target number but counting it only if its a "double" - same number on both die which add up to the target number); all such numbers are a probability of 2.78%. Adding a "Hard" 8 to the 9 - 12 (5 and 6) would bring it to 30.56% so only a slight improvement.

Adding a "Natural" number (rolling a 1 and whatever else is needed) is a the same chance as a "Hard" number and only works for numbers 4 - 7 (2 and 3 are not counted in the "Natural" set). And the "Easy" numbers ... are much harder to "define" in words.

Oh well... maybe I'm just too mired in the numbers. But on the 2D6, special conditions activated by target numbers (considering both the high and low target ranges) will occur 13.88% less often than on 1D6. I'm still in favor of the 2D6 system, but it does have a notable flaw for all those cards with roll based conditions and effects.

SIDE NOTE: This is part of why in my expansion certain cards with such effects (see "Golden Scorpion") have their effect activate based on how many points of roll difference by which the adventurer loses or wins a Battle. The percentage chances are still a bit different between 1D6 and 2D6, but the additional Bell curve of 2D6 mitigates more that it skews in the probabilities. I am considering going back to alter other cards where I've used "target numbers" on dice, and change them to margins or points by which a win or loss occurs.

In 2D6 there's also the possibility of double Auto-Win/Loss. How did your group choose to face such a possibility (if it ever came up)?

HallowKnight said:

I used similar rules for 2nd edition and it worked well for us. Of course, as soon as we using that, the urge to make homebrew cards that conferred "automatic victory" set in.

I would love for there to be a way to stop the automatic wins, as they just stop it being exciting. However, reading through most of this thread, I know my other players wouldn't be bothered- they are quite happy rolling 1 die, and not having to roll 2 then have extra rules for them. I suppose they MAY be interested in the normal 1 die roll, and if the character gets a 1 and the enemy a 6, then the enemy wins regardless of strength. But I don't know if my players will be interested in yet another rule (they are not into RPG's). The other thing about this is the Assassin character. If other characters may lose any fight depending on if they roll a 1 and the enemy a 6, the assassin has an even greater advantage over the other characters, as he needn't worry if the enemy can't roll a die. I could make a house rule for him, but I really like to stick to abilities as they are written on the cards, to keep things simple for my other players.

Hi W.Y.... If you want to eliminate the ol' automatic win, you're going to have to make some house rules. And when you do that, you will always have problems with certain characters, because a fair handful are not well put together. The assassin is one of them, and almost always has been glitchy even by the standard rules.

First off, the assassin says "You may assassinate when you attack a character or creature." This poor wording has always been a problem with the game in two ways. In 4ER, attack is no longer clear as to Combat or Psychic Combat of the previous editons. It isn't until later in Assassin's special abitlies that you realize it is explicitly for Battle. So it should read "You may assassinate in Battle when you attack a character or creature."

Secondly, it has always been unclear to most as to who is doing the attacking when you first draw an Enemy. It has always been played in the groups I've associated that a drawn Enemy is the attacker, not attackee. So the Assassin ability does not work. But many groups interpret all adventurers as ALWAYS the attacker unless explicitly stated otherwise. So the assassin card should read "You may assassinate in Battle when you attack a character or creature, but not when you are attacked or have just drawn and Enemy card."

And additionlly, if any space throws a non-card enemy at someone, including the Assassin, that is also and Enemy attacking and not being attacked, so the Assassin ability doesn't count.

The Assassin is one of the most incorrectly play characters in Talisman over the last 20 years back to 2E. And even some of the FAQs (including more poor wording or nonsensical judge's calls) haven't fixed it once and for all. There are simpler considerations on other characters as well where commonsense should be used to undercut any rules-lawyers in your group (people lean on the old "its not forbidden in the rules, so I can do it no mattter what).

Star your group off by telling them you will all test one simple new rule for this evening's game:

"A natural roll of 1 in Battle or Psychic Combat is an automatic loss ONLY IF your opponent rolls a natural 6. Fate is still usable to change your roll, and the chance of a 1 and 6 being rolled is only 2.7%. The point of the rule is to eliminate un-rolled automatic wins in a few cases and put some risk back into the game no matter how powerful an adventurer gets."

Worded that way, they might not be so reluctant, since the chance is so low. And in the end, it will also expose those who are more interested in exploiting the game's rules loopholes to dominant others rather to play by the spirit of the game. Now...

Take a little time before the game for people look carefully look over the character they will use and see if this new simple rule will affect any special abilities they have. (It won't much with the Assassin if his ability had been played correctly with implied limits that have been there all along.) This is chance to cut out loopholes for misinterpretation of wording (or flat out ignoring certain limits) before play begins or to show how limited the new rules affect will really be in most cases. Most players groups I've dealt with over the years don't object to small rules additions if both the rule and potential complications are dealt with before the game and not suddenly during the game when a player thinks they deserve some advantage the rule will take away.

JCHendee said:

Hi !! As for the Assassin, we have gone over his "ability" in a dedicated thread in the main Talisman board. Some people interpret that a character does the attacking when landing on a face-up card already on the board. But it NEVER says that in the rule book, not even in the 2nd edition. In the 4th revised edition, there is even a contradiction as to who attacks who when an enemy card is drawn (in the rule example, the Wizard decides to attack the drawn card, the Giant). There is even a quote somewhere from the creators I read, that said drawn cards should be treated as us finding out what is already on that space, so in effect those events and creatures are already there. It is therefore decided that his ability can be used on ANY creature he encounters in battle, regardless of if they are drawn from the deck or already on a space. Of course, house rules can be made so that he can only assassinate face-up cards, but that restriction is not meant to be in place for this revised 4th edition.

As for the 1&6 rule, what ever we will call it, I like it a lot! It sounds a fair and easy approach to removing the automatic wins from the game, which is what I would like very much. Going back to the Assassin for a second, we could even make a house rule so that even though his enemy is unable to roll the die, if he rolls a 1 when assassinating, he has automatically lost. That is the risk he takes when assassinating, and adds just a little strategy to him deciding to assassinate or partake in a normal battle. This still keeps it simple and straight-forward to non-RPG'ers. What do you think?

I have always considered the assassin to be poorly written up, and most certainly making him roll means he should be suceptible to a failure, always. And just between you and me, that rule example for the Wizard able to choose to "attack" something that just jumped out of the adventure deck is one of many ways the game has been shifted hard to just mechanics and away from an actual fantasy realm game. Nyx on that.

So yeah, a natural 1 as a failure for assassination is a possibility if using the 1&6 rule. But only if it's acceptible that the Assassin now has a greater chance of failure in assassination than in normal Battle. Rolling 6 and 1 on two dice is a 2.7% chance. Rolling 1 on one die is a 16.7% chance, so the Assassin now has worse odds. Maybe that would further balance such an out of balance ability anyway.

JCHendee said:

Exactly my point. In the 3rd edition of the game, you didn't even add to Strength when assassinating- rolling 1-3 would be a failed assassination and you lose a life, 4-6 you win. That gave an even greater chance of losing! But you always had the option of a normal battle. The way I mentioned above (only 1= failed assassination), he has a greater chance of success, but there is always that slim chance of losing, making it that bit more balanced. Not only that, playing the Assassin can be boring (as my wife found out on her first go with him), as the latter half of the game saw her have automatic win after automatic win. This would change that.

Fully agreed on all points; auto wins by ability, battle, or psychic combat take the tension out of the game. My crew sometimes plays the 2D6 variation with special rules applied for double win, and double loss possibilities. But that's probably a bit much for new players or those unused to trying out rule variations.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=130&efcid=1&efidt=150804"

Not here to discuss my thread but the suggestion put forward by malthule in my thread

Simplicates most of it

I really like it

It really has that ring of "IF" to it

how the hell do i link to a thread?

footoomba said:

Highlight the text you wish to be the link, then click the LINK button in the editor... it looks like a globe with a piece of chain below it. A pop-up dialog will appear to be filled with the actual link URL. Make sure any pop-up blocker you are running allows such for the domain of www.fantasyflightgames.com.

To be honest, the method you're trying to link to is too cumbersome with too many rolls. The two methods in this topic (using either 1D6 or 2D6) are superior in different ways. Both are based on a single roll by both combatants, with autoloss and autowin rolls to eliminate the problem with automatic roll-less wins when adventurers achieve very high Strength or Craft. There are also options for dealing with matching autowins and autolosses rolled by both combatants, again based on that single roll... and no tables are needed.

See my long post on page 2 of this topic for the 2D6 Combat system... which still works if you use 1D6. You can ignore all of the extra notes about an alternative way to use Armore and just play it for rolling a natural 1 or 6 (or 2 or 12 on 2D6) and be done with the combat. Similar auto-win/loss low and high roll systems have been proposed by others over the years and have become the standard for most house rule systems.

I have just played a game with the 1&6 rule (if you roll a 1 and your enemy rolls a 6, you lose- and vice versa). This made the game A LOT better in mine and my wife's opinion. Not only did it keep the game simple enough for non-RPG'ers to play, but it also removed the auto-win completely. a 1 and 6 on the dice only ever happened about twice in the entire game, but that's not the point. The point is, there is always a chance you can fail now, and that keeps the game exciting. I thoroughly recommend people try this out if they haven't already.

wastedyuthe said:

i agree totally

have tried my own system and others and must say in my mind this is the most solid

BUT it depends what you want from it really

footoomba said:

oviously adjustable by fate

footoomba said:

Of course! That's if you have it. In my game last night, I must have had only 3-4 fate counters in my possession the entire game. But when my wife rolled a 1 last night and failed in Battle, she used a fate and rolled again, and got 1 again!