In the Balance, “Alpha” 1
Adventure Cards, Part 1, 3/6/2009

ALPHA VERSION NOTES

As a partial first release limited to the FFG Talisman forum community, I ask that you not redistribute the file or its linkage elsewhere. I’ve also kept any notes or instructions to a minimum. I would like to see how well a small selection of new and experienced players do in interpreting use of these cards before adding further instructions or cards and taking the next release (of Adventure cards only) to the Beta level.

I suggest you print these B&W by convenient means for testing. It’s not recommended that you spend too much time or money in production, as some or all cards may change.

You are more than welcome to provide feedback and suggestion via this original topic in which the distribution file was linked. All reasoned constructive response will be considered, including potential follow up questions. I would like to make this as viable an expansion as possible. This feedback will be used to make adjustments and improvements to cards included, as well as further ones, before s subsequent release includes even more cards. Eventually, the final release will include 104 new Adventure cards to be followed by later release of matching counts for other decks.

The file may be downloaded HERE (5.4mb).

For those interested in the theory and analysis that led to the development of these cards and used as a ongoing guide for all my expansion work, see my log link in the signature of all of my posts. Look for log posts under the heading of "Balancing the Talisman."

Hoorah! Good to see this released so we can play with it. Funnily enough I just updated my front page to report on this, so it's all good! Great work JC!

downloading now, hopefully it wont be to long before i get a chance to play again, and try them.

Hi JC Hendee,

I like some cards that you have made, but i have some questions about it.

Guivre ( enemy dragon

If you must roll a die, when do you fail exactly.

Must i roll under my strength with one die and adds a + 1

( does natural strength mean( only the strength with tokens and starting strength) but not from objects and followers?

--------

Dispossessed card

Why does it say any dice and any purpose?or any pressence?

In my eyes it's a enemie that you must battle and if you roll a 1, than you may not count magic objects..

what do you mean exactly with this card.

-------------

Old Battlements card

I don't understand what you mean with this card.

Does the wall has a strenght of 10 or a craft of 9?

Or must the character has a strength 10 or a craft of 9?, so what must he do then? How must you combat it then ?

-------------

Cool I will definitely obtain these and do a print out when I get the chance. Right now, kinda blitzed after working 12 hours straight on my own project :s

I am so sick of the crappy forum code here... I've lost my post 7 times in a row. FFG needs to get someone in here who knows better about ASP 2 and 3, XML and XHTML. It's more frustrating, since I know design mistakes that have been made!!! As an old codehead, I can smell them... anyhow...

Hi Velhart... questions are what I'm after as well as suggestions, so keep them coming. Questions tell me where refinement is needed. But first... did you read the brief documentation, and was there anything there that wasn't clear? A couple of minor points were covered in there, and it is important to know if that document was not good enough.

Here's some manual quotes and answers I hope will help. And anyone else working with the cards should feel free to suggest alternative wording for cards to be considered.

Guivre -- If you must roll a die, when do you fail exactly?

I see I should change that to "roll 1D6+1 UNDER Natural Strength" ... and you add +1 to the die roll that is compared to Natural Strength. You are correct that Natural Strength is only your Starting Strength plus accumulated points. Followers and Magic Objects cannot help a character versus disease that affects it.

Dispossessed -- Why does it say any dice and any purpose?or any pressence?

Any dice roll of 1 for any reason (Combat, Movement, certain Spells, etc.) while on this monster's space results in failure of all magic objects until your next turn. This would include fighting it, or rolling to move away on the next turn (if you fail to defeat it), any Spell requiring a roll of a die... any die roll at all while on its space.

Old Battlements -- Does the wall has a strenght of 10 or a craft of 9?

Yes, both, for purposes of overcoming it. You can try to overcome it as you wish, Strength or Craft, but only through Strength can you damage it enough to permanently remove it.

JCHendee said:

I have read some parts of the manual now( yes, i have first take a look at the cards. ( so my thinking was right about natural strength;)

But i saw a error in shorthand references. If you take a look at the craft section , you see at the end strength.( that must be changed to craft.

I have some more question about the cards.

Dispossessed card

I know what you mean now with this card, but can you changed the text then, so that we know that you can't use magic objects( if you roll a 1) if you stand on this place and not only in battle for all pupose( spell, moving etc.The card does not say what you actually mean with this card.

Old Battlements card

So you must battle the wall by strength or craft and the wall can also roll a D6 dice.

The reason for this question is, that i thought that the character needs only a strength of 10 or a craft of 9 to break the wall without battle)

But what do you mean with. if you defeat the wall with 6+ ?

Jak's Emporium card

I must say that i like this card the most from all the cards that you have made at this moment;) ( i think it's about the artwork;)

Anyway my question is:

I see that he is selling objects for 2 gold. ( the most cards he receive will be from players who are selling their objects.

But the question is about, that you can buy objects for 2 gold:

I don't like it, if i have a double shield or a double armour and sell it for 1 gold, so that another player can buy it for 2 gold ! that goes also for the shield. I rather go to the alchemist to sell it so it;s gone from the board Maybe you can think about something else for this?

Second Question : I think that it's better if you get 2 gold for magic objects instead of one gold. ( 1 gold is very cheap for a magical object

Anyway, the best point about Jak is his spells. there is finaly a card( or i forget something lol) where you can sell your spells to get rid of them if you don't like them,

...error in shorthand references. If you take a look at the craft section , you see at the end strength.( that must be changed to craft.)

Got it!

Dispossessed -- can you changed the text so we know that you can't use magic objects( if you roll a 1) if you stand on this place and not only in battle for all pupose( spell, moving etc.The card does not say what you actually mean with this card.

Got it! I'll see what kind of wording changes can make it better. Suggestions from anyone are welcome.

Old Battlements -- So you must battle the wall by strength or craft and the wall can also roll a D6 dice. The reason for this question is, that i thought that the character needs only a strength of 10 or a craft of 9 to break the wall without battle)

Yes, another difficulty with wording. You do battle the wall, and it does have a roll as well. So wording again needs to be tweak. Again, suggestions are welcome.

But what do you mean with. if you defeat the wall with 6+ ?

If you defeat the wall, you may continue you move. If you defeat it by 6 or more in Combat (not Psychic Combat), it is discarded. This approach to and "Obstacle" place is a new experiment. It may or may not work well enough to keep. Suggestions anyone?

Jak's Emporium -- he is selling objects for 2 gold. the most cards he receive will be from players who are selling their objects.

Yes, he keeps what he buys instead of sending them off to the Adventure discard or the Purchase pile. Originally I had him buying only Spells and Magic Objects, though that limited what he had to sell when drawn, and I wanted him to have more than just the same as the other spell sellers.

His advantage for Objects is another place to sell such for gold when a character needs gold before going elsewhere. It also means that adventurers have to deal with getting to an an openly displayed object and having to pay for it instead of just picking it up. Jak is a profiteer, and he knows who has a lot of gold their willing to spend - adventurers! But I may turn him back to only dealing in Spells and Magic Objects... if any adventurer (without the Alchemist) is desparate for Gold. Perhaps he should offer more gold for such to make him more attractive than the City's Alchemist. In this he also keeps Magic Objects in play to others to go after instead of discarding them via the Alchemist.

But the question is about, that you can buy objects for 2 gold: I don't like it, if i have a double shield or a double armour and sell it for 1 gold, so that another player can buy it for 2 gold ! that goes also for the shield. I rather go to the alchemist to sell it so it;s gone from the board Maybe you can think about something else for this?

That's certainly a reasonable tactical choice. I listed Objects at 2G because I didn't have room to list a full set of prices for Objects. It's another sign that maybe he shouldn't deal in mundane Objects. Thoughts from anyone else?

I think that it's better if you get 2 gold for magic objects instead of one gold. 1 gold is very cheap for a magical object.

A good idea... and that would make adventurers think twice about selling off Magic Objects to the City's Alchemist.

The best point about Jak is his spells. there is finaly a card( or i forget something lol) where you can sell your spells to get rid of them if you don't like them

And he has the advantage they you can see a spell before you buy it (if he has one), instead of drawing it randomly. Hmm... maybe he should start with 2 Spells? Any thoughts, anyone?

Here are some potential revisions based on comments so far:

GUIVRE, Enemy-Dragon, Strength 4

• Win or lose, roll 1D6+1 under your Natural Strength. Fail and you succumb to its diseased breath. On rolled movements of 5+ spaces, lose a Life until you visit the Doctor, Healer, Physician, or any “Witch.”

OLD BATTLEMENTS, Place-Obstacle.

• STOP HERE! [strength 10, Craft 9] To finish your move, “Combat” the wall by Strength or Craft (the wall does not roll a die). Fail and you must turn back on your next move. Defeat the wall with Strength by 6+, and it is forever breached (discard)
• NOTE: I changed it to sub-classification "Obstacle," which keeps it outside of certain new Event influences but perhaps clarifies it more, I hope.

DISPOSSED, Enemy-Monster, Strength 4

• Aetheric . Created by a fouled exorcism, if while on its space you roll 1 on any die (combat, movement coming or going, etc.), all your Magic Objects fail to work until your next turn.

JCHendee said:

I have still a question about the wall

i don't understand really what you mean with 6+

so, if i have a strength 6 or above, and i roll the die,and i have a score of 11 then the wall is discarded and i can move further?

Does this mean that someone with a strength 5 and would roll a 6 and the total is 11. then the wall is not discarded?

i assume that if the total is 10 , then it is a stand- off right?

----------

Carrier card

One thing bothered me if i read the text.

Must you give the carrier as soon as you have her, 2 objects or CAN she carry 2 objects for you? I miss the word CAN in the text...

Off course, you want to get rid of her as soon as possible..

----------

I was thinking about Jak's emporium.

What do you think about if Jak can draw each time a spell card from the deck, when a player sells a spell card to him.

Then you can buy spells there, and if you sell him a spell, he gets a new one in his shop;) ( Jak is the best;) ( i like this idea)

i don't understand really what you mean with 6+

You roll in Combat, as it says. If you have S7 and roll a 6, then you have total of 13. As noted, the wall does not roll and has a flat S10. So you did beat it and get to continue your move. BUT..... "Defeat the wall with Strength by 6+" means you'd need to have a 16 to make it go away forever....

Hmm... made I should just list it that way, huh? This is why I need feedback. I know audiences of novels and prose, ... and I can crunch numbers and delve deep into mixed and compound probabilities... but I have never tried to "author" for game players.

Time for another rewrite of the Old Battlements!

Carrier card - Must you give the carrier as soon as you have her, 2 objects or CAN she carry 2 objects for you?

Got it! You are right to be confused... it should say she MAY or CAN carry.

Off course, you want to get rid of her as soon as possible..

Indeed! I wanted to try a cursed or penalty Follower who still had some benefit if someone wanted to risk keeping her.

Say, she gets drawn, then you move on running for the Doctor or Healer. Suddenly you draw another valuable magic object along the way. Well, she can carry it for you if you already have 4 objects. Before you get "cured" of her, (1) you better decide which object you have to drop, (2) or once cured of her, she drops what is carrying, or (3) you suffer her presence even longer to carry the extra object.

And as stated on the card, all "Noble" followers abandon you when she appears. (Nobles are whimper and don't even want the sniffles.) Which means "yes" there are two new Noble followers coming: the Duke and the Duchess, whose benefits are slightly different than the Prince and Princess.

What do you think about if Jak can draw each time a spell card from the deck, when a player sells a spell card to him. Then you can buy spells there, and if you sell him a spell, he gets a new one in his shop;

Okay, I'm a little lost. Let me set up an example with options and you pick which one you mean.

When Jak is drawn and place, he immediately gets a Spell and a Purchase to sell. (NOTE: I'm considering dropping Purchase and have him deal only in Spells and Magic Objects). When an adventurer visits and sells him a Spell for 1G, Jak then...

• keeps the spell to resell?
• discards it and draws a spell to sell in its place?
• both?

While I'm waiting for Velhart's reply... here are some further modifications made for Alpha release cards. These reflect ongoing modification for when it is time to put this partial release in "Beta" ... and that will include additional cards as well.

OLD BATTLEMENTS, Place-Obstacle

• STOP HERE! Strength 8, Craft 7. To finish your move, fight the wall in Physical or Psychic Combat. If you win, finish your move. If not, turn back on your next move. If you win with Strength by 6 or more points, the wall is forever breached (discard).
• NOTE: I lowered S & C and had the Wall roll as well. This makes the card more compatible with alternative combat systems, such 2d6 or 3D6. Without a roll for the wall, alternative dice combat would have made it too easy to beat.

CARRIER, Follower-Human

• Transient . Drop all "Noble" followers on your space! A "diseased" figure follows you. She may carry 2 Objects, but on movements of 5+ (by any means), lose a Life or other Follower. Visit the Chapel, Doctor, or Healer to discard her.

JCHendee said:

Hi JCHendee

Just came back from work , so sorry for the waiting

Old Battlements:

I understand what you mean now, but i think you must changed some things.

The player must know, that the wall have a strenght 10 or a craft 9, and that the wall may not roll a die. ( because if i read it, then i think that the character need strenght 10 or craft 9 etc)

I think it's better if you changed 6+ to 16 or higher. I think that players then wll understand the meaning of the wall.

If it was made that way, then i think i would not ask too many questions about it

Carrier card:

About the nobles. Princess and the Prince are in my eyes nobles too, so i have not think about that you made new noble cards..

It's a good idea must i say. If i am right, someone has made a noble expansion for the 2th edition...

Jak's Emporium

If a character sells Jak a spell, then Jak will receive a new spell in his shop.

This way, characters can buy spells that other characters have sell to jac, AND Jac receive a new spell each time a character sell a spell to him.

Off course. Characters must still pay 3 gold for the spells.

The card(jak) will become a interesting card, and he gets new goods(spells) in his shop. I hope you like my idea

------

There is only one problem that i have found out if jak sells his spells.

That's about the wizard, and the wand card or other characters that gets automatic spells like the sage. Those characters can easily sell his spells and become filty rich !

This is something that we must think about. Maybe you must make a rule that only non magicians may sell his spells and buy spells from jac or something. Because i see already a problem ahead

Hey V, don't worry about the wait. I can only jump over here now and then myself. I just appreciate any feedback anyone has time for whenever.

Velhart said:

What this means is you "fight" the wall by whichever you choose, Strength or Craft. NOTE: And the wall now gets a roll as well (see previsous post for reasons). Example:

1. You are Strength 9; Wall is Strength 8.
2. You roll a 5 for a Total of 14. The wall rolls a 4 for a total of 12.
3. You win, but only by 2 points (14 - 12 = 2).
4. You get to finish your move in the direction you were headed, but the wall was not damaged enough for others to find that opening. So it remains.

Another example:

1. You roll a 6 (Total 15), and the wall rolls a 1 (Total of 9).
2. You beat the wall by 6 (15 - 9 = 6), so you get to finish your move AND and the wall is discarded.

I'm not sure I can re-word it any clearer in the card's limited space. If you or anyone else can see a better exact wording, by current or traditional Talisman terms, let me know. I may just have to scrap this card and try something else.

Velhart said:

Questions are GOOD; never worry about that. I'm still learning how to write for this new "audience" of gamers.

Velhart said:

Yes, I believe I remember someone creating a pack of Nobles for 2nd. I'm not sure, but they may have been part of something for an alternative to the City expansion. The Duke and the Duchess will be in the coming Beta release (likely by next Sunday) which will include all Alpha cards with edits as well as more cards for people to review if they like.

Velhart said:

Correct. And that is how it is worded. Jak "keeps" all Spells he buys. PLUS you get to see his Spells before you buy. (When you buy spells from some Strangers at 1G, you had to draw them randomly.)

Velhart said:

Yes, I see you point... but adventurers must still land on him first. That's not easy to do by normal movement. So getting to Jak just to sell a spell had better be worth what you spend (in Fate, etc.) to get there. I think probably selling can be limited to 1 Spell, Object, etc. per visit, and that will be enough to keep spell-users from getting rich (along with having to reach Jak each time).

Here are some final revisions on cards discussed so far. (I will now use discussions and comments to look at other cards and begin preparing the new download for this coming weekend... or sooner.)

OLD BATTLEMENTS, Place-Obstacle

• STOP HERE! To finish your move, fight the wall (Strength 8, Craft 7) in Physical or Psychic Combat. If you win, finish your move. If you win with Strength by more than 5 points, the wall is forever breached (discard).

CARRIER, Follower-Human

• Transient. Drop all "Noble" followers on your space! A "diseased" figure follows you. She may carry 2 Objects for you, but on movements of 5+ (by any means), lose a Life or other Follower. Visit the Chapel, Doctor, or Healer to discard her.

GUIVRE, Enemy-Dragon

• Strength 4. Win or lose, roll 1D6+1 under your Natural Strength. Fail and you succumb to its diseased breath. On rolled movements of 5+, lose a Life or a Follower until you visit the Doctor, Healer, Physician, or any "Witch."

DISPOSSESSED, Enemy-Monster

• Strength 4. Aetheric. Created by a fouled exorcism, if while on its space you roll 1 on any die (combat, movement coming or going, etc.), all your Magic Objects fail to work (until your next turn).

JAK'S EMPORIUM, Stranger-Humanoid

• Rural . No one can steal from this "dusky" elf. Draw 1 Spell & Purchase to place face up with him. You may sell him 1 Spell (1G) or Magic Object (2G) per visit. He keeps and sells what he buys: Spell 2G; Object (City prices); Magic Object 5G.

When Jak is drawn and place, he immediately gets a Spell and a Purchase to sell. (NOTE: I'm considering dropping Purchase and have him deal only in Spells and Magic Objects). When an adventurer visits and sells him a Spell for 1G, Jak then...

keeps the spell to resell?
discards it and draws a spell to sell in its place?
both?
---------------------------

Hi JcHendee,

I mean both.

He keeps the spell that he get from characters and also draw another spell when a character sell him a spell...

That is what i actually mean with my story and about the wizard or sage etc

It's a idea......

Because it's not easy to get spells in the game, maybe you can combine it so that you can also buy spells from the draw deck.

spell 2 gold ( draw one card from the top of the spell deck)

spell 3 gold. you can buy the face up spell card( that are placed with jac. ( includes also the spell cards that jac draws when someone sell him a spell.

I write it again so i hope you understand what i mean otherwise my idea don't come through

HI V. Okay, I understood this time... but I will pass on that idea. Too many Spells could build up on Jak and deplete the Spell deck. Plus, he's not a mage or wizard... just a huckster and profiteer looking to make some gold. I would rather keep him that way, since there is already one Stranger in the deck that sells random draws of spells for 1G.

JCHendee said:

I understand, it will deplete the spell deck.

I think you must keep him that way then, otherwise he is more powerful than the stranger/wizard card.

i see that you have change the selling of spells from 3 to 2 gold.

Maybe a good choice. I don't think that players want to buy useless spells that other players sell to Jac. 2 gold is good i think

Hi JC,

Thanks for the cards. They look really good. Being an incredible nitpicker, here are my comments

Lioness – Maybe should be reworded slightly for clarity. Might be an idea just to list the total strength of the card for each roll and clarify that you roll each time you encounter the card.

Steer – Clarify if the card is discarded or ditched at the Fields or Village.

Poltergeist – Consider renaming as we already have a poltergeist. Remove the word Magic as it will make people think it only applies to magic objects. Most people know magic objects are objects too. In England we tend to use the word anticlockwise rather than counterclockwise. As the rest of the cards are in English English this may be a consideration.

Aurora – Do followers and objects regain their spells?

Minor Ifrit – I tend to keep my purchase cards in alphabetical order. It may be a pain to have to draw random cards.

General
While I have nothing against the addition of extra terminology, I’m not sure if it is a good idea to use alternate terminology rather than the official terminology. I personally preferred “Starting Strength” to “Strength Value” but I do think it would be better to stick to “Value” as it would only confuse the issue further.

The same, and even more so would apply to your usage of “Physical Combat” rather than the official “Batlle”. To me, the new terminology for “Battle”, “Psychic Combat” and “Attack” makes the intention of the cards a lot clearer.

I’m not sure about the added terminology used in some of your Object cards and how this would work with the existing cards which don’t have the terminology without some sort of refernce sheet, it could get messy.

Cheers

Geoff

Hi JC Hendee,

If you are adding custom cards to the deck, how are you balancing talisman.

If i am adding cards to my deck, i think i want to keep the balance from the reaper.

Otherwise i put to much cards from the same type in the deck and then it will destroy the balance.

Right now, i am too short on items and magic objects. The problem is that most people make it too powerful.

I am also looking for nice enemies to put into my deck. The art is for me the most important thing. If i don't like it, i don't put it into my deck

Velhart said:

Hi again, V (and I'll get to you CV in a following post).

The series on my log... meaning blog... called Balancing the Talisman covers and examination, analysis, and self-suggestions for dealing with balancing all the subdeck (Followers, Enemies, Strangers, etc) in the Adventure deck. Each on post is a very long article that takes a look at one subdeck with an eye to creating additional cards for it... either as whole matching count or as a 1/4th count.

They are long, convoluted, and not for everyone. (And riddled with typos as well, considering I sneak in those posts in minimal spare time around writing and working on the house and property). You might take a look and see if there's anything there for you.

Each subdeck should be examined for count, average of attributes on cards, areas of effects, type of deficits and benefits, alignment slant (the standard deck is not balance for Alignments), etc. It's not something I can easily tell you how I do it... and other designers around here probably have there own approach as well. That's the best I can do for the moment.

As to the Reaper, I can't help you there. The more that I and my group learned about it, the less interested we were. Eventually one of use will buy it, but we will only be using some cards for careful addition to our decks. Most of us played the old 2nd edition and are just getting back to Talisman (4th ed. rev.) as of a few months passed. We remember most cards being stuck helterskelter into the Reaper. We don't care for that... and we don't care for the Reaper itself.

However, we are waiting anxiously to see how the new Dungeon turns out. We are praying that its design only is taken from 3rd edition and that most of its better intent is based in 2nd edition. So far we do have some concerns that it will just be a pipeline into the CoC (the weakest aspect of the 2nd ed. version).

Balancing against another expansion isn't something you want to get into. Balance any expansion against just the standard deck. Then you know you've done your job. To do so versus another expansion will just lead you astray... since often you'll be balancing against something that has not innate balance standard. Even the standard Adventure deck isn't perfect, but is the game standard to follow (and make minor adjustments for).

Hi, CV! And thanks MUCH for the feedback. Never worry about the nitpicking, since that's you're option to add in with all others who take precious time to provide input.

Cidervampire said:

Yes, I see your point for precision and concision in these. I'll take another look at those cards before re-releasing them.

Cidervampire said:

"English" English, eh? Well, at least "anticlockwise" would save me a few letters of card space!

I don't think there's too much problem in having a P as an Enemy as well as a follower. There is precedent in previous editions for certain titles popping up on different types of cards. And the follower version isn't really accurate for what "noisy ghost" really is. I tried to find some alternatives that were too the point, but there just aren't any that are correct for what it does/is.

The whole "magic" thing was just trying to be precise in limited space, as I'm not sure I agree that all players thinks Object also implies Magic Object, but I'll see what I can work out to make that clearer/better.

Cidervampire said:

Yes, followers and objects regain. Another edit is in order for that card.

As to randomly chosen Purchase, it's necessary in a way. The "Marid" and possibly a "Major Ifrit" will allow choosing a Purshase as one option. The minor one needs to be weaker and less certain for being a weaker Enemy to overcome. And traditional, objects of some kind are often part of what Djinn of all types present for wishes. Yes, I'm putting the Purchase deck to a new use (and yes, I have additions - standard and new - coming for the purchase deck... some day in the near future.)

Cidervampire said:

I see your points all around on this, and certainly if I were producing this work for inclusion in a commercial release for 4th revised (by contract), I would have to adher to editorial standards. That is not the case. And there are other considerations I looked at which gave me reasons for the choices I made, particularly in the difference between "word" and "meaning"... or more importantly in precision and clarity. We do not communicate in words; we communicate in meaning. It is meaning that matters most. I wish to relate meaning to people, not words.

The changes made to terminology in 4th "revised" were almost all bad ones that created obfuscation rather than enhancing precision and clarity. I know this as a writer, a sometime contract editor, a past college English teacher (Prose, Research, Essay, etc.), and a number of other pursuits involving language (including an IT firm partner and specialist in e-document / data storage, management, and retrieval, and intranet / extranet development). If I had made such term substitutions in any books my wife and I write, our editor would have jumped on us and rightly so. Because what matters above all else is the precision of meaning, not terminology standards.

The terms "Combat" and "Psychic Combat" I believe were the ones used in 2nd edition; they remain in the 4th unrevised edition. Likely they existed in 3rd as well, though I never bothered with that version. My addition of "Physical" Combat provides further precision. That's what terminology choices should be about - clarity and precisions of "meaning," not the "word." Battle is not synonymous with Combat; by that I mean it is of similar meaning but not the same meaning. People often mistake synonym as "same" based on the word's roots; that is not the case.

"Battle" predominantly refers, first and foremost, to physical conflict between sides or groups; "Combat" (or fight, less precise) takes place between individuals. The term "battle" applied to individual combat has been used in legend and myth (and mistakenly in fiction), but as poetic license only. That isn't suitable to a rules systems from what I see. Rules, guidelines, operating manuals (even for games) are not about creative choices to distinguishing by word instead of meaning... at least not foremost.

The term "Attack" has similar problems as it always has in Talisman. Continued additions through FAQs came about to clarify who is attack(ing) who and who is attacking first. (The proper terms are "attack" for the one who initiates, and "defend" or "counterattack" for the one who responds.)

Additionally, it's my intention to eventually transfer the completed In the Balance expansions (Adventure, Spells, etc) to 2nd edition format. There are still many who play this version. I may also do a 4th unrevised version as well. I may or may not do 3rd edtion. Since 4th revised is the only deviation in terminology (that I know of), I made my choices (with minor clarification) based upon the majority of versions and their almost common terminological choicse (the better choices). I would like to make such transfers of format with as few manual revisions as possible. There are or maybe ways to set up "actions" or scripting to do most of the work automatically in Photoshop CS4. Time for passtime pursuits is limited for me.

So there you have it (another long-winded post from JC ). Again, your reasoning is sound, CV. I have just based my choice on considerations you didn't mention. I still think they are the overriding ones, but I'm open to any additional counterpoints you'd like me to consider.

Oh... and the document included with the cards is only a starting point. It needs more for players to understand how to use these cards (1) according to normal game rules, ignoring sub-(sub-)classifications, or (2) having such only affect or expansion cards, or (3) interpreting some standard cards as being including in some of my new sub-sub-classifications (such as the Prince and Pincess obviously being included in "Noble" Followers). Once cards are settled, I'll dive back into finishing that instructions document.

Aloha

First off, I have to say that I like your angle on this. Balancing things out and approaching from a logical viewpoint is interesting and I've been following your rather thought provoking blog.

My first impression of your cards was "There are some great ideas here". Particularly, Jak and the Battlements stand out as unique additions. Don't be surprised if that gets purloined by someone in the future (not me!).

After a closer review, however, I was a bit perturbed. The cards are very wordy and while the average gamer wouldn't have a problem with that, periphery or casual gamers would struggle greatly. Indeed, after playing Cosmic Encounter with a friend's significant other, I was quite shocked to see how anxious and upset she was getting just struggling to read the cards! I dread to think what her reaction would be to your cards So from that perspective, I think you have alienated a group of players.

That said, having read your prevous posts, I completely understand that this expansion isn't about that group anyway. And, as you say, if it were a more official thing, you wouldn't even consider this balancing.

Secondly, I feel there is a certain level of unnecessary over complication on your part, i.e. its just plain fiddly! I think you have been very logical in your application but the more you add, the less it is Talisman. If you get my drift. For my troupe and I, Talisman is our "lowest common denominator" game: it doesn't tax the players too much and can be enjoyed by pretty much anyone. It requires less thought than say, Catan or Carcassone and can occupy an afternoon without too much repetition. By introducing more elements that have to be accounted, you require greater processing power... it is one of the reasons why I think the implementation of the Reaper mechanic is a bit of a missed opportunity (but I'm not going to go in to that).

Thirdly, after all that, I don't actually have any issue with any of your cards They are interesting and add something, so that's all good.

I would comment that your argument over the use of language is valid but a bit moot, in so far as the majority are concerned: most wouldn't notice and probably less would even care But I see your point and if that's what works for your group then, again, it's all good.

Good stuff all round and I look forward to seeing your next lot!

Hi JC,

Thanks for the feedback on my feedback. I certainly see a lot of sense in what you have said. The term “Battle” was introduced in the 3rd edition and while as you state, it was hardly the best terminology, it at least made the cards clearer. I know there were some 2nd edition cards that used the term “combat” to mean strength combat and on other cards when referring to both strength and craft combats. I was quite happy personaly to see the introduction of the term "Battle" to make the difference clearer. As you quite rightly say, the term “Attack” has been used in a muddling manner especially when it comes to the Assassin who probably logically shouldn’t be able to assassinate enemies as they attack him not vice versa.

I’ve gone through the incredibly lengthy process of converting all the 2nd edition expansions into revised 4th and generally found the new terminology useful in making the cards clearer. I’m pretty sure my group may be a thrown a bit by using cards with alternate terminology, especially newbies. I still love the 2nd edition but I probably won’t play it again as I now have all the cards in 4th edition format minus the various bugs. Because of copyright etc I probably wouldn’t really be able to share my hard work publicly which is a bit of a shame but there you go.

Fair enough on the naming of the Poltergeist, not sure of the logic of giving the original one that title come to think of it! Your usage of the word “magic” is the same as that used on the Cyclops in 2nd edition and I know that threw a lot of people I played against.

Bit surprised that you don’t play with the Reaper set. When I first saw him I was initially a bit shocked as to how lethal he looked but after several games and doing the maths, I realised that he isn’t such a major factor to the game and does actually add to the enjoyment. Quite liked the new cards and the tweaks to the 2nd edition versions. 2nd edition contained several cards which let you manipulate your movement eg. Horse, horse and cart, jet pack, which as a consequence allowed stronger players to continually pick on weaker characters which took the fun out the game quite a bit.

That’s the end of my griping, but again, thanks for the cards and I certainly look forward to seeing the rest of the set! It’s always an uphill struggle to include flavour and clarity to the cards in such a small space.

Cheers
Geoff

Cidervampire said:

Hi Geoff,

Are you making the cards with new artwork too?. In the style of 4th revised edition.

I would like to see the wildernis cards from talisman island with updated artwork in revised format.

That goes the same for the dragon expansion from 2th,or other cards from 2th edition.

greetz,

Velhart

Hi,

No, I decided to use all the origanl art. It took a long, long time to do all the scanning, cropping, a little stretching and retyping and rewording of all the cards but I got there in the end!

Geoff