We play by the main game rules. But we have made a couple of changes to certain cards.

1. The sleep spell now has a roll factor: 1/2 sleep for one turn 3/4 two turns 5/6 three turns or roll one die and sleep for that many turns. We flip-flop on which, both are interesting and can put someone powerful and ruthless or in the CoC out for a few rounds of breathing space or time to catch up to in CoC.

2. Earthquake effects the LAND not just the region you're in. Most effective at getting rid of all the crap that has trashed draw card spaces. If you can roll properly. Decided to do this when early in the game the Witch, Shrine, and Magic Portal were drawn as the first cards on the Hidden Valley space with closed shop and curfew already in the discard pile.

3.Horse Thief takes everybodies mules, horse and cart, warhorse and we include the UNICORN. If you're a Horse Thief, we think that a unicorn would be the ultimate horse to steal. The Black Unicorn is an enemy/follower and is given an attribute of Craft 7. The Horse Thief is an event without any attribute. So, we deem it as Craft 0. The Black Unicorn will win. The Horse Thief knows this and will not try and steal it.

Being that the first sentence of Horse Thief is "A Horse Thief is roaming the LAND." At first it was misunderstood and we were having it take everybodies stuff. But then someone realized the next line "If YOU have a mule etc.." Hey! What can you say? These things can be intrepruted many different ways. This rule was first created to replace toned down Raiders, but then figured we could just change that card to. Hence:

4. Radiers card is converted back to stealing OBJECTS and gold. Combined with Horse Thief these two rules are very detremental and can change the balance of power and distribution of objects radically. Depending on when they are pulled.

5.Being turned into a Toad teleports you back to your starting location. At the bottom of the toad card its START is same as characters This again was a misunderstanding of the meaning and only until yesterday was it clarified that that is not what happens. But we like the ruling anyways. It is very effective of getting someone out of the CoC and down for the count for quite sometime, especially if there aren't any talisman's left. And, of course they have to roll a 1. Twice if they have fate. Using the random spell for this to take place. But it does happen.

As stated these are simple changes. But they have made for very interesting games of power shifting that even the unlikeliest of characters has won. Including ones that have died and pulled new characters. Give them try and see what you think.

I'm all for making the game a challenge rather than a hoarding fest, but there are other ways to do it. Overall, I'd say you're playing rather fast and loose with interpreting those cards by "fragements" outside the rull sentence or paragraph rather than in full textual context. And some of them are looking rather over gunned.

Over gunned. What does that mean? If you dont like these ideas thats fine. But you dont have to attack the way I play thank you very much!

If you aren't interested in feedback or others' viewpoints, why did you post here in the developers section? This area, if you've look at all that's going on, is about the discussion and honest open critique of works... including rules expansions. No "attack" was made, though my observation on how those cards were being read still stands.

"House Rules" such as the ones you propose are often discussed herein... and you should expect that others will express opinions and sometimes a critique... which now follows since I didn't have time for it the other day.

For instance, changing the area of effect on the Earthquake is too much and doesn't make sense. An earthquake has an epicenter and in general never hits all areas of a "land" at the same strength... or to any actual negative effect. Since a graduated effect radiating from an epicenter is too complicated for Talisman, it was limited to a target region for any actual effect. It thereby mimics that idea of differing effect distance from epicenter a simplified fashion (though it is still read aloud and everyone throughout the land knows it happened). Plus, making such an event inescapable even by happenstance (of not being within its reach) is too much. Random chance in the game is already a powerful influence, but at least sometimes it works in some characters favor.

If more potency is desired on a Sleep spell, then another way to do it is by Craft competition between caster and target, if the target is another player. Psychic Combat could occur where the caster gets a +2. For every 6 points or less (a full die range) by which caster defeats the target, the target is asleep for one round (not turn). It also gives the target a chance to resist the spell, and would allow the use of Fate by either target or caster. Simply increasing its potency by a yet another random that makes another player haplessly miss even more of the game is overgunned. It might be amusing for the caster; it is certainly beyond entertaining for the target. Then again, I am biased; I consider a number of standard spells to be (have been) overgunned or miss written.

I don't know the Horse Thief, and assume it is from the Reaper Expansion, and I couldn't make out what the card says by the parts you presented. Being classed as an Event is somewhat questionable, though it is a standard for such, considering things like the Raiders. I'm not sure if by everyone mule / horse you mean any kind of player that draws it... or all players in the Land simultaneously. If the latter, it makes no sense. He couldn't get around the whole land that quickly in one turn / round. It is thereby a poorly designed card. If you meant the former, then maybe some characters are immune to him? Again, I wouldn't know, having never seen the card. Even that, as part of a standard commercial card seems impossible to rationalize why one or more characters are somehow immune.

Another way it could be played is by the number of non-animal followers with an adventurer; the more people, the harder it is for the horse thief to take something and actually escape. A Stranger card (or better an Enemy-Monster, like the Bandit, but perhaps operating on Craft ... cunning) might have been more interesting. Or something that stays on the board until removed and possibly moves about on its own, always towards the nearest player with a house, mule, etc. It would have been far more interesting and exciting (so long as there was a way to defeat or avoid his theft).

I think most old-time players agree that the Raiders were more interesting in their old 2nd edition form. Many have "House Ruled" the new one back to that simply because its after effect was so much fun. Unlike complete loss dictated by other cards, everything taken ended up on one space. The following race to see who could get to that treasure trove first was the actual excitment (not that someone got trounced suddenly). Another option that could have been used was to make the Raiders an Enemy-Monster (like the Bandit). The Raiders card (perhaps Strength 5 or 7) could remain with the goodies to defend them, requiring any who arrived in the Oasis to have to fight for another freebie. Better yet, the Raiders, because they are a band of individuals, can't be removed (fully defeated) until they loss their last gold or object. Anyone going after them only gets to take one gold or object per victory.

JCHendee said:

If/When I get 4th edition the Raiders is immediately house-ruled back to 2nd Edition strength - it was the best card in the deck....

It could totally ruin a strong character in a flash, regardless of their strength, and that would be one of the reasons I would be reluctant to go down

the route of making an Enemy like the Bandit. A strong character could defeat it too easily.

Also, it is such a devastating card, it really has to be a an Event, anything lower priority gives

the drawer an opportunity to duck out. If was classed as a stranger and pulled on a mutli-draw space with an Enemy you could get the situation

where the player is deliberately trying to lose the combat...

I just thought of another approach - could change the Oasis space wording to have the Raiders permamently encamped there....

OASIS DRAW 2 CARDS OASIS
If there are any cards in this space, draw only enough
to take the total to 2.

Any objects or Gold found here can only be taken
if you defeat the Raiders Camp (Strength 7)

I would even be tempted to add an additional Raiders event card as well...

Oooh Oooh - I just had another idea.....

What about a roving band of raiders a-la the Reaper....

If they land on you, the effects could be rolled for:

The Raiders are attacking! Any loot they purloin from you is deposited on the Oasis space.

Roll one die to see what they take:

1-2. All of your objects, gold & followers.

3-4. All of your objects and gold.

5-6. All of your gold

If the Raiders find nothing to take they attack you and take a life instead.

That gives you 4th edition effect, 2nd edition effect and an even worse effect...

If you had this and the Reaper in play...... nowhere to hide.... the land of Talisman is a dangerous place...

hprwhg said:

Chillax!

No one was attacking the way you play. From what I read, you stated the way you play the game, which is fine and JC didn't agree. If you read over that post, I don't there was any personal attack there.

JC is right, in that, if you post on the homebrew section, other people are going to make a comment. This is a forum for sharing what you think would make the game better for you and may be others. Those others might not agree and may offer their own suggestions. Sometimes you'll like the alternative, sometimes you'll think that their idea is the suckiest idea since Suckfest 2008.

Why am I explaining this? I don't *really* know, as surely what I've said is obvious but my gut instinct is that you took a comment the wrong way and I feel the need to straighten it out. After all, we have some nice boards here and I'd like it to stay that way

Bantha.... I think my intention for the Raiders option wasn't clear. The instant they are drawn (in one option), you get no chance to fight them; they run off with your stuff to the Oasis. They then stay there and are not fully removed until the last thing they have is taken... so a Stranger with Strength listed might be a better warp of the standards, since a Stranger by the rules isn't an Enemy and can't be counted as a Trophy or removed after one fight. And the Strength shouldn't be too high, considering a visitor would only get to take one item or gold per combat. And I'm not sure about changing the Oasis, which would make the Raiders card almost moot for being in the deck.

I also would not personally boost up the Raiders to worse effect than was done in 2nd. It's too much (for me). And Raiders by definition are interested in stuff. They aren't really interested in a fight... just steal by overwhelming force. Anyone who didn't have anything wouldn't really attract their attention in the first place.

JCHendee said:

I've only played 4th edition, could you tell me what the Raiders do in 2nd?

Sarashinai ... In 2nd edition they took all your objects and gold rather than just gold.

JC... yes, I am not sure I got the point. I was confused if the Raiders were a Stranger or Enemy then you had the chance to avoid it whereas with an Event

(unless you get Imp) you get hit with it between the eyes.

I liked the idea of having to fight for the stuff back which was why I was suggesting putting it on the Oasis space as it seemed to be a neat workaround

without having to break the normal order of encounterin cards.

So it would work like this:

Raiders card is drawn, all objects go to Oasis. Anyone landing on Oasis and choosing to pick up the loot must first defeat the Raiders in their camp in

order to do so. Makes more sense that it being abondoned.

So the adventure card is still required to fill the Oasis with the loot, although side effect of any item dropped in the Oasis would also be hoarded.

I see the Raiders Event being more of something that happens whilst youa re sleeping and therefore have not choice or option to fight.

Making the Raiders a more permament feature on the board led me to thinking there should be more than one adventure card.

Taking that to a conclusion was adding the idea of a permament Raiders Event that could be manouvered around in the same way as the Reaper.

That would of course negate the need for the Adventure card.

Maybe one day I will do an expansion. If I ever get the time, which I doubt, I don't even get time to play..

Hey Bantha... gotta admit you lost me a little there, but I'd be intrigued to see a finished setup of what you've got in mind. Overall, I'd have no problem with a card like the Raiders being classified as "Event " (or Event - Worldly, in my expansion), then having a Strength rating on it for defeating it later. Then again, Events are an in the moment kind of thing... so maybe a Stranger instead. Classifying them as an "Enemy" wouldn't work for what they do, because an Enemy is always something you can fight when it is drawn... a stranger not necessarily so. A few of such actually need to be placed elsewhere than where drawn; in the case of a Raiders "Stranger," they just happen to take all your stuff with them.

I always liked the old Raiders, but agree with you that it was silly they just dumped the stuff and disappeared. The new one made me a little sad.

I do know what you mean about playing... I'm in a busy time of the year and games seem to have become scarce.

JC... Sleep deprivation is probably making me talk rubbish.

It is all straight in my head, hopefully one day I can publish something to clarify.

I now finally have the new edition so that is a step in the right direction, although still no chance to play.

Oh, that's not good... and that big new pretty box is just sitting there taunting you?

JCHendee said:

Your right it wasn't an attack it was a judgment call. But, it seems rather insulting. It could have been worded better. Most of the misunderstandings we have had on certain cards are ones that we didn't realize had an update to it or are generally vague in an of themselves.

I do not have any problem with being critiqued and was fully expecting it.

As for the Earthquake to make a little more sense. It is useful in opening up the board when it is cluttered and you do not have many opportunities to draw a card/s and curfew and closed shop have been pulled early on and were in a sense wasted because there wasn't any strangers or places to get rid of. I am not sure but potentially the orignal earthquake did effect the whole land. But that was a long time ago and that game is gone.

Hey H.,

You're right. I could have worded that first post better and should have waited until I had more time to post a thorough reponse. I was in too much of a hurry that first time.

On the issue of card design... I'm always hesitant to put in a card that is purely about "play" mechanics versus game mechanics and or verisimilitude. Too much of Talisman has become about play mechanics... meaning ways to adjust the playing of the game when its mechanics become problematic. Instead, the mechanics should've been fixed. You cite just one which we all had to face - the cluttered board.

It was inevitable considering that any card not successfully dealt with (Enemy and conditional Strangers) or which takes over a space (Place) will have cumulative effects on a game. The build up is inevitable, especially when lots of places and tough enemies pop up early. But the fix needed can sometimes be no better, especially when some of those cards are ones you'd like to see stick around (free healing, spells for purchase, a market place to get equiped, etc.).

There's really no easier answer without some major overhaul of the rules. I guess I'm just in favor of perhaps opening up only part of the board with any clean sweep effect. That way, there's at least a chance the some of the good / beneficial / interesting cards might hang around a little longer. It's not a certainty, but... well, I still think its better than a clean sweep. Of course the roll approach to all individual cards is another way to go. And the pause to roll each card with chance of its removal can be seen by players as either an annoying stall in play or a moment of tension in the tale of the land.

Then there's the issue of verisimilitude. Talisman wasn't intended to be ultra realistic, even for a fantastical place. But once in a while that intention (or lack) gets pushed way too far ... and it becomes about affecting or serving "players" and not "adventurers" (a character in an active game under the control of a player). There are many good examples of this excess in the standard game and the expansions; some of the spells are the worse in this. The "Destroy Magic" is a good example as a Spell. It's utterly ludicrous that one adventurer, regardless of being a mage of any kind, can suddenly stop all magic use by any other adventurer... and yet, it doesn't stop the magical abilities or affects of personae (Enchantress, Mystic) or spaces (Cursed Glade). A very poorly worded, poorly engineered card.

And so, I'm reluctant in adventure cards to go too far, especially when the title for a card implies something greater or lesser than how its mechanics in the game are engineered. Just a touch of verisimilitude is what I try for when I can.

Chow for now, JC