dth said:

Hmm... well, that is definitely something to consider where possible. The "audience" for basic board games aren't usually people coming to do a lot of "reading" per se. At the same time, once a new card has been encountered two or three times, the familiarity factor also comes into play, so long as the text itself is clearly understood. And Talisman has never exactly been for people looking for a basic boardgame. If that were true, not so many would be concerned with interpretation of cards versus cards and versus the rules. Let's face it, that rule book has grown a little with every edition, so reading the cards is rather simply compared to running back to that rule book... or the growing FAQs. Playing Talisman now means you need to be willing to face some study now and then... and even then, once something new is learned, you don't continue going back to re-read. (Well... maybe a few times.)

Unlike a fiction, where every word counts every time, I see in game cards a more building process of recognition where the text becomes only a reminder as needed. But your point is still taken. So, can you pick out one worst case example where the newness presented by a card isn't enough, per se, in the balance against its wordiness?

dth said:

Understood, though other than some expansions simply offering new titles and art (and base mechanics that aren't really additions underneath), most fan expansions are looking to add some new complications. That's part of the sub-audience I'm going after. Mind you, you are right in that I am somewhat catering to those interested in the "adventure" (the playing) rather than the endgame (the winning). Personally, I got bored with the winning part a long time ago.

But again... can you pick out (among the cards) what you think might be a worst case example?

dth said:

Point taken, admittedly... see more below.

Cidervampire said:

Hmm... I see now. And it makes sense that is bad terminology ocurred when someone tried to assimilate Talisman into the Warhammer world (when it already had a world of its own). I'm not sure I agree that it was clearer... or rather that clarity was rightly served in the best choice of words. I think it was just an accident a mind trying to make Talisman and extension of Warhammer and its base terminology. You will note that when BI made the original faulted 4th, it reverted back to the orignal terminology.

Cidervampire said:

That's something more valid to consider, as it is audience based - audience is important to me as a writer. The counter-counterpoint is that most groups would not be using a fan expansion until a well after having learned the base game ... and to some degree have become bored with the same ol' same old. That's why people buy commercial epansions. But the audience issue still provides a strong consideration.

I am concerned about a few of my cards, should I now go standard 4er terminology (which I am now leaning towards). The Old Battlements might actually get wordier ... but maybe not. I'll have to try it out and see.

One the issue of wordiness and complexity, I'm wondering what any of you thought about the "Dry Spring"? The objective with "Challenge" cards was to put a true micro-adventure into the came in the correct way (versus the Cave, where gain goes up only when you face nothing in challenge).

In the next back of cards are two more Challenges, each with a different approach to figuring out what one games for success. But with Dth's concerns with wordiness (and the strange variations on those coming two cards), I'm now leaning toward all Challenges having that clearer "table" of results... if it works adequately by those reviewing it.

Cidervampire said:

Indeed, that card will somehow be reworded. I still want to avoid the "challenges" that I have seen come up when a card does not explicitly say Objects AND Magic Objects. Hoarders (and even Gauders) will very commonly go for this kind of wording loophole.

Cidervampire said:

I see your point that some people would really like that element. I'm just not one of them, and those in my group range from the same to the ambivalent. I think we consider it more of an interferrence that anything. An certainly in small ways it can lenghten time per round without players actually doing more with their own characters. That's the most predominant reason we haven't cared for it. Also that it is nothing more than large cannon of randomness being pushed around the board as if adventurers on roll of 1 suddenly became demigods.

But again, different strokes, as they say. That it has an enthusiastic faction among Talisman players shows it struck true for those like other dimensions of the game beyond what I'm interested in. And there's nothing wrong with that. Talisman's diversity (through differing expansions) has always been one of its strengths (its greatest weakness has always been poor or poorly thought out diversity in endgame).

Cidervampire said:

And the new versions do not? Hmm... perhaps as a side line you could explain or illuminate how the horse (and perhaps magic carpet) differ between 2nd and 4th rev.? It may be important for one or two cards I have in mind (which weren't in this first preview release.) From what I heard of these cards in 4th play, they allowed adventurers to get around the board far too much beyond normal movement. Attacks weren't as much of an issue as getting to resources and encouraging more hoarding.

ADDENDUM

Lastly, and foremost, I want you both to know how much I appreciate your willingness to debate with and challenge me. It's a relief that someone is willing to do that. It's important in "balancing" the theory and analysis against the reality built during gameplay by the players... the audience. That's one thing I can't calculate, since I am only part of one small group of players.

No worries, JC. Always happy to help.

I'm going to go through your cards now and review them individually, see if that helps;

LIONESS: Interesting card. Should work fine.

STEER: Really like this card. Anything which adds kind of "side quests" is good for me.

GUIVRE: I interpret this card to mean "When you attack or are attacked by Guivre, roll 1d6+1 versus your base Strength (i.e. unmodified by objects and followers). If you roll over, you are poisoned: whenever you roll 5 or 6 for movement, you lose 1 Life until you can visit a Doctor, Healer, Physician or any "witch"". This is really wordy and very fiddly. I really like the idea behind it but in so far as Talisman cards go, I can definitely see peripheral players going "Huh? Someone explain that to me".

DISPOSSESSED: I interpret this to mean "When you are in the same space as this card, if you roll a die and roll a 1, you may not use any Magic Objects until the start of your next turn". The whole "If you roll a 1 when in the same space"... it is fiddly. For me, I think Talisman cards should be straight forward, this card has this effect and shouldn't have too many conditions.

GOLDEN SCORPION: I like this card. It is just on the borderline for complication. It has a bit of meat to it but that's ok.

MAGOG: I like this card

TROLL: Good card.

MARID: Cool

MINOR IFRIT: I interpret this card to mean "You may choose to attack the Ifrit in Psychic combat or enslave it. If the latter, you may not use any Followers during this combat. If you enslave it, the Ifrit becomes a follower whom you can discard at any time to gain 1 Gold, 1 Spell or any random purchase card." Its an interesting card and that's really the point of adding new cards (as you have said yourself). Yet, the text is very clipped. You may want to consider using the smaller picture card...

POLTERGEIST: I see what you are doing with this card and that's very cool. But it is very fiddly: rolling a die for each object after the fight, calculating how much you lose by and then adding that to the die roll and then comparing that to your chart... I feel there are too many conditions involved in the effect.

AURORA: Good card.

BRISG-SHI: Very cool.

PURE DAWN: Also cool. I'd like to see a number of cards that represent the time of day.

VERDANT SURGE: Again, cool card.

I will continue when I get the chance.

The Guivre is fine by me.

The only thing what can be changed is. If you roll 5 or higher, you lose a life, or etc

Remember that you can also have a horse, then you roll higher than 6

Good input, people! Some re-wording to consider, though I may not go as far with some of them. Velhart is also partially correct about the Guivre (by the way, it is a traditional though little known form of dragon that lives in fetid water, and a possible origin of the gargoyle.) The wording may be a bit to subtle. It is not about a movement "roll" but any movement, as worded. It's easier than the Poltergeist to get to a cure but more deadly, obviously.

I'll get back you on others, possibly with some questions. Right now I need to put some time in reviewing Dth's expansion (as i"ve been promising)... and there's a large oak tree in my yard I have to attend to... people coming in to continue taking it down.

I may or may not get to releasing revisions and additional cards this weekend. But hopefully by Monday evening. In the meantime, please feel free to throw out more comments to consider if you're into that.

Hi JC,

I can't wait to see your new expansions.

Are you making more magical objects or normal objects too? ( because if i want to put the cards that you made into my deck, then i need items too..

i see that you can make nice cards. Is it possible that you can make the wildernis custom cards from talisman island with better artwork.

I would be so happy to put those cards into my deck. But i don't want to ask too much from you

Velhart said:

Yes, there will be more magic objects and objects. Once I'm done with the Adventure deck, likely I'll do the Purchase deck next (I'm saving the Spell deck for last as that will be the most troublesome). And of course, characters MAY follow as well.

Later on, I have in mind a character "generator system" for creating not standard characters but ones "on the fly," where attributes and abilities are chosen by spending a standard amount "points" to add such to a character for the present game. Don't know if it will appeal to people, but its a notion I'd like to experiment with just the same.

Velhart said:

Hmmm... I'm not 100% certain what you mean. If you mean re-do the cards, then perhaps yes... but later on. I will try to drop over there, download the ones you mean, and have a look later on. All the artwork I use has to come from royalty free, copyright free, public domain and / or not for commercial use sources. So it can be hard to find enough to go around. I'm already have that trouble with my own expansion.

JCHendee said:

Yeah, i mean re-do the cards, but with better artwork. A few that i like are the dead treant, or the gallovs tree who has hanging heads, who are attacking you, or vampire roses, or a snarling tree etc

Well, it's doubtful I could reproduce the same type of image... as I'm not a real artist, just an amateur graphics jockey. But something generally similar representing the creature in question, might be possible. Are we talking about redoing these for 4th ed. revised? Is this your expansion originally?

JCHendee said:

Haha, it's not my expansion

And yes, we are talking about redoing the cards.

You can see on talismanisland who has made the cards. But i see there is no option to contact that person. Otherwise i could ask if he made the cards again with better artwork...

Continuing my review of your cards:

BEITHER-SHI: Interesting follower.

CARRIER: No real issues with this card. Is this meant to be a detriment card a la the Hag/Jester?

CU-SHI: I like this card a lot. I think its interesting and different. Which is kinda the point of adding new cards in

VERDANT ZEALOT: Again, interesting and different. Well done

BRACE OF FORTITUDE: Good card. Might be too powerful: +1 STRENGTH AND +1 Starting Quota? Either way, its a good card!

VERDANT RING: Good card. Not so sure about the secondary ability. In my experience, people are reluctant to sacrifice trophies. I can see it being used to avoid being killed, however. If that's what you intend, then fair enough!

VERDANT STAFF: Very cool. Interesting and different. Overall, I like your objects a lot.

BANK DRAFT: Nice!

BATTLE BLADES: I like the concept. And I CERTAINLY agree with a subtrait of "Two Handed". I honestly think that someone slipped up when this wasn't implemented in the first place. However, they are underpowered. In my view, they should be +2 Strength in Battle but count as two weapons.

BRACERS: I would reword this slightly. As it reads now, you are effectively making an armour save which kicks off on a 1. Why not include that in to a normal armour save? So when you do make an armour save, on a roll of a 1, you still lose the battle but don't lose a life. I don't see why you can't combine it with other armour either. I realise that you are unlikely to get much use with a Shield and Armour would come with plate greaves but you *might* and from a mechanics standpoint, I like it

CORACLE: Cool card.

DRY SPRING: The card is ok. There's nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't grab me. *shrug* That's not really an issue

FATED COVE: I really, really like the theme of the card. I just think you've wasted the potential here. This could have had a really cool effect. In this fashion, its just a pool/stream type card which isn't actually as good and is more difficult to get to. Come on JC, I demand you do something cool with! :D

BATTLEMENTS: This is a great card but the Craft element doesn't sit right. I'm not sure how to fix it though (if it really needs fixing? am I making something of nothing?). In my heart of hearts, I just know that if that card came up, SOMEONE is going to say "How can you psychic combat a wall?

I know! Do it so you can either scale it or find another way around (make a 2d6 roll vs STRENGTH or CRAFT). Or you can attack it at STRENGTH 10, if you win, you knock it down (gain 1 Strength).

SACRED GROVE: Good card. Sacrificing objects might be too costly for people to use? No real issue here!

ARCHON OF CHAMPIONS: Cool card.

JAK'S EMPORIUM: This is a really cool card. It is just very expensive to buy magic objects! I'd seriously consider making it cheaper.

PRIM-SHI: Fine

WAR WITCH: Cool card. Not sure about the "Arena" effect... doesn't it kind of invalidate that card?

Overall, I think you've done some sterling work and feel free to take my comments with a pinch of salt. After all, they are just my opinion!

dth said:

Yes... I've simply add an obvious benefit. Let's face it, most people do find the Poltergeist a marginal benefit unless they really need to get somewhere or are stuck in a dangerous side of the Middle Region.

dth said:

Yes, it is a little potent, and I have been concerned about that. Which is why I added (new edit) the condition upon losing it... and there are lots of little ways to lose Followers and M.Objects in this expansion. And some new card interactions (good, bad, neutral) to keep players on their toes.

dth said:

It's another way to heal on the spot... but at a different price than gold. And only for Neutral characters, who have fewer options for free healing on the board.

dth said:

No way they'd be +2 as short range infighting weapons. Perhaps the image gives the impression they are longer than they are. I added the potential of an armour roll to balance out their other limitations. There are a few objects I've added that aren't as potent as other normal ones, and would likely be abandoned for something better later on... but that's part of it. I've put in more potent stuff and added slightly less potent stuff to keep a balance in the deck. One more new weapon is coming... the Flanged mace, two-handed... which has a slim chance to destroy any armour card used to thwart it.

dth said:

Actually, with the new approach to Armour being rolled for high numbers, I need to change that, but in general defending with one's arms isn't going to work against a heavy weapon anyway. (The helmet has always been problematic, as a blow to the head will usually put someone down no matter what... or open them up for a kill stroke.) And you're right, full armor includes both greaves and bracers. The image on the Armourr card is based on Greco-Roman hardened leather with brass overlay... not typical medieval armor. I will be adding another Armour card to keep the deck balanced and likely use a more appropriate image.

There may will also be one Heavy Armour card, though it will have some severe defiicits for weight and bulk (Saves on a 3-6, but -1 in Combat, and -1 on Movement perhaps and counts as 2 Objects when carried). There will be only 1 such card, simply as another oddity and change up in the deck, requiring a player to really think about it. For someone with high Strength, it could be awesome; low Strength and it could be detrimental to use... and that's the way heavy armour really is.

dth said:

That's okay. Some of my group have griped about the Cave over the years, and I agree with them. Talisman was inspired by FRPG, yet the Cave (silly being forced as well now) has always been backward, where you gain Gold when nothing is encountered (so how did the gold get there?) And I tried to add a little something in Treasure through a Purchase card.... who knows, you might even pull a Horse, Mule, Camel, etc... as illogical as that is. (Yes, some additional notions are coming in my Purchase Deck.)

dth said:

It was pretty much meant to be a matching "resevoir" card like the stream and pool. The only two types of resevoir missing are for Fate and Gold... so I put in one of each. Any suggestions? And yes, Fate, if properly implemented, can be very tactically potent, so I put it in a logical, hard place to get to... which is also up there where its needed on the way to the Inner Region. (wink)

dth said:

Agreed... and part of the problem is having to stick to poorly chosen terminology. I added the wall roll because who knows where you encounter it in the walls (maybe a densely overgrown area, maybe not). A straight Strength or Craft roll just doesn't cut it. So its a matter of getting a description on the card that is (1) realistic within limits which (2) fit the rules, terminology, and mechanics of the game. It's definitely not fully sensible just yet... but at least it works by the rules.

And later when the Spells come in, there will be a strategic way to the Battlements in certain situations... as well as other Places on the board.

dth said:

Too much. When it comes to gaining automatic Strength or Craft (SKILL) points, I've never seen the a legitimate rational other than to speed the game up in ridiculous way. Let's face it, that's not really what this expansion is about, other like others I'd just throw in a bunch more monsters and big magic items and be done with it. Other than Wishes and Magic, I've usually avoided the freebie skill points. I may have to think some more on this card... for now its at least roughly workable.

dth said:

Ah, come on now, M.O.s are the big cheat in the game, the shortcut to power, the edge over your enemies that you don't have to work for... you just pick them up off the ground lying around in the wild. (GROAN!) If someone wants one that's identified, in plain sight, at safe location, and all it costs them in risk is cash... then make them PAY... make them PAY DEARLY! Certainly Jak would.

dth said:

How do you mean? Did I miss something?

Velhart said:

Then the only way to approach this is if Jon knows the person in question, can contact that individual and seek out (1) if the person is willing to do a 4th version of the cards or (2) is willing to let someone else do it. Overall, I have my hands full with my own expansion and limited spare time, and I do no want to step on someone else "property" rights.

JCHendee said:

Yes, you are right about that.

I shall ask Jon, if i can get in contact with that person.

--------

About the brace and the ring. They are fine by me. I can't say they are too powerful. Keep them as they are please;)

Velhart said:

Are you and I playing the Angel and Devil on JC's shoulders? If so, whom is who?

dth said:

haha

Well... that's a question for JC

But don't make it too heavy for him ,because he is busy with a new expansion

Oh no, no, no you two... I'm not going to pick sides for you!

JCHendee said:

Nevermind... I think I know what you mean about an "Arena" card. In general, I only work with the Standard deck as a comparison for what I put in my own expansion. It's too much trouble and complication to take into account what might be in other commercial or fan expansions.

JCHendee said:

I think he means because you can't use spells, magic objects etc, but it has actually nothing to do with gaining spells etc. So the war witch will be fine there. Otherwise i don't know what DTH means.

It was a funny answer from you yesterday;) The post above you) I think dth has not read it yet lol

Wellll, *I* know I'm the angel at least

I was referring to the "Arena" card in the Reaper. My issue is that it has the same effect as that card but also has other abilities attached to it. But, as JC has said, he doesn't have that expansion, so it isn't really an issue

dth said:

If you take a look to your and mine avatar, then i would say the same. That means i am the devil hehehe

But from inside i am a angel haha

I think JC is neutral then

Actually, if you haven't notice, there's a trick to the War Witch's "arena" option. The Arena can pop up anywhere, but the War Witch only appears in one special place. Now... what does the Cursed Glade do to anyone who fights ANYONE OR ANYTHING on it?

I love this option... for a real adventurer to kick butt on some petty hoarder or gauder!

JCHendee said:

Both characters cannot use his hoard. The strongest with natural strength survives !!!

EXACTLY! Well... by the odds at least.

Question about the Carrier

I was reading the card again, and i wonder if the 5+ curse also activates if she carry no items..

I think you must changed the word.. But into and.

If you read the card now, she says actually that you only get the curse if you let her carry objects.

Warwitch

One question came up.

Is it the meaning of the warwitch card that a character like the Wizard cannot use his psychic attack ability if he summons another character in the cursed glade?

Because the warwitch says attack in battle.

Velhart said:

Got it... I'll re-tweak it.

Velhart said:

You got it right! The "war" witch is looking to favor the first adventure with "strength" 6+... so she surely isn't interested in Psychic Combat. She's interested in war!