Introduction

Time to renew my exploration of Talisman cards over the game's history. This time we turn to the mages (spell casters) and the theurges (religious power wielders). Not that there's much difference between them in the game as played. We'll start off with an old favorite for the toad obsessed.

The Witch

From her earliest incarnation, she was a random chance machine and a stereotype for a persona. In the former, she added tension to the game. Whoever and whatever your character was, you couldn't be sure how she would react to you. Of course, in being purely random, she wasn't really reacting to your character, per se, but fit the game's needed simplicity in some ways. As to the stereotype, she is no different than most Stranger cards, for there is little that can flesh out non-player characters, or game personas, as I call them. Then again, maybe a little something can be done.

The Witch is as old as the game itself, likely appearing in the original 1st Edition. She is certainly known in 2E (1983), 3E (1994), 4E (2007), and all the way to the current "Revised" 4th Edition (4ER, 2008). Nothing changed about who and what she was, but what she could and would do to any adventurer encountering her did change.

The 2E Witch was seemingly balanced between positive and negative effects. "Seemingly" because her deficits and benefits didn't match up. On one hand, an adventurer could end up becoming a toad, losing a Life or an Object. On the other hand, it could gain a Strength, Craft, or Spell. The gains offered were greater than the difficulty in replacing the loses. Overall, you'd come out ahead... except perhaps for being "toaded." But even in that, and dropping everything you carried, 2 turns later you were back to normal. Loss of a Life or Object weren't really that big a deal in most cases, especially when you got to choose which Object you lost (more on that later).

The 3E Witch was identical to the 2E version. Well, the new silhouette illustration was poor and even more cliché. The illustration didn't even fit the Warhammer thematic overlay that was an attempt to assimilate 3E into that game world.

When it came to 4E, the most short-lived and errata-ridden edition of Talisman, minor changes came with a shift of motif and artwork. You could still become a toad, or lose a Life, but you might also lose a (supposedly) hard-won Strength. On the balance, you could still gain a Strength, Craft, or Spell. Overall, the 4E Witch was a little more balanced than the 2E/3E version, for one potential loss now matched one gain. Even magically becoming a toad was somewhat parallel for gaining a Spell; you got a Spell as opposed to being the victim of one. But one oddity remained in the list; you could gain a Craft but not lose one. Likely this was a minor counterbalance to the fact that the game has always been Strength heavy since its beginning. (Or there just wasn't room on the list.) Craft was hard to come by, with much fewer Craft-based vs Strength-based Enemies. However the Witch was still a stereotype in her portrayal and a purely random chance machine.

4ER's Witch brought more shift in what she did, though to what purpose is rather suspicious. The artwork was identical to 4E, as it probably should be for sharing the same edition number. But gone was the 4E attempt to balance negative and positive effects; the 4ER by comparison is 66.7% benefits (all the good ones) and only 33.3% deficits (only one of which is bad for a short while). The top end of the benefits was surprising, aside from being excessive for a random chance machine with no real personality.

Fate, as the new game mechanic and character attribute in 4ER, is hard to come by once you use up your starting points. It is also somewhat linked to Alignment on the board, but that's as far as it goes. Overall, Fate points are blind Luck points to spend on re-rolling a die for a better result. In Talisman 4ER Fate isn't really a character's fate at all.

Now in 4ER, if you wish, you can roll twice. Roll badly the first time with the Witch, and you can spend a Fate point to re-roll. Your odds are no better, since the second roll supersedes the first; you are not choosing which roll to keep. (And if we get down to it, Fate points, if we're talking true Fate from the gods, shouldn't be able to the alter the actions... the "fate", the roll... of a game persona.) If you did re-roll with a Fate point, and hit that lucky 6, all your Fate was replenished. This includes the one you just spent, as if you hadn't spent it at all. Does that sound fishy to anyone else who's not looking for any excuse for more freebies? A quick comparative table better illustrates some of the historical changes to the Witch.

Coloring coding is based only on my own opinion of what is hardest to come by in the game and what would be most devastating as a negative effect. Red for a deficit, Green for a benefit, and depth of color indicating intensity. Craft is still the hard road in Talisman, though 4ER has added more Craft Enemies to defeat in the base game. But they are still well below the count of Strength Enemies. Strength is still the easiest attribute to build up, and hence a lesser loss or gain in facing a random chance. While it is true that becoming a toad makes you drop all the goodies you are personally carrying, after three rounds you return to normal without any loses of legitimately held Strength, Craft, Lives, or Fate... so long as no one picks on a lowly toad, that is.

The greater "why" for the Witch's beneficent swing is more to the point, though her involvement in Fate might be more in keeping with what a real witch is - not a mage but a theurge in part or whole. One of 4ER's focal changes was to make the overall game play faster. Old guard players hailing back to 2E or even 1E might typically have a game last an hour plus 30 minutes per player as the minimum. Reports of current games in 4ER range closer to 30-45 minutes plus 15-30 per player. How this is accomplished is again another matter.

Talisman has always had the optional rule for the amount of defeated Enemy "Trophies" it took to boost an adventurer's Strength or Craft. The standard is 7 points of trophies discarded to gain 1 Strength or Craft token for an adventurer. The game could be shortened (played faster) by reducing the amount of trophies per Strength or Craft token. Some players preferred a 5 to 1 ratio, and for a very fast game once in a while, it went as low as 3 to 1. This was more than enough to gain Strength and Craft at an advanced rate, quickly tackle the Inner Region, run for the Crown of Command, and do so through actual play and adventuring. But it seems this was not fast enough.

It's true that making just one card like the Witch more beneficial doesn't have a lot of effect in this matter. But she is a marker, iconic, for how the game has changed in other like dimensions; freebie gains (in varied ways) are becoming far more common. Reducing deficits and losses and making benefits and quick gains more readily available does speed up the game. It can also dumb the game down and reduce its subtitle, "the magical quest," to a sales pitch with nothing behind it. And it wasn't... isn't necessary.

I've seen old school games in 2E easily reduced to the same time frames as 4ER by simply reducing the trophy to token ratio. That option still exists, but I can only imagine how its compounded by other changes that lean the same way as the Witch. When a game for 4 lasts just under an hour (yes, it has been so claimed), then you know it wasn't won through effort. I've observed that the faster the game, the less it is based on what players do and more on how the game plays them.

In addition, that one change of adding a full Fate restore through the Witch didn't make any sense at first. Fate is something decreed upon an individual by the higher powers. So with such a benefit, I would have to see the Witch not as mage but as a theurge. And that's OK, since a witch was and is linked to ethereal powers as well as or in place of magical ones. But which one - Good or Evil? Certainly not Neutral if we're limited to the game's bipolar approach to alignment vs. the richer schema of fantasy role-playing games (FRPG) from which it was taken. So in that we chuck bipolarism and go for three Alignments in re-considering the Witch. Stick with me a little longer.

The notion of the Witch as connected to one of two (or three) Powers of the Alignments holds potential for a minor variation from game to game. Or some players might just prefer to regain one of her earlier forms, and once more make her a legitimate risk to encounter.

The Cards

Below are two optional cards to print and use, plus a third that will take a brief explanation. Right-click on any of them and select "Save As" to get the full resolution versions. A few changes have been made, like a more mysterious and ambiguous appearance. You may ignore the extra terms within / below the midbar (one of which there wasn't room for on the third card); these are for when the cards are mixed with my In the Balance expansion at TalismanIsland.com.

The first card is identical to the 2E/3E version; the second is identical to the short-lived 4E. Both are better than the 4ER version from my perspective. My only other recommendation (for the first card) is that you make the loss of an Object on a roll of 3 completely random. You aren't paying her an Object; she is taking it of and by her own choice, not yours. That's that, so suck it up, already.

The methods for choosing a random Object are simple, as well as obvious to experienced players.

1. Flip your Object and Magic Object cards face down, mix them, and have another player choose one blindly to discard. NOTE: If you're whining about too much trouble for all of the stuff you've acquired, then you're leaning on too many crutches. The other players should see this as an opportunity to have the Witch kick one of those crutches (of her choice) out from under you. Hey, it's not as bad as being toaded.
2. Assign numbers on a die to what you have and then roll. The number you roll is the possesion you lose. If you have less than six objects, re-roll if you roll a 6, and so on. NOTE: If you have more than 6 and thereby can't assign a number to all of them... well, see option #1... and stop trying to worm back into picking and choosing, you hoarder.

The third and "alternative" Witch adds just a touch more unexpectedness as well as variation from game to game. You never know whose side she'll be on until she appears. She won't be to the taste of most modern players looking for speed of play and every shortcut they can find to win. But perhaps she'll appeal to those who like a little variety and ambiance as well as a persona with a just a hint of, well, personality. Take a peek and then look to some explanation that follows this card.

Her alignment can be marked in one of two ways:

1. Take a spare token marked 1, 2, or 3 according to the roll, and place it on her, or (if all you have are those cones)...
2. Take a spare Alignment card and place it under her. Lack of one means she's Neutral, or you can download a card for Neutrality at Talisman Island packaged within the expansion called In The Balance, Part 3 .

If you prefer not to fuss with marking her, then simply throw one extra die whenever someone lands on her. Her alignment will be different each time. It's a bit too random for my tastes, but some might like that extra bit of chaos and the unexpected.

I leave it to you to pick which (if any) of these variation cards appeals most to you, either as a permanent change or just a once in a while surprise for your group. As always, all choices are yours... it's your game after all.

In a week or so, I will post a new entry in the 4ERR (Retro) Cards, Part 2. Until then, thanks for stopping by, and you can find a like topic on these cards at the Talisman "Home Brew" subforum at Fantasy Flight Games.

Addendum Update

Surprisingly, one group of players already downloaded and tried out the latest set of cards. They got back to me, requesting alternatives and if I could make such cards for their use. After looking at what they wanted, I realized it should've been something I thought of myself. So here's the Old versions displayed with the New for comparison. The changes make at least two of the Followers less dependent upon the adventurer who has them and hence more autonomous and operating as individual and self-contained.

The 300dpi print versions are available at the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman forum, subform Talisman Home Brews, under the topic "4ERR - Unicorn, et al."

OLD >> NEW

Introduction

Now we step back to a Follower card, and though it is an equine like those before, it shouldn't be so. Its going to be tricky to deal with, as it has the same problems as the Pegasus on a larger degree, another walking not-talking duplicate of a different standard card in the game. This time through will be a long one, even for me. I can only hope those interested in Talisman, or otherwise, might find some of it interesting beyond the game.

THE UNICORN

First introduced in the Talisman 2E (1986), the Unicorn may well have been part of 1E's standard Adventure deck. It remained part of that standard deck all the way into 4ER.

In the 2E version, any adventurer could take the Unicorn as a Follower. Not really appropriate, since we all know Unicorns are "Good," right? Well, maybe not; more on this later.

As a Follower, it added +1 to both Strength and Craft. This was / will be questionable once we look deeper into its true origin concept versus post-modern pop-culture. Beyond such, there has seldom ever been any notion of a unicorn in Battle/Combat. And let's face it, when it comes to Strength as one of only two qualitative attributes in the Talisman, it is almost exclusively about Battle/Combat.

When 3E appeared, the Unicorn's Strength and Craft bonus remained, but it gained a new condition. Now only Good adventurers could have the Unicorn as a Follower. Much as this seemed appropriate (aside from Alignment being purely mechanical within Talisman), perhaps it wasn't. We'll get to that later when we step beyond muddled misunderstandings and other misrepresentations.

Overall, it seemed some thought was put into improving the Unicorn's role in the land of Talisman. But it wasn't enough to step beyond an excuse for an additional card rather than a unique and interesting one derived from accurate concept(s).

When the Unicorn appeared in 4E, something strange happened. Its benefits still remained the same, but its recently acquired Alignment affiliation was gone. As in 2E, the fair Unicorn was fair game to follow anyone, even the most depraved of adventurers, such as the Necromancer. This doesn't make any real sense, even for popular notions versus its foggy ancient origins.

The 4ER version followed suit, and possibly loss of the Alignment limitation reflected concern over the limited number of Followers in the standard Adventure deck. There really weren't any similar ones for Evil, let alone any committed to Neutrality (other than those with no Alignment affiliation at all). So having a potent one available to only Good could be unbalancing. But that's too bad, because as simplistic and misrepresentative as Unicorn was, and haphazard in concept as well, creating a like one in similar fashion for Evil (let alone Neutral) would have taken no effort at all - since little effort was put into the Unicorn. In some small sense, the Unicorn de-evolved, sad to say. Over-simplification once again reared its ugly head.

There is yet one more issue concerning the Unicorn, for its one we've seen before, just in my last log entry. As with the "Pegasus" Stranger card, which provided the same one time benefit of a "Teleport" Spell Card, the Unicorn is another echo card. Its benefit as a Follower is exactly the same as the "Magic Ring," a Magic Object.

Objects and Followers aren't affected by the same game mechanics. The Magic Ring can be taken in adventurer vs. adventurer conflict as a victory choice. And as much as both Followers and Objects can be affected by various adventurer Special Abilities or other game influences, by comparison, Followers are affected by fewer. The Unicorn is the better choice, considering that it

1. doesn't act like an intelligent let alone etheric or faerie being,
2. is primarily a set of add-on bonuses like an Object, since it has no limitations or individualized features, and
3. doesn't eat into an adventurer's precious Object limit like a Magic Ring.

Yes, the Unicorn is the better choice perhaps, but less logical let alone true to a real concept. The Unicorn is a Magic Object without the pesky limitations and risks of an Object, and nothing more. Time to (re)consider. And if an Alignment affiliation is still desirable for the Unicorn, it'll take a more thought to find out what that is rather than jump to post-modern popular assumptions.

NOTE: For those uninterested in explorering the roots and original nature of the Unicorn, you can skip to the end and the new Talisman cards that were created... though you probably won't understand the variation(s).

THE MYTH-STAKEN UNICORN

Earliest representation of a single-horned mammal of etheric (not magical) nature go back to lesser known cultures beyond even the ancient Rome and Greece let along Celtic and Norse peoples. Yes, it is that old, by whatever name, reaching to the limits of recorded history. But the name really doesn't help much.

"Unicorn" simply means "single-horned" or "one-horn," coming from Latin... or rather the mythological classification work of Roman scholars. Likewise for "monocerus" among the Greeks. Both groups (especially the Roman) were concerned with equating other known culture's mythology, folklore, legends, etc. to their own. Afterall, the Romans pretty much assimilated the Greek pantheon for their own gods, along with a smattering of lesser ecclectic choices from elsewhere. This is the beginning of the Unicorn's homogeny, which would later be continued with alternative purpose by the Catholic Church, and be finished off by 14th century Christian influenced artists. Modern cryptozoological homogeny and post-modern fanciful re-writes put the icing on the cake at the funeral wake for the orginal Unicorn. This fabulous creature is one of the most iconic representations from mythologies of two things today:

• how original myth transforms into an amalgamated mess with nearly complete divorce from its foundation and true meaning (of worth), and
• the ultimate counter reaction to eclecticism follows suit in a backlash of simplification, making it the ultimate victim of the K.I.S.S. principle: "keep it simple, stupid."

To an astounding degree, many people think some of its currently propagated attributes (no more than half a century old or less) are part of its original mythology. After 30+ years of an interest in the arcane, even I can't claim absolute certainties in looking back. The waters have been fully mucked up. I will lean on some generalities myself, and you'll just have to take my word for it. There are some things I'll explain, but for the most part, do your own research and good luck. I don't have time for a long list of citations that are difficult to find anyway. We'll start first with the Unicorn's earliest physical attributes.

The Horse That Wasn't

It was not a horse or horse-sized creature. That came in the 14th c. from artists dabbling in mythological imagery predominantly adapted to Catholic teachings. In the early part of that erar, the Unicorn retained some of its original physical nature. It wasn't bigger than a delicate and slender pony or yearling fawn. The horse-sized Unicorn commonly portrayed today, as well as many notions about its strengths, weaknesses, and influence, are dominantly fabrications with no connection to what it was. Maybe that's why mostly children are the only ones who believe in it anymore - or maybe there's another reason for that. But first, the general physical attributes of the original Unicorn include:

1. The size of a goat or wild ass (like a donkey, not a mule). Breeds of wild ass vary from 3.5 to 6.5 feet from hoof to head as found from northwest Europe all the way to western India.
2. The build (not size) of a horse or deer or antelope, all somewhat similar.
3. Cloven hoofed, so it would never have belonged among equines let alone horses.
4. A single horn sprouting from its forehead between or just above the lateral line of the eyes. It varied in descriptive length, though was never longer than its own head. It was usually not straight, except were description of the horn was lacking. Half of the sources found indicate it curved slightly rearward. This may indicate another relation to a goat-like or antelope like creature, putting aside chimerically mixed physiology.There is no verifiable mention of the horn being spiral except as found in post 14th c. art and illustrations.
5. A shaggy coat, possibly meaning long-haired, either in general or on only certain parts of its body.
6. White in color is questionable. There are debates on whether this is accurate or a late mark of morality association. Pre-Roman engravings or earlier from diverse cultures of western and eastern Europe, reputed to be illustrations of a one horned, four legged mythical mammal (always shorter than a man and sometimes as small as a standing child) with no color reference. Color of any kind in records (and not always white) didn't appear until the Roman Empire. Even then variation of color existed, especially for its horn. Likely these were also added symbology outside of the unicorn's earlier nature.

(Re)created modern fancy aside, this creature is not what appears on the Talisman Unicorn card. You can image how dissimilar are its non-visual attributes and any meaning or purpose. Even in European heraldry, the Unicorn as put to a purpose outside of its own had a counterpart, either the Bull or Lion. The paired duality represented the aspects of righteousness in physical strength versus the Unicorn's as something else - moral or spiritual strength. And no, even this wasn't accurate for its nature, though it hinted at what was lost.

A few times, the Gryphon (correct Greek transliteration) played its counterpoint, though aside from heraldic re-writing of its nature, it is supposed to be vicious and bestial in intelligence. But where heraldry is concerned, attributes of character or creed are the purpose, symbols being acquired and again given new or severely simplified meaning usually under Catholic influence.

ASIDE: How is the Unicorn as a Follower card supposed to give an adventurer +1 Strength as well as +1 Craft in Talisman... beyond an excuse for another card? The latter is questionable since, even leaning on heraldry, Craft isn't related to moral or spiritual righteousness. But the Strength factor, as in Physical Strength even via heraldry, is 180 degrees off the mark.

The Horse in the Halter

Turning to pop culture notions, many have heard the tale of Unicorns trapped by the bait of a virgin maiden... or just attracted to them. Most people don't realize this notion is purely Christian and Catholic in origin. Don't ask me why people don't know this, since its obvious by the inherent attributes of virginity mistake as a mark of purity... or something else. Catholic scholars of old had a long-standing habit of re-writing and restructuring myths, legends, folklore, and superstitions from varied cultures and old religions so the people who held them dear could be assimilated into the church's teachings. The Unicorn is no less so than anything else.

It's probably one of the most renowned manipulations which yet subtly still hints at a myth's hidden original nature. For the notion of virginity, so highly prized as it was, is a superficial and ignorant echo of what truly attracts a Unicorn. We'll take a little look at that through the purposeful misuse of an ancient symbol.

The Unicorn among all fantastical creatures originally represented in general the absolute manifestation of Faerie within the natural world. Faerie (by any other spelling or different term) is not a "magical" realm. It originally represented the etheric (not magical) aspect of the world itself, or for a more tilted term, the adsolute divine within the world instead of outside of. It is not a separate realm, dimension, plane, etc. Unlike notions of Heaven, Hell, or other like etheric realms separated from the natural world, Faerie exist(-s/-ed) as part of ours.

In this, the Unicorn is "natural" and "supernatural," mortal and immortal, mudane and divine (so to speak), and thereby emblematic of the inseparable etheric and natural combined in the world itself. This also meant Unicorns did not age and die (the immortal side) but could be killed (the mortal side) by unnatural intent. Killing it has been interpreted as symbolic of destroying or driving out the divine within world itself. When such tales were told in their complete form, it always entailed cataclysmic consequences that ruined the world forever. Some may think of the tale of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden of Eden, but that is an incorrect comparions on many levels. This Unicorn as a symbol, the concept of the etheric inseparable from the world, is based in earthbound and predominantly matriarchal belief systems. Once sky-bound and patriarchal spiritual ideologies grew, there was no longer fear of innate sacrilege. So hunt Unicorn if you wish... nothing bad will happen, yes?

Now, imagine the scenario of the virgin maiden as the symbol of purity for most monotheistic religions. She is setup as the bait, so a unicorn can be captured and imprisoned, either to be de-horned or killed or both - and all with utter impunity from any consequences. Try interpreting that event now... from the view of a sky-bound partriachal ideology's symbol of virtue versus the earth-bound matriarchal one. It sheds a whole new light on the Virgin and the Unicorn, and that Virgin (or those using her) becomes more insidious than virtuous.

Back to the Christan virginity bait. Knowing Good, in a philosophical sense, means knowing Evil. One can't be defined without the other. In that knowing, innocence is lost amid moral judgment. Therein hides the truth and fallacy behind the virgin maiden metaphor for purity. Self-contradictory in the way that early Catholacism rewrote the Unicorn, what attracted the Unicorn had nothing to do with being free of carnal knowledge. And unto itself, the virgin notion was self-contradictory as well.

The Unicorn according to Euro-Christian late legerdemain is attracted to virginity, usually as a mark of purity. But Christianity (especially Catholicism) teaches that each human is born with the onus is Original Sin. Hence they are not born pure... innocent... even when virginal. So how would the Unicorn be attracted to a maiden's virginity if the maiden is under the onus of Original Sin? It wouldn't, and that's the catch that exposes the church's poor misuse and the most widespread nonsense concerning the Unicorn.

We'll disregard that during at least one era among certain Catholic factions, the Unicorn was marked as Evil for a while. It was reclassified as an emblem of bestial lust and lasciviousness do to its attraction to virgin maidens. And its horn became a phallic symbol. In other words, factions of Catholocism took the church's own willful reinterpretation of the Unicorn and used to willfully reinterpret it again, against its previous rewrite. And both such were devices for ideological politics. Fortunately, the lecherous Unicorn was short-lived, and most people don't remember it.

The Un-Horsed Archetype

Hidden beneath all of this virginity nonsense is the real truth of what the Unicorn instinctually acknowledges, and for lack of a better term, we can ironically call it Original Innocence.

What's that you ask? It's the true and wholly encompassing form of purity. It is the state of each conciously aware life at the moment of its entry into the world in full balance and harmony with both the natural and supernatural, mundane and etheric that is ever present in the now and eternal. Such a being has no knowledge of, or need for knowledge of, Good and Evil... meaning moral judgment. Who else but such a being would look at the endless universe or even itself with pure wonder and that's all?

Maybe that's why almost all children seem intuitively attracted to the notion of the Unicorn. Maybe without knowing, they know what it truly is. (Just kidding... sort of.) It represents a sublime state that adults can barely remember, though a child can feel it for a while. But once one becomes knowing, impressed upon by more than one's own engagment of etheric and natural as one... once one becomes slowly emeshed by this or that being Good or Evil, Original Innocence goes poof! For one has stepped into the realm of moral judgement. Now here's some irony for you: that virgin would've been spited by any real Unicorn.

Virginity mistakenly placed in a false guise of spiritual purity - Original Innocence or othewise - is not only a logical fallacy but meaningless to an etheric creature within the natural world. Procreation is the natural order of all things and not a sacrifice of purity (let alone an edict of the right to overpopulate a planet). Maybe that's why no one has ever really caught a Unicorn, with a virgin or otherwise. And overall, the only believable tales of its appearance have been to infants and children. Seriously.

Ask the kids, they'll tell you so. Of course as an adult, you're just too knowing to believe them. You see, even if we ignore the the whole morality issue (which correctly means the "free reasoning of right and wrong" and not a code to be followed), we still have the sin of intellectual arrogance in thinking knowledge is superior to ... innocence, the real kind.

And yes, there's quick and surperficial comparisons to be made to the tale of Eden. But unlike that tale, we weren't judge and tossed out for tasting of knowledge. We just turned our backs on Eden, thinking that there was no way the Unicorn or any aspect of the etheric (a term I prefer to "divine") could possible be part of this world; it had to be elsewhere.

That's really why we can't find a Unicorn. Only the children can, and not from being devoted and studious with any particular sacred writings. But back to the point of "it's just a game."

Rethinking Talisman's Unicorn

Like Pegasus last time, perhaps we again see a hint of Alignment consideration in the Unicorn for game purposes in Talisman. But which Alignment, if we choose to make that mean something more than what it is in the game? Certainly not Evil, but if attracted to and perhaps a protector of Original Innocence, it wouldn't really be attracted to Good on its crusade to destroy all Evil. And then, of course, Neutral in Talisman has always been the "do whatever" Alignment.

Oh who are we kidding! Do whatever is the way all three Alignments are played (and you players know it) unless stipulated limitations are written out on a character card. Even then, with the Goody-Goodies who try their best, when they reach the Crown of Command, they all become despotic butchers slaughtering anything and anyone in the Land in order to be king of the hill. Its the nature of the game, isn't it?

So basically, does that mean the Unicorn would never take up with any adventurer? Yeah, it does. It should never have been made a Follower. So I guess we'll have to bend the concept without recreating the lack-luster one that came with standard deck. And it will probably mean chucking notions of of Talisman's mono-dimensional Alignment sysetm and looking other factors by creature character. But first, here are additional notions about the Unicorn's "powers" or influences, which tenuously trace back the furthest in time.

• To blow away one silly notion (not usable in the game), powdering its horn is not a cure for impotence or infertility (or STDs). This comes from Graeco-Roman writers relating fantastical creatures of other cultures to their own ecclectic interpretations as the "true" ones. A Rhinocerous horn is where this comes from, though specifically the Indian white/pale rhino (single horned) and not the broad category of such that amateur cryptozoologists try to equate.
• Though it was horned, we can't assume it was thereby male, emulating that most animal species with horns have such predominantly on the males. If its an icon of Original Innocence at "birth" then it's more likely female, if a gender must be chosen. Simple, eh? So we can trash that rearing stallion on the 4ER card as well as the horse concept in general.
• As the immortal and etheric embodied in the mortal and mundane, it represented not only Original Innocence but natural life free of unnatural death beyond the order of Nature. This is where notions of power against disease, posion, venom, and other forms of assumed unnatural death. Of course, there's confusion where animals and plants are naturally endowed with such as a means of survival. However violence beyond necessity for survival was against its nature. A Unicorn would have nothing to do with greedy adventurers whacking each other, let alone taking the Crown of Command in all out slaughter of all competitors from afar.
• As one of THE emblematic creatures of Faerie, it most certainly would have its divine aspect reflected witin its influences, which might include resurrection from unnatural death for those closest to Original Innoncence or those who defend such. But this would mean putting god-like power into the hands of an adventurer. Some of the more outrageous Spell cards already do that.

We're left with a hard challenge, and less than half the Unicorns attributes can readily be represented with Talisman mechanics. But that may still be enough for something a bit interesting. I'll also offer a a couple of other cards as well, as balancers to its influence... partially... for the Unicorn being outside of a monodimensional Alignment system still begs for some balance.

THE 4ERR "ADVENTURE" CARDS

Again, these are alternatives rather than true retro cards. When I started the 4ERR series of articles, even I was naive as to how difficult retroactive recreation would be. It was simply a blind challenge that attracted me for fun. Note that as before, extra terminology on the cards can be ignored; it is there for special needs when cards are used with my In the Balance expansion available through TalismanIsland.com under "Resources >> Expansions."

The Unicorn below is intended as a replacement for the standard one, though its picture isn't wholly accurate (the horn) by what I've covered. With its two balancing counterparts, the cards could be used safely as addtions instead of replacement. The Gryphon leans a bit to heraldic interpretation, and the Cock'o'Guile is a rare sub-variation (more plainly named) of the Cockatrice; both are a bit bent for use in Talisman but present unique options and challenges. I recommend including them as a set only if Adventure deck is above 200+ cards to avoid a collective imbalance to the deck. So have fun with them either way.

The 300dpi print versions are available at the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman forum, subform Talisman Home Brews, under the topic "4ERR - Unicorn, et al."

Introduction

Time to switch away from Followers and look at a Stranger equine, the Pegasus. Addressing this, as with the Warhorse, will be even less about its evolution and more a reconceptualization based on a little verisimilitude and available game mechanics that were ignored.

THE PEGASUS

ASIDE: Like with the Warhorse, you may wish to look at the Wikipedia article on Pegasus. It's an example of how knowledge by consensus falls on its face. Less valuable than any encyclopedia, it will do for a quick overview, but quickly turns away from glossed-over summary to loading up on pop culture references and alternatives. Scholarly works on mythology are also limited on Pegasus, partly because he (yes, he and not it or them) was always as a secondary fixture in most myths. And yet he was still much more than Talisman made of him.

First introduced in the 2E Talisman Expansion Set (1986), Pegasus later became part of the standard 3E Adventure deck. He vanished again in the 4E edition. To my knowledge, he hasn't reappeared as yet in 4ER. Much as I'm reluctant to produce 4ERR cards when 4ER versions haven't appeared, he had to be included with other 4ERR equine cards. Besides changes in wording, Pegasus's actual game effect didn't change over editions so far. However, as a mortal (yes) aberration and a creation of the gods (one way or another), his concept in Talisman is misses the mark. Worse still, he doesn't come off as a being, a Stranger or otherwise, but as a duplication of something from an entirely different deck.

His effect is identical to the Teleport Spell card, including carrying all of the adventurer's equipment and Followers... even a fully loaded Horse & Cart. It might've been better (as a rare twist) to simply include a "Scroll" Magic Object that had a Teleport spell on it. The Scroll could've been kept and used once without regard to an adventurer's Craft level. Or it could've been governed by standard rules for all Spells. Either way, Pegasus as a unique concept was wasted from the start.

Aside from failed verisimilitude in his operation, two other aspects of Pegasus were never given a nod: Alignment and Challenge. Pegasus was created by etheric (not magic) forces or divinities of the earthly and/or upper realms of greater Existence. In Talisman terms, this obviously hints at a connection to Alignment. Attached to this, Pegasus didn't just serve anyone. Either favor from the gods or a challenge in subduing him was required. Even then he never willingly aided any but heroes or those designated by the divinities of the upper realm. All of this points to a slightly more interesting card yet kept simple for Talisman's needs.

On the tangent of verisimilitude, push for simplicity in Talisman has often gone too far - or leaned on pop culture notions without even a cursory glance at the real nature of the myths, legends, folklore and fables from which it borrows. Pegasus could fly (issues of physiology and physics aside) and was a strong and powerful equine. He could carry one or two appropriately sized riders and minimal belongings. He wasn't innately "magical" himself, though divinely created. He was mortal flesh and blood, merely a physically unique aberration.

Therein implies limits for the sudden, random, and yet potent chance of an adventurer being carried anywhere in its current region. Such wide ranging advantage should require cost that force a moment's thought. Otherwise, we shouldn't waste such a great concept and instead put in that Teleport Scroll Object and be done with it.

I heard an account from a remote friend where his daughter was aghast when Pegasus suddenly appeared to carry an adventurer and a raft-load of Followers across the entire land. The adult player doing so offered a typical rationalization at the child's challenge. I guess it made most of the players present roll their eyes, but it brought a sharp "bullshit!" from the young one. Quickly losing the intellectual duel, including the "its in the rules" argument, the adult hit the ultimate lame fall-back position: "its fantasy, so it can be anything." I can't really repeat the girl's whole counterpoint to that. But I would've loved to be there to see it. Though I would have cringed and then bit my tongue when parental disapproval kicked in at her choice of words versus her knowledge and reasoning.

Like any real fantasy enthusiast (versus brain-pulped escapists with pop-culture excuses), she knew her myths and fantasy for what they are. Without verisimilitude - not realism - there's little point to sharing with others in a created realm and one should go off to one's own private fantasies. The best of Fantasy realms always have verisimilitude, be they print, multimedia, or game. Most especially if they borrow from known myth and legend. That adult should just go off and play with... I mean by himself. [Oops, maybe I did slip in a little of the young lady's vernacular.]

Re-envisioning Pegasus requires address of one final issue: Balance. Talisman has a history of imbalance where advantages based on Alignment are concerned. If Pegasus is to be a servant / emissary of Good, where does that leave Neutral or Evil adventurers when encountering him? Most likely the Evil one's would never get near him or would get a split skull when he took flight and trampled them from above. If Pegasus's service (and game effect) leans a little true to an Alignment for his origin, similar but somewhat unique cards are needed for the other two (not one) Alignments. As always, I choose to see Neutral as something more than the Alignment of No Alignment it has been in Talisman.

THE 4ERR "ADVENTURE" CARDS

It's not hard to find and adapt two new concepts based on Neutral and Evil, as well as make them equines. Even without my library of resources on the arcane and mythological, I found one in less than 15 minutes on the Net. (Okay, actually I found a dozen, but I only needed one.) Not ultimately true to its original myth(s), there was at least one tale where it operated similar to what's described on a following card. The last card other is my own creation, first introduced in my 4ERR post on the Riding Horse. I later withdrew it as a "Follower," since it was just too potent for that kind of card, but it seems to make a sound Stranger to match Pegasus.

Since Pegasus (or a counterpart) appears and then leaves whether used or not, he could be classified as an Event instead of a Stranger. Event mechanics do work better for this, and there is precedence in cards like the Devil, Angel, Imp, etc. Each has implied or specific Alignment associations and benefits and deficits from a like source. But Pegasus is mortal, meaning he could in theory be killed for real (as with the other two below), so it's probably best to keep him as a Stranger, as in all previous editions.

As with the Warhorse variations from last time, these cards are "alternative" more than "retro." Encountering the (not a) Pegasus was a unique encounter in Talisman (as well as in myth). Having three similar cards could be too much for a standard deck. I recommend including all of them only if your Adventure deck has grown to 200+ cards. Keep these as rare encounters, as originally intended for any Stranger card. You can find the full print resolution versions at the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman forum, Talisman Home Brews subforum, under "4ERR - Pegasus, et al."

Introduction

In stepping onward with equine cards, very little changed in the Warhorse over editions. What did change didn't fix its innate problem(s). Any approach to offering alternatives will be less a step back in editions, or using attributes from multiple editions, and more a reconceptualization of the card itself. We'll take a look at what's known in reality concerning that concept, and then pare it down to what may fit the game's mechanics.

THE WARHORSE

ASIDE: Overall, communally created on-line reference systems for research (let alone personal pages) are no place to get the facts on any topic. Claims of self-correction as more people get involved are false, and I've failed student research papers for leaning on them as primary sources.That being said, the Wikipedia article on the Warhorse is a sound starting point and an accessible introduction for anyone. Those interested might check it out over a cup of coffee or tea. Some sources cited therein match ones I've scanned in on-line versions for minor details in the novels that Barb and I write.

The Talisman Warhorse first appeared in 2E's expansion The Adventure (1986). It didn't reappear until the recent 4ER expansion The Reaper (2008). Little changed between editions, and what did didn't make sense. The only reasoning I found was buried in the card's original flaw(s) concerning its concept interpretation for simplified game mechanics. The good (or sad) news is that in using the lens of verisimilitude, a card (or two) could be created that is more interesting and unique beyond a picture and title.

The Warhorse allows an adventurer to add "Starting" Craft to Strength in Combat/Battle but not in Psychic Combat. This directly emulates the Special Ability found on the Monk character card. Right there we see a flaw built upon another flaw.

ASIDE: that a Monk has an edge in Battle based on education (presumably) is irrational. Likely based on RPG "Clerics" and notions of "Friar" Tuck from the Robin Hood legend, it falls prey to the fanciful. A Monk is not a Cleric, and research of legend alludes to Tuck as the exception and not the rule where monks - sorry, Friars - are concerned. But not for the assumed reasons found in that Character card. He was a either a premiere fencer (Franciscan style) in his secular days, had combat experience (during the Crusades), or both. No Monk (or Friar) would learn anything so substantially applicable to Combat/Battle in the cloistered life.

Aside from issues with the Monk, the Warhorse is for Battle, which is not a Craft-based skill in Talisman. Much as I appreciate (and use) occasional bends and folds of mechanics, this was a bad choice. Possibly the card was intended as an equalizer, allowing adventurers with low Strength and high Craft a chance to win a few Combats/Battles and gain in Strength skill points. This likely stemmed from 2E's low count of Craft Enemies for gaining Craft skill points, hence the game was most often won through Strength. But the opportunity, if assumed from that perspective, didn't work well and created further problems.

By probability, there's no guarantee that a Craft dominant adventurer would be the first to draw the Warhorse. Even more so as the number of players increase. Further, while classified as an Object in 2E, the Warhorse could be taken as a victory condition in adventurer vs adventurer encounters, by Psychic Combat or Combat/Battle. However, since it died in Combat/Battle if the owner was defeated, it was somehow still available for the taking if one was defeated in Psychic Combat. A further error is uncovered outside of the card itself, for in reality (if reworked for verisimilitude) a Warhorse required special training - Combat training - again a Strength (not Craft) based skill in Talisman mechanics.

In reality, the rider had to be trained as well, again in a Combat/Battle skill set, or the combination wouldn't work. So for Talisman, only those with skills in Battle might have a chance to use a Warhorse. Of course, we can be more lenient and generic in looking for better options in a simple game. Depending on chosen sources written by actual horsemasters, trainers, and historians, there are between 12 and 18 different classes of equine "training" under the generic title of Warhorse. Note that... training and not born to the title. It is important to distinguish between a horse "ridden" into battle and one "trained" for battle; the former could be anything, though not suited for warfare.

Only two or three types included predominant training for actual Battle/Combat. The mount in question required years to teach and prepare, and they were extremely expensive. Some had to be trained from birth to achieve the status represented by the Warhorse card. Certainly not the kind of animal that would be found roaming around for free. It's major benefits for a rider ranged between maneuverability, height advantage in conflict, mass inertia in a press against like opponents, and ability to view the field at large. The last is why almost all officers were mounted, whether overseeing cavalry or infantry.

NOTE: Notions of a mount raging into battle with flailing hooves are a fallacy; it doesn't happen. Trampling as successful tactic (not strategy) only occurred as a control effect during formations of cavalry in charges and didn't always work. A single rider attempting this would just as often end up as a kabob on a pikeman's lance - before or after being unmounted.

Primary training of all Battle related Warhorses was (1) resistance to flight/panic in combat, (2) obedience to maneuver commands by knees/legs and non-reins steering, and (3) sensitivity to the rider's weight and center of balance to keep the rider from falling off during combat. And hence, for Talisman, all are related to Strength (or physical skills). The horse itself didn't fight while engaged against enemy combatants... or it lost its rider, period.

A low Strength, high Craft adventurer is usually somewhere around Craft 4 and Strength 2. If we add the Warhorse, that adventurer without real Combat/Battle ability (based on Strength skills) suddenly has +4. But it's not because of the Warhorse - its all in the adventurers Craft, as if it suddenly gained a new Special Ability.

Since Craft based characters are looking for Strength advantage as quickly as possible, they often scavenge Magic Objects and Followers with such bonuses. We all know that's the common tactic. So if the Warhorse is drawn by a Craft potent adventurer so augmented, the Warhorse's Craft advantage is stackable with Strength augmentation - and all with an adventurer supposedly not naturally built for Combat/Battle.

A like advantage to the same degree for a Strength-based (Combat/Battle skilled) adventurer isn't as good, since it typically has a lower Craft - a lower bonus thereby. How very strange that a strong Warrior would sometimes be less effective on a Warhorse than say the Prophetess. The Warhorse, aside from its internal problems, unbalances the game and creates a gapping whole in Talisman's simple verisimilitude.

Another anomaly of the Warhorse was how it was lost. Even those lucky enough to gain it needed to win every Combat (Battle). If defeated, they lost the Warhorse instead of a Life.

ASIDE: Falling off a horse during a normal ride can get you hurt badly, even killed. My wife Barb knows this, having been an experienced rider in her youth. Imagine falling off during mortal combat, lying stunned and prone, while your opponent is still on its feet (or horse) and armed. This discounts one's own horse (and all of its armor) coming down on you as it dies, or more likely as you and it slam to the ground in a thundering tangle. OUCH!

The Warhorse should never have been used as a out for losing a Life. Its advantage in Combat/Battle was enough, and that additional clause of gross oversimplification was not appropriate. Being defeated on horseback is more dangerous and potentially lethal than on foot, which is a proper balance for exceptional advantage. Anyone thinking otherwise hasn't got the mettle to ride a Warhorse, let alone adventure in a dangerous land like Talisman. But worse still...

The last failing of the Warhorse appeared in the 4ER version. It now died as well if one was defeated in Psychic Combat, again in place of the adventurer losing a Life. I have no idea why, and it has nothing to do with adhering to the card's core concept, and since when does a Warhorse for Battle protect a rider from psychic, mental, or spiritual assault?

ADDENDUM: As pointed out to me after original posting, I overlooked detail on the 4ER Warhorse. It appears now that the adventurer must lose a life for the Warhorse to be lost, so it is not a sacrifice in place of losing a Life as was the 2E version. However, it is lost regardless of defeat in Combat/Battle or Pyschic Combat; this type of automatic effect is also a fallacy and not more than mechanics work far outside of verisimilitude.

This was likely another attempt to balance its flawed advantage when over the years (editions) it was seen that losing it in Battle wasn't enough to counter unbalancing effects in the game. This poorly implemented (and septic) band-aid didn't fix its inherent ailments. And Craft should never have been the basis of Warhorse's mechanics (let alone that the Monk's like Special Ability needed changes as well in a different way).

THE 4ERR "ADVENTURE" CARDS

The following cards aren't really "retro." I don't recommend putting any but one Destrier in a standard Adventure deck of 104 cards as a replacement for the Warhorse. Or you might choose the Courser or Rounsey if you prefer. The Palfrey is intended as additional and not as a replacement for either the Warhorse or Riding Horse.

If you have a large deck at 200+ cards due to expansions, you might add 1 of each for variety. All have conditions and limitations to match considerations for previous 4ERR cards as well as lightly emulating the three traditional types of "Battle" based Warhorses. The full sized cards are available for download at the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman forum, sub-form "Talisman Home Brews," under the topic "4ERR - The Warhorse."

THE 4ERR "PURCHASE" CARDS

For the time being, I will not release Purchase card versions of these equines. I don't remember such, or for a Riding Horse, being released in that format and have not researched to find out. Some of these variations on the Warhorse will likely appear in my later Great City space-expander deck for the City space. But I'll prepare you for a little sticker shock.

The cost of a Destrier from the medieval and middle ages (using my 4ERR Mule price as a base) would be 40 to 100 Gold in Talisman's terms. Oh yes, it would. Obviously prices on any forthcoming Purchase cards will be severely reduced (simplified) for the game, but will still hurt! As an example, the Destrier would be priced at about 10G, though likely I wouldn't make that one for sale. The average adventurer looking to purchase such advantageous mounts, versus luck of the draw, must be prepared to convert hoarded items to Gold or spend time looking for fast profit. That's as it should be.

ASIDE: As counterpoint, the game's Gold limit (set by token count) should be abandoned. Make yourself additional tokens or switch to pennies or other markers, and let the land's commerce thrive. Overall, it won't break anything in the game, since the greater emphasis these days is on speed of play versus ambiance. If you'd like an option with some ambiance, consider plastic coins easily found on the Internet; they're everywhere and often cheap.

Below I reissue the Mule Purchase card, which now lists a price of 3G due to (1) the Donkey at 2G, (2) the 4ERR Mule being superior to the 4ER Talisman version, and (3) previously a Mule could only be purchased via the Market and Market Day cards. The Market Day card is a nonsensical location for livestock. Market(s) in reality that would carry livestock occur in Cities, not some random location in the land. And no, Villagers would not sell their scarce work animals, so Mules would not be for sale in a Village. (I made the previous Donkey, with its limted capacity, the only exception to this).

If you use these, any visit to the City can include the option (vs what's listed on the space) to visit the Stockyard or Stable (or whatever) to purchase one of these in place of all other options. Adventurer's should not be allowed to combine this option with purchasing any other goods or services in the City.

Acknowledgment

My thanks, yet again, to Jon New of TalismanIsland.com for assisting with historical detail from various Talisman editions and for providing some notions that were used to develop new cards presented. All commentary herein is purely my own and does not reflect the opinions or viewpoints of others.

Introduction

I'd intended that the first cards examined in this 4ERR series would all be equines that have so far been re-released for Talisman 4th edition revised (4ER). That still stands for the most part. But in looking at the Mule's evolution, we have to look at other cards of like intent and purpose, such as the Horse & Cart and the Porter. You'll see why.

To my knowledge, few cards changed as often as the Mule, with some alterations occurring within a single Talisman edition. Changes were small and mostly because a similar "carrier/bearer" Object or Follower was introduced in an edition's later expansion(s). While examining differences in comparison to game mechanics, five considerations or criteria emerged: Capacity, Loss, Range, Diversity, and Verisimilitude.

• Capacity is what all carrier/bearer cards are about, though Objects need not be all that is considered. It should be guided by the card's core concept that initiated its design as well as being balanced in logical fashion with cards of similar or like function.
• Loss considers how what is carried is handled when the carrier/bearer card is lost. It can be how as well as when the carrier/bearer is lost in reflection upon a card's original guiding concept versus other carriers/bearers.
• Range/Speed applies to movement altering mechanics, as previously seen in the Horse but more limited. In carrier/bearer cards, it's most often simply if such an option is present or not, and whether or not it is appropriate via the card's core concept.
• Diversity is a consideration when more than one type of card exists with similar or like mechanics. Diversity is not a function of title and illustration or any similar identity attributes. It is in how concepts produce different benefits, deficits, and requirements between cards of similar type, and even when, where, how, and if used. Diversity is not simply how much benefit or deficit difference there is between cards of like mechanics and its negative twin is Genercism.
• Verisimilitude, to rephrase from the last post, is not realism. Verisimilitude is making things "realistic" within an alternate environment or setting that itself may not emulate reality. All properly developed "fantasy" environments have an internal Verisimilitude; the term is not an excuse for "anything goes." Concept drives development of any component therein including the environment as whole, be it a game or something else. Any illustration in words or images should merely be the illumination of the underlying concept as integrated into the alternative environments internal logic. When a reference, particularly a card title and/or an illustration, is in sync with and does not contradict that core, Verisimilitude is supported. The alternative environment's own reality gains an increment of cohesion. This is Verisimilitude versus just establishing rules to govern mechanics.

THE 2E CARDS

The Mule was first introduced in Talisman 1E, though to my knowledge it didn't change in 2E (1983). Like the Horse card, it was classified as an Object, though it lacked Verisimilitude in other ways. Overall, it served one purpose: to allow an adventurer to collect and keep as many Objects as could be found. Mechanically, it operated like a limitless, walking Bag of Holding (for FRPG fans).

If an adventurer lost the Mule, everything it carried dropped to the ground, even if the Mule was eaten by a monster, toppled into a chasm, or spooked off by a surprise calamity... or stolen through a Spell or Special Ability. Its illustration and title were pointless, as its mechanics didn't require it to treated like an actual Mule even in a simplified fashion. There weren't rules that distinguished use of what it carried versus what the adventurer carried itself and could access at an instant. Simplistic rather than simple, it came off like a justified notion rather than a card built from a sound concept.

The Mule gained a grain of second-hand Verisimilitude when the 2E Horse & Cart was introduced in the The Adventure expansion (1986). The Horse & Cart became the new default hoard-all option, as it now carried unlimited Objects. It was suggested that Mule cards then be limited to 8 Objects carried.

ASIDE: This was suitable, considering that a real mule easily carries twice the load of a man. Mules have been favored for multi-purpose use down through the ages, medieval and otherwise, and in multiple cultures. They were even a preferred riding mount under certain conditions, including for special teams of military cavalry. These are just basic considerations, some (but not all) of which could've been expressed in simple game mechanics.

Loss of the Horse & Cart matched the Mule; nothing it carried was lost by consideration of how it was lost. It also had Range/Speed through an optional +1 in movement which hauled along all other collected Followers, no matter how loaded down it was. Essentially, that little vehicle and single beast was treated like a full wagon and team and then some. In this we see another rolling rather than walking Bag of Holding, only worse.

ASIDE: A "cart" in real terms, as in the card's illustration, is a 2-wheeled vehicle vs. a 4-wheeled "wagon". It is pulled by one beast of burden, usually a plow horse or mule. It was a rural work vehicle and not typically used for long term travel. Its speed is generally no greater than a human running on a flat road, and less if in the wild and/or loaded down. It often had no seating by design and might carry 2 people with cargo or 4 with very little else. And in all cases, that one horse or mule would be hard pressed.

As with the Horse, these two cards could be affected through game mechanics related to Objects as opposed to Followers. Either the Mule or Horse & Cart could be taken as a victory reward during direct conflict between adventurers. Yet the victor couldn't take what was on them as well.

Once again, a smidgen of Verisimilitude could have added richness. Only ill-conceived Diversity had appeared, which wasn't that diverse. The 2E Horse & Cart, like the earlier 2E Mule, became an excuse for exaggerated and seemingly magical benefits implemented in a "Object" that wasn't a "Magic Object" as defined in the game. (The legitimate magical hauling Object came later, called the Bag of Holding.)

With the release of the 2E Dungeon (1987), the Mule (and Horse & Cart) picked up a dash of Verisimilitude but only as happenstance. The Mule regained advantage versus the Horse & Cart's unlimited capacity, as it was allowed in the Dungeon while the Horse & Cart was not. Even that exception was questionable, since the typical Mule (too often confused with a donkey) is near the size of a Horse. Both remained "Objects" allowing the gathering of "Objects" usable at will though packed away on either of them. Lots of work was needed on both cards.

The Adventure expansion also introduced the Porter, classified as a Follower instead of an Object. Though not an equine, he served the same function as the Mule but carried only 4 Objects (like an adventurer). He could enter the Dungeon, where the Horse & Cart could not. That may have been part of the card's founding concept, but we'll never know. It still didn't explain the exclusion of the Mule from "no equines" in the Dungeon. The Porter could've become a more valuable card if it were the only "carrier/bearer" that could enter an interior and/or subterranean realm.

For the Porter's service, he had to be paid 1 Gold versus a Mule "Purchase" card at 3 Gold. A fair deal if we ignore that his payment was like purchasing a limited Mule, since it was his only compensation forever. But unlike the Mule or Horse & Cart, if he was lost, everything he carried was lost with him. At first, this seems like a fair deficit for his cheap price until we pause for a double-take.

An higher sentience "Follower" like the Porter is not allowed to throw off his burdens in a dangerous situation. Yet two animal bearer/carrier, "Object" beasts with greater capacity and burdens (likely lashed down) allowed a last minute - last second - grab for possessions by an adventurer. There were obvious incongruities where loss of carried Objects were concerned.

ASIDE: I'm uncertain why the Porter's description explicitly states zero Strength and Craft. How does a bearer do his job with Strength 0? If he's as witless as a Craft 0, well then, maybe he is too stupid to drop weighty burdens in a fight or flight situation. But enough giggles for too much realism.

Other later Followers with explicit Strength and Craft stated took action in place of, or on behalf of, the adventurer. The Porter had no such function. Most Followers had bonuses added to an adventurer's "skills" if applicable, operating in concert with the adventurer. Again, the Porter by concept did not serve this purpose. Still other Followers which did not operate in conjunction with, or on behalf of, the adventurer where Strength and Craft "skills" were concerned had no Strength or Craft notation. And yet the Porter did.

Strength and Craft notation on the Porter created a meaningless if stupefying hole in Verisimilitude, not to mention potential confusion if compared to other Followers without such notation.

THE 3E CARDS

Talisman 3E brought more changes to the Mule, ones that changed perspective (if not mechanics) for the Porter as well. The 3E Mule's capacity was reduced to 4 Objects, no better than an adventurer - or Porter. But now, if the Mule was lost, all Objects it carried were lost as well, just like the Porter, and without regard as to how it was lost. It was a change for standardization that didn't fix or fit the Porter either. Instead it put a dent in Diversity as well as Verisimilitude. The Mule's other notable change, as seen previously in the [Riding] Horse, was a switch as a living being to proper classification as a Follower.

Contrary to shifts in the Mule, the 3E Horse & Cart remained unlimited in capacity, though loss of carried Objects was altered to match the Mule and Porter. It too was also shifted to status as a Follower versus an Object. But the optional +1 to movement was gone, suitably or not, and Diversity in like cards took another hit.

The 3E Porter didn't change at all (internally). With implied ruling on equines allowed in the 3E Dungeon of Doom (1994), the Porter became less desirable. Certainly cheaper than buying a Mule, but he wasn't available as a Purchase card, so that didn't matter. The only way to gain him was luck of the draw as one card in an ever-expanding (expansion supplemented) Adventure deck. If you drew a Mule (and there were more of those), you got the same carrying capacity for free. The Porter became a waste in a multi-board, multi-realm Talisman. It shouldn't have happened, as there was plenty of room for interesting Diversity, even in simplicity.

Overall, regardless of needed classification changes, 3E made a mess of things in trying to standardize loss of Objects and capacity changes in a homogeneous fashion. Not enough thought was given to inter-card comparative status and differences based on more than the cards themselves... based on conditions applicable to board(s), realms, regions, and the game as a whole instead of just capacity, title, and illustration.

THE 4E(R) CARDS

The 4E and 4ER Mule are exactly the same, even to their illustration. In the 4ER Dungeon (2009), all equines were suddenly allowed with full use of all benefits. The Mule, if lost, allowed the adventurer to choose what surplus Objects it carried were left on the space versus whatever could be carried off personally. In other words, besides capacity, it reverted to its flawed origin in Talisman 1E/2E. If that big monster (in the Land or Dungeon) kicked the adventurer's butt, leaving it half conscious and bloodied, the monster still paused and asked, "Pardon me, could crawl over and take these baubles off the mule, so they don't get stuck in my teeth when I eat it."

NOTE: the figure in the Mule card is obviously carrying a lot more than 4 Objects and is even more loaded down than the Horse & Cart. That's part of the problem of re-using an illustration from a previous like named card different statistics or not. The 2E, 3E, and 4E(R) Mules are not the same just because they share the same title.

The Horse & Cart was now limited to 8 Objects, the change being little more than a synced reduction with the Mule. Overall, drop in capacity for all Followers that carry Objects had gone too far, for it impinged on their separate and collective Verisimilitude. Like the Mule, that monster still obligingly paused for the adventurer to grab its stuff before finishing off the Horse and picking its teeth with the Cart's remains.

Now, is anyone wondering if the Bag of Holding will later be worth re-issuing, since the Mule accomplishes almost the same purpose with no possible risk or deficit? Or will it become little more than nostalgic, like the Porter?

"Simple" vs. "Generic"

This is the key problem with the multi-edition evolution of the Mule and like cards. Changes for simplicity and standardization were pushed to the point of genericism. The cards lost legitimate Diversity, versus just title, illustration, and capacity. There was reduced purpose to having this many different cards of like function. This is another reason why we might never again see the Porter, and the Bag of Holding will be but a novelty item. Aside from capacity, there is nothing meaningful that distinguishes the Mule from the Horse & Cart from the Porter. Any citing of capacity as counterpoint - let alone title and illustration - would only work on children and not the insightful ones.

If the 4ER Mule can carry 4 Objects, what is the Porter going to be reduced to? Why should he be paid even 1 Gold if he can carry less than an adventurer? And why is a stout and hardy beast of burden like the Mule carrying no more than an adventure, human or otherwise? Changes were made to limit aspects of advantage, particularly excessive hoarding, but the method was poorly implemented. It was done in part because either all sensible risk had been removed from these cards or any risk for greater advantage was made blindly the same across the board (excuse the pun). Instead of fixing problems with play, or addressing the components as individual and collective, they were cut down until barely distinguishable by anything that made them worth being labeled with separate titles and illustrations.

One may ask "so what?" Why make players actually think about differences between cards? Because it matters to those not easily dazzled by a new pretty picture and a title, which in turn may have become disconnected from their mechanics. It keeps things interesting, and thinking, when encouraged, is never a bad thing. As in life, Diversity is spice in a game where players operate through characters and become imagined adventurers. With a little creativity, both reasonable simplicity and legitimate Diversity could have been meaningfully (re)established without treating players as unable to understand or think through the differences.

If this approach continues, all that's left of Diversity are a number, a picture, and a title. Then one hopes the cycle of expansions can out run player boredom at having played with the same underlying mechanics too many times.

Simple, yes, to a reasonable degree. Generic, no. And Diversity always when cards have a similar base function. Aside from a better game, it's good business considering the number of fantasy games, board and otherwise, that have come out in recent years. Unless... boredom is planned, so the next expansion sells well to relieve it. Diversity is not a number, a title, and/or an illustration; to assume so insults the intelligence of players. And so...

THE 4ERR CARDS

The following cards are only "retro" in certain aspects. They contain additional changes, including ones to coincide with previous 4ERR cards already presented or further modified along with these cards. I've added one or two new ones as well, just for fun and more diversity. The full size cards are available for download at the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman forum, sub-form Talisman Home Brews under 4ERR - 4th Edition Revised ''Retro'' Cards. Those with titles matching standard cards are intended as replacements, while the new ones should be inserted as additions to decks. The Donkey Purchase Card should have a 4 count, while the Bucking Burro and Porter should be a one of kind Adventure cards only.

Players familiar with only Talisman 4E(R) cards may not like these. Along with reworked attributes for regained Diversity, risk and limitation suitable for each by limited Verisimilitude had been reinserted.

NOTE: Cards include sub-classification terms for use with my In the Balance expansion available at TalismanIsland.com. You can ignore these and the cards will play just fine. Or you can seek out that expansion to see how they interact with other cards therein.

Please note that the above version of the Mule is pointless if you aren't using the 4ERR Riding Horse. A new version of the 4ERR Riding Horse is also included below. If you prefer to stick with the standard 4ER Riding Horse, then use the following Mule instead.

HOUSE RULES

The following are recommended for those interested in challenge within adventuring beyond a race for the endgame. Even these rules are lenient and sacrifice some Verisimilitude - but not as much as was seen in standard rules and cards. Without such, even the expansion regions and realms start to become generic and only differ from the main board in target numbers, illustrations, and titles. There also wouldn't be much point to bothering except for their regained capacity.

For any adventurer entering an interior or subterranean realm or region (like the Dungeon)...

• Porters and Mules and like or smaller "bearer/carrier" Followers may be kept and used.
• • If such have an option to be "ridden", this option may not be used .
• Horses and like or smaller "ridden" Followers may be kept but may not be used until the adventurer fully exits.
  • Any "ridden" mount, or other Followers, larger than a Horse may not be kept or used.
• Horse & Cart and like "vehicles" for carrying Objects and/or Followers may not be kept or used .
• Optionally, all players should agree before a game begins on one of the following rulings for Followers that cannot be kept. Affected cards should be...
• 1. left on the entrance space on the main board, or
  2. discarded to their appropriate deck.

That Mules are allowed lacks all Verisimilitude; a Mule is nearly as large as a Horse. If you and your group have the will and mettle of a legitimate adventurer, you can opt for no "animal" larger than a Donkey (which is not a Mule) or Burro allowed in the Dungeon.

ASIDE: In comparison, don't ask how a dragon (let alone more than one) got down into that dungeon... or why adventurers couldn't find that alternative entrance, as large as it would have to be. Perhaps that might be an interesting notion to be found at the end of the Mountain realm: a shortcut into the Dungeon (not its end or beginning, obviously). Just a fun notion, and we'll see what's possible as a playful House Rule, if and when the Mountain expansion reappears.

With spring around the corner and beginning plans for a new novel, I'm a little behind on prepping the release to In the Balance, Adventure Cards, Part 1. Please be a little patient while a catch up. In the meantime, you may wish to drop over to the Fantasy Flight Games forum and register to have access to the Talisman sub-forum.

This is the only place I will provide a temporary download of the coming full card graphics for "Alpha" play testing.

We come to the final sub-deck of the Adventure Deck: Enemies. These cards are further subdivided by Attribute (Strength, Craft) and Sub-type (Spirit, Animal, Dragon, Monster). We'll deal with all of them at once but return to our 1/4 approach for a first Part 1 release of a whole 104 Adventure cards expansion. This is a long and deep post, so be prepared.

2.22 Enemies - Standard Card Inventory

These represent the game's primary challenges sans previous suggestions. An adventurer (a Character operated by a Player) tries to overcome as many as possible to trade in "trophies" (defeated Enemies) for increased Strength and Craft points. Built up Strength and Craft are not increases in the Character's actual innate make-up but are rather like "skill" bonuses applicable to all activities based on the particular attribute. Let's look at what's in the standard Enemies sub-deck.

ASIDE: Sometimes I can't stop giggling about how Strength was assigned to some Animals (or Monsters and Dragons). I come from a line of people involved in lifetime wilderness and wildlife sciences pursuits, several with advanced degrees and decades of field experience. I've even spent summers doing wildlife relocation (taking animals back into the wild that have invaded public parks, camp grounds, etc.).

Whoever decided a Bear (even the more docile Black) was Str. 3 (standard Characters average at 2.6) has never been charged by one. Or they watched too many episodes of Gentle Ben. A Wild Boar at 1 and a Wolf at 2? A real boar could rip a single wolf a dozen new ones! (Must be one tiny piggy and not a razorback.) And unless those grass blades around the Serpent (not a snake) are the size of battle daggers, it ain't no Strength 4. Perhaps the artist needed more guidance. Okay, I'm done snarking now.

The actual creatures aren't what's important at first, though certainly notions can guide what kind of statistics we want in our new cards. What's truly important are the Range (High and Low), Median, Average, and Count of specific values among Strength and Craft for each sub-type.

We do note that Craft based Enemies are still on the shy side compared to Strength, even though more were added in revised 4th edition. Likely that's still best, considering that adventurers of higher Craft have the advantage of using Spells, or at least more than others. Let's look at mechanics and see what we need to include in our expansion to keep the Enemies sub-deck, and the whole Adventure deck, well balanced.

2.23 Card Mechanics Inventory

We'll break things down carefully by sub-types. Note that some expansions add new sub-types (Dark Cultist, Undead, etc.) These create problems in game mechanics which I'll cover shortly, but imagine a magic weapon that's good against all Monster sub-types. That tells the percentage of Enemies it provides an advantage against. Suddenly a new subtype is introduced. Proportions of sub-types have changed, and that weapon is no longer as potent (or prized) as it once was. That's a minor example of the imbalances created by simply changing one sub-deck's standardization without considering its interaction with other sub-decks (such as Objects and Magic Objects). More on this later.

Before we look at how we'll use these statistics to proportionalize a 1/4 count of new Enemy cards, there are two considerations to look at more carefully. One is most often the weakness of both commercial and fan-based expansions to the Adventure deck.

2.24 A Word about Enemy Sub-Types (and Sub-Sub-Types)

Take a deep breath; this will take some explaining. If you've been with us through previous posts on Adventure cards, you'll catch on quickly. Looking briefly at sub-types, two are obvious and two are ambiguous.

• Animals are any real world creature, regardless of whether avian, aquatic, mammal, etc.
• Dragons are simplistic in Talisman, the lesser bestial kind of the late (historically) western European variety. These come mostly from myths, folklore, and legend re-written by Catholic and other Christian clergy. Early dragons of varied cultures were stripped of their original size (well beyond Str. 7), diversified forms, and varied levels of intelligence (and most modern folklore research is based 1st, 2nd, or 3rd hand on church maintained beastiaries). They were also demonized as base beasts of evil (then again, so was the Unicorn for a while - oh yes, for those who know folklore by historical eras). There are no dragons in Talisman like the great "wyrms" of ancient Celtic and Norse legend. But the other two Enemy sub-types give us even more pause in other ways.
• Monsters appear to be all humanoid, though myth and legend says otherwise. And why is the Bandit (a "criminal") classified as a "Monster"? It can also be bought off with Gold, while other intelligent humanoids can't - though other cards imply they have such in their lair (see the Cave). Utterly confusing and contradictory!
• • Talisman's early editions kept sub-types minimal for a reason in relation to other sub-decks. Not because of classification accuracy but because of rules and card type interactions. This meant minimal rules add-ons, FAQs, and patching for additional new Enemy types (if they kept to the standard four sub-types).
  • Unfortunately, some commercial and fan expansions obliviously added new Enemy sub-types. These altered inter-card mechanics and ratios, and threw the Adventure deck (and possibly the game) off balance. Things got messy and the loopholes, FAQs, and patches began to grow. (Like we haven't seen that lately!) Worse still, it wasn't necessary. There was a better way to add something new - as already exemplified in a small way in the 4th edition (and then ignored). More on this shortly.
• Spirits, the single Craft based sub-type, are a conglomeration of: (1) actual spirits, (2) undead [yes, different than normal spirits] both mental / spiritual forms, (3) demons [not to be confused with devils or daemons], (4) djinni and effriti and other magical or faerie forms [if we count 2nd edition expansions], and etc.
• • Some expansions added new Craft based Enemies classified outside of the Spirit sub-type. There is a way to put Craft enemies into other standard subtypes, and even to include Strength ones among Spirits, but not through creating new Enemy subtypes. This approach creates the same problems (almost as bad) as with new Strength based sub-types. Other cards (Events, Magic Objects, etc.) have designations for interacting with Spirits, and new Craft based sub-types became confusing as to whether Craft based Objects, Magic Objects or even Spells affected them or not. Loophole patches (not new rules) began to grow again.

And so, the question arises: should our own expansions contain new sub-types of Enemies if we see fit? The answer is both yes and no; the explanation is confusing at first.

Instead of backing off and not creating new sub-types of Enemies, we should go deeper into sub-sub-types. Don't panic, it's not as complicated as it sounds. You've already seen it done in the standard Adventure deck - oh yes, you did! Dig out the "Object" cards in the Adventure deck and you'll see two new ones sub-labeled "Weapon" and "Armour." These are new sub-types of Objects, regardless that their sub-classification is in the description area. This was done to clarify special considerations for certain Objects among others. Special game situations apply to these, versus other Objects, yet they are still Objects, and hence affected by all standard rules applicable to Objects!

Do you see the point? Instead of creating let's say "Weapon" or "Armour" type cards, which would require even more rules as to whether Events, etc. can affect them, they were kept inside the Object classification and given a new sub-classification... a new sub-type . This keeps them working as expected by the standard old rules for Objects as well as new rules applied to the subtype (if that is wanted or needed). Take this hint seriously - especially since commercial producers didn't in some subsequent expansions.

By sticking to standard types (Events, Objects, Places, etc.) and the few standard sub-types (such as among Enemies), we make certain that standard mechanics and rules always apply to any new cards we create. If we want to add something special, we should not replace, expand, or ignore these. Doing so creates rules contradictions and loopholes as well as throwing off ratios in the Adventure deck. We instead add sub-sub-types (where Enemies are concerned) or sub-types (Followers, Magic Objects, etc.) just like those new "Weapon" and "Armour" designations. In this way, we get want we want for our specialty cards and make certain they are still addressed (interacted with) by standard rules and sub-decks! For example:

If we re-created the Bandit anew, still as "Enemy - Monster" (card type Enemy, sub-type Monster), its description might then start with "Criminal" - a new sub -sub-type. Instead of creating a new 5th type of Enemy, we added a meaningful sub-classification and kept it within the standard 4 Enemy types. Perhaps certain Objects, Events, Places, or a new Character (let's call it the "Sheriff") has a relationship with "Criminals" - and we intend to put more "Criminals" in through an expansion. The Sheriff may gain 1 Gold each time it defeats any "Criminal." Yet the new Bandit is still a "Monster" and subject to any other card or rule that affects such. We get what we want but we don't wreck the Adventure deck's innate balance and ratios for interaction with other standard sub-decks (card types).

This is why I created my own sub-types and sub-sub-types inside of (instead of in place of) standard card types and sub-types. I may still have to explain additional rules, but not changes to standard rules (except as optional if I wish). I placed each card within a standard classification and simply added deeper levels of sub-classification. One example from the last post were "Worldly" Events affecting certain new and likewise sub-typed Followers. Any other Followers would not be affected... or could be depending on the additional optional rules that I explain. Players are free to use the new cards with or without those additional rules, because the cards still carry standard classifications.

This is why if we wish to throw in something new, we do not throw out or replace what is already there. If and when we do go that far, and violate this design standard, it is the rarity, the exception, and not the rule. We avoid yet more endless patches to the rules and further growth in ever expanding FAQs. This applies to all decks as well, such as Spell and Purchase. Some of the worst violations were in the 3rd edition, which pulled Talisman from its generic high fantasy origin and tried to assimilate it into the Warhammer world.

2.25 About Special Variation Enemies

We all know Ghosts have random placement when drawn. This is one way that Enemies (or one special type) end up on spaces where Adventure cards aren't normally drawn. Enemy "mechanics" variations like this should probably be used sparingly, though we could (should?) include a like proportion of randomly placed Enemies to maintain the ratio of such when the expansion is mixed with the standard deck.

There are other options for creativity, some overly complicated but others interesting and enjoyable, which have popped up in past editions expansions as examples. Let's have a look from a mechanics perspective.

2.25.1 Multi-Enemies

The Old "Band of Zombies" and "Band of Skeletons" (not sure I got the titles right) are examples of these: small groups of like monsters listed on a single card. Usually each is of low Strength. (I don't remember any such for Craft, but that's another possibility).

These were put in to give starting Characters a shot at quick acquisition of Strength trophies to gain a Strength point. They were fought individually during one turn, with multiple battles instead of fighting the group collectively. All had to be defeated in one turn of four battles, or all remained and must be encountered again later. This practice was/is a bit questionable, considering there's no guarantee this card will be drawn early. If drawn late when characters have already gained in Strength, it becomes a freebie easy to defeat, often with no die rolls needed. Multi-Enemies also come in variations based on (1) a standard or random count and (2) whether fought one by one or collectively.

Count, Standard is stated on the card and is always the same. Four seems to be typical. In most cases, they are fought one by one, as described above. The option to have them fought collectively, all at once makes little sense, as this is equivalent to any standard Enemy of one opponent.

Count, Random means 1D6 (or more) is rolled to determine the number of opponents. The die roll could indicate the actually count or be referenced against an included list. Example: 1-3 one opponent, 4-5 two , 6 three. For Count Random, there is another set of sub-options to consider.

2.25.2 Variable Enemies

These are Enemies of Strength or Craft who are either

1. Modified, where a base number is modified directly by a 1d6 (Example: Str. 2+1D6) or referenced in a table on the card (Example: Str. 2 plus... 1-3 +1, 4-5 +2, 6 +3), or
2. Random, where the roll determines the actual potency (Example: Crf. 1d6) or is referenced against a table (Example: 1-3 Str. 3, 4-5 Str. 4, 6 Str. 5).

The die roll may also be

1. Permanent, when drawn, the first die roll is left as a marker on the card for future reference, or
2. Variable, the die is re-rolled each time it is encountered, should it survive the first encounter.

Whether using Modifed or Random, combining it with a "Permanent" roll can seem a little cumbersome, but not as much as some might think. We simply need extra dice to use as markers, and what die-hard gamer doesn't have those lying around? It also let's all Players know what that creature is worth, so they can strategize when and how they want to go after it.

Combing with "Vairiable" is cleaner, with no need to keep track of the first roll. But it also makes the Enemy a chance machine, regardless of how it's illustrated and/or described. And it eliminates the game play benefits mentioned for "Permanent."

2.25.3 Dual Attribute Enemies

These have both Craft and Strength. They can be engaged by either. But again, there are considerations.

• Enemy's Choice means a cunning opponent. It chooses the attribute by which to attack a Character (the weaker one of course). The higher the Enemy's Craft (especially above 3), the more likely this is the option the card should use.
• Character's Choice means a stupid opponent (usually Craft less than 3). The Character can choose to face it with Strength or Craft, as it wishes.
• Situational Choice means either the Enemy or Character chooses the attribute used. Which depends on who initiates the combat. When the Enemy's card is first drawn or moved onto a Character's space (yes, it can happen), the Enemy chooses the attribute for combat. When the Enemy is on the board and Character moves onto its space by choice, the Character chooses the attribute for combat. This is a rather complicated option to put on a card, but I have seen it done.

SPECIAL NOTE: in any variation, the attribute used to defeat the Enemy (Strength or Craft) is the one for which a trophy is taken; never both or by choice. Trophies mark the use of Craft or Strength skills, not both or interchangeably. Defeating a Dual Attribute Enemy with Craft should not allow a Character use it as a trophy for Strength, or the other way around. Oh yes, players have and will try that in looking for this loophole in the standard rules!

2.25.4 Able Enemies

Some Enemies have advantage based on encounter conditions and/or Character methods and means of facing it. Among many options, a few are obvious:

• Surprise can be (1) when an Enemy is first drawn, (2) every time it is encountered, and/or (3) based on the type of space (Woods, Plains, etc.) it is drawn or placed on. Essentially it gives -1 to its opponents combat roll. Stating it as a deficit to the Character (rather than a bonus of +1 for the Enemy) eliminates confusion as to changing the trophy's value if defeated.

Example: "Badger" (Enemy-Animal), Strength 3; Pound for pound, it has more meanness than most animals. If you just drew it, you're startled by its viciousness and get -1 in combating it.

• Armouring means a thick hide, plating, scales, or other natural outer body structure that protects it in combat. Psychic armoring in Craft combat is possible, though might be hard to explain. Armouring allows an Enemy an Armour roll if defeated, just like a Character with an "Armour" Object. If the roll succeeds, the combat is treated as a "draw" and Enemy remains on the space. The needed roll number(s) should be designated on its card. Generally, such Enemies should be Armored no better than a Shield (successful on a 5 or 6); tough hide is no better than a Helmet (roll of 6).
• Evasion makes a creature hard to catch. Perhaps it is cunning and knows when it's outmatched. A roll designated on its card gives it a chance to runaway and hide, either remaining on the space or optionally being discarded. The latter wouldn't be sporting, from a players perspective, but this option would keep Characters from making another easy (automatic) kill as they get stronger.
• • Optionally, the Enemy might roll a mock combat against the Character. If it wins, it would engage in real combat. If it loses, it evades. This process emulates its judgement in how touch the Character is to fight.
• Spells could be used by intelligent Enemies. Perhaps not just Craft based ones either. A dragon of special type might immediately draw a spell. The player to the right of the one engaging it would play the Enemy-Dragon, using the Spell as needed during the encounter. After conflict resolution, the Spell should be discarded if unused, regardless of the outcome.
• • There are complications. Not all Spells can be easily interpreted when used by an Enemy against a Character. If that Dragon drew "Healing," would it be able to keep itself from dying if it has no true "Lives" like a Character? By pure mechanics, it would not. But I have seen Spell ability used for a few Enemies, and any Spell not applicable to the Enemy by the rules was the same as a Character getting stuck with and unusable Spell. It was an interesting notion.
• Destructive ones cause the loss of any weapon, armor, or other item used to engage it do to some natural aspect of its make. To use an old cliche, any Character engaging an acid excreting beasty will have to deal with this potential loss. The chance of items being destroyed can either be (1) automatic, based on flat roll per item, or (2) based on defeating the Enemy by a minimum margin (2, 3, etc., more than the Enemy's rol). Either option should be used regardless of victory; even in defeating the Enemy, the items were still used and exposed to damage.
• • Magic Objects might be a catch. Perhaps they are automatically immune (making them even more prized in the game).
• Resurrection / Regeneration means unless the Enemy is soundly defeated, it remains on the board and no trophy is gained. In the most logical past examples, this requires that it be defeated by a certain margin (2 or more, 3+, etc.) ... meaning it has been trounced (hacked up) enough that it can't come back.
• • The most common (and most random) was a flat roll. Once defeated, 1D6 was rolled and if the listed target number(s) came up, the monster remained on the space (akin to "Armouring" above). Personally, the margin-based victory option is better. Coverting old Enemy's of this type is easy. The count of target numbers to survice (i.e., 5 & 6 is count 2; 4,5,6 is count 3) become the margin by which the Enemy has to be defeated... or is resurrects.
  • NOTE: in some cases Regeneration was distinguished from Resurrection. A few Enemies were actually designed to lose Strength or Craft points based on the margin of victory for the adventurer. One such of Strength 3 had to be defeated by more than 3 to be ultimately taken as a trophy. If not, say the adventurer only beat it by 2, then its Strength was reduced by 2, becoming a 1. On subsequent rounds, it's Strength grew back 1 point per round, until it reach its original capacity - this is real Regeneration versus Resurrection.
  • A similar approach was also used with one Enemy which came onto the board with "Lives." Defeating it by a margin indicated how many Lives it lost; if it wasn't killed completely in one fight, it regenerated Lives by the turns to its original count. It remained the same Strength but didn't require as high a roll to kill until it fully regenerated.

2.25.5 Incremental Enemies

A few types of intelligent Enemies have come up that actually gain in either Strength or Craft, making them tougher and tougher to overcome the longer they stay on the board. Appropriate tokens are placed upon these to reflect this. There's good and bad in this option. The Enemy becomes a bigger trophy if defeated, but it gets harder to defeat, possibly begging a Spell to simply blast it from the board. It might partly depend on how it gains that extra Craft or Strength.

NOTE: Some may remember the old Doppleganger Enemy. It does not belong to this subcategory of special Enemies and was horribly misinterpreted for Talisman. A true Doppleganger, a "mortal" demon, was a physical shape-shifter that killed a victim and assumed its form to get at other unsuspecting victims. It should also not be confused with the Rakshasa, which in contemporary misinterpretation were a kind of mental shifter. It charmed a victim into seeing it as someone ultimately trustworthy and thereby took its victims by surprise... usually before they could draw a weapon and prepare. By historically accurate cultural mythology, Rakshasa are actually a form of giant in India, sometimes a holy being.

2.25.6 Draining Enemies

These obviously include vampiric types, so to speak, though not all are vampires per se. When they defeat a Character, they gain the life the Character loses... if it loses one (not always the case when Armour is involved). Another option is that they simply gain a Life under certain conditions beyond defeating a Character. Maybe they "eat" any other Enemy that is drawn, moved, etc. onto their space, or they consume a trophy (of perhaps one subtype) that a Character still has when encountered.

These types have always been problematic. Until it is out of Lives, it can't be killed and taken as a trophy. Any Character lopping off that last Life has to move on. Someone else might actually "kill" and claim it for a trophy. Yes, most of us remember the old Vampire, Enemy-Spirit (huh, Spirit?) from 2nd edition. It was a pain in the butt but still entertaining at times. Lots of fuming and cussing after bashing it down to no Lives only to have some other adventurer finish it off.

Other possibilities exists, though this is a rather mono-dimensional special Enemy. Perhaps some might have additional abilities, such as expending a collected Life to do other things - move a space, collect a spell, etc. But such would get complicated and hard to describe on one little Adventure card.

In no case should an Enemy drain a Craft or Strength from a Character and take such for itself. Other than Growing Enemies described under Incremental Enemies, forcing a Character to lose a Strength or Craft should be merely a loss to the Character and not a gain for the Enemy. Doing otherwise defies all logic by what those earned Strength and Craft really mean - learned skill, not innate change in the Character. Even in that, it's hard to justify logically or by the game, considering elevated Craft and Strength really mean.

2.25.7 Raiding Enemies

Not to be confused with the Raiders, a few like this have popped up. They are really nasty for players to face! Raiding by definition is about taking anything and everything of possessions from an adventurer. Any such defeated by a Raiding Enemy will have one or more Objects, Magic Objects, Gold, or even Followers taken instead of (or in addition to) a Life. If multiples of the affected card type are held by the Character, and one is designated to be lost, it should be chosen randomly. Any exception to this should be outlined on the Enemy's card for choosing which one (and possibly which type). In general, the adventurer shouldn't be allowed to choose what is lost (unless we just want to be kind). Three sub-options also exist.

• Consumers simply eat, destroy, or otherwise cause the discard of whatever it takes from Character.
• Hoarders keep what they take and are counted as cards on that space. Any future Character that defeats the Enemy is the only one who can take those cards. They are possessed by the "hoarding" Enemy and cannot be touched according to encounter rules for card Order numbers.
• Users can use certain Objects to their advantage. Imagine if those original Raiders, reclassified as an Enemy-Monster, stayed on the Oasis and had collected Weapons with which to defend their treasure. Yes, in other words, real Raiders!

There are other possibilities for special Enemies beyond sub-type, sub-sub-type, and Strength versus Craft considerations. But these seven variants mentioned are enough. And such Enemies are slightly to extremely difficult to calculate when it comes to properly balancing an expansion.

2.24 Balancing Enemy Cards

Putting aside that we're working with 1/4 of the Enemies sub-deck when we get to creating cards, we have four different dimensions of each subtype of Enemy to maintain in overall new creations: (Range or) Lowest and Highest, Average, and Median. It won't be easy to calculate and adjust to correct balance without using something like a spreadsheet.

If at all possible, Median, Average, and Count of cards among Enemy sub-types should remain the same as for the standard cards. Low and High can be toyed with, and if incremented by the same amount, the Median will remain stable - but the Average may not. Below is an example of what happened when I tried to alter Lowest and Highest (thereby keeping the same Median) and maintaining Count among "Monsters" cards.

In the new cards, we lost 1 in Strength. That's 1 less in Trophy points for Characters to collect and trade in. Though we maintained the Median, the Average was altered. Not by much, and perhaps not enough for great worry. But we can see that simply coming up with new cards off the cuff is an amateurish approach. It inevitably leads to greater and greater imbalances than depicted here when doing all four subtypes of Enemies. The Average's drop means the percentage chance of defeating an Enemy in this subtype has been altered. The proposed Monsters expansion above is slightly easier to defeat yet provides less points in Trophies. Neither of these are really desirable.

We could simply label our new expansion as "easier" and leave it to players to decide if it's worth it. But anyone can do that and it's lazy. If we want to be just another creator in the herd, then fine; if not, we do the work to leave the herd behind. This is where a spreadsheet comes in handy versus trial and error and manual calculations. Study the tables above, and you'll see the simple equations implied by the bottom rows. The two primes to maintain are Attribute Total and Average, then if possible keep the Median as well. A good expansion can do all three.

Try to get any difference in Average below 0.1. Keep the spreadsheet handy as you create your primary card ideas already in mind. Enter them where appropriate, and see where else you need to adjust the spreadsheet's line items. Likely, taking Monsters as an example, you won't have notions for all of them. Once your primary notions are created and entered, adjust other cards not yet created. Where a particular item for a listed Strength Craft count shows more than 1 card, considered splitting it into multiple line items, one per each card. This will give you more flexibility for adjustments while maintiaing proper card count. Fill in all undesigned cards with more generic notions to complete all 9 Monster cards needed for a full 104 Adventure deck. If doing less the 104, obviously you'll need to make proportional changes to the standard numbers you'll compare against.

When it comes to Strength based Enemies, you have three types, so you can compensate for one with another... but don't let any one of them get outlandishly unbalanced. If Monsters are a hair high in Average, and Animals are a hair low, but their Attribute Totals are correct, they can balance each other. You might even run numbers for all three Strength sub-types separately (Monsters, Animals, Dragons) AND THEN check them all together (summing the standards numbers as well for comparison). Now there are four other considerations.

2.24.1 Balancing Multi and Variable Enemies

These shouldn't be attempted by a faint-hearted designer who is interested in proper balance. If we choose to use any such creation, we need to rate if as if it had a standard, singular, fixed Strength or Craft for one Enemy on that one card. Here's how to do this.

For Multi-Enemies, Standard Count...

Do not attempt this type of Enemy unless you are prepared to work the mechanics (at least fuzzily) for implementation. Difficulties inherent may be why few such were introduced into commercial (professional) expansions. Then again, not all of those bothered to pay attention to game balance... or mechanics.

If the number of Enemies on the card are Random Count, it gets even harder. For that, calculate the probability of all potential Counts of Enemies and find the average (not median). Keep any decimal (do not round off), and proceed to use this result as a stable Count to do the above calculations by the stated Strength (or Craft) for individual opponents. Only when fully complete should you round off the final result for ease in entering it into your spreadsheet. Again, include such special Enemies at the risk of your own migraine!

For Variable Enemies (easier than Multi-Enemies)...

2.24.2 Juicing up the Enemy's sub-deck

If we chose, we can make the Enemy cards tougher, but we don't use that as excuse for off-handed card design. A juiced sub-deck may seem out of balance, and we'd be half-right in that. Some groups of players will say "bring it on!" But it still needs to be balanced unto itself if purposefully out of balance with the rest of the deck.

We always start with the previous method by spreadsheet and/or manual calculation AND THEN we go through and add +1 or more to all proposed Enemies of Strength or Craft. That way we can flat out and cleanly list a difficulty rating of +1 (or whatever) for the expansion pack. (Rating expansions by Difficulty and Balance is something I will post on at a later date.) If the Average, Median and Range (High and Low) are all over the place, we can't say anything for certain at all (whether we juice it or not). One thing could be inferred by anyone else: we were lazy.

2.24.3 Other Special Ability Enemies

The variables involved are, well, varied. Some don't need to be accounted for in balancing, while others directly affecting rolls made by adventurers must be accounted for. There are ways to distinguish these, and differing methods would be used for differing variables, but these are se widely varied that I cannot cover them all herein. Previous address of special types should give you some hints as to what to look for and calculate. If you're not up to it, avoid Special Monsters other than the two I've exemplified. That's all I can say without doubling the length of this already too long long post.

2.24.4 A Note about "Animals" and "Spirits"

Most standard Animals ones are predators or otherwise potentially hostile upon encounter. To be honest, there aren't many more we could come up with (without really searching or getting ridiculous). But still, we shouldn't use this as an excuse to (1) abandon creating a proportional amounts or (2) sticking non-Animal or altered Animals into this subtype. Do the work, and keep the Enemy subtypes correctly proportioned... even if you just have to put in duplicates of standard ones.

The same applies to Spirits, with many common ones already respresented (or misrepresented by pop-culture and modern genericising).

2.25 Example Enemy Cards

Here's an example of a balancing table showing Monster subtypes. Example cards follow, and these include Enemies of all 4 standard subtypes. Most have extra effects or abilities, making them more challenging and slightly "juiced up," as it were. (Yes, I've decided to deviate a little my original purpose in turning beyond providing something for Neutral adventurers and balancing Alignment based inequities in the standard deck.) A few of these special attributes won't make full sense until additional cards (Spells and Purchases) are released for the full In the Balance expansion.

The following are selections for the coming "Alpha" release of In the Balance: Adventure Cards, Part 1.

Table 25: Enemy Sub-Deck Creations, Part 1

Title	Sub-Type	Description
	Animal	Strength 3+. Forget the "king"; fear the "queen" (S3) & her "ladies" (S2). Roll 1D6 and fight them all at once. 1-2) none, 3-4) 1 lady, 5) 2 ladies, 6) 3 ladies. NOTE: Anyone who knows lions knows the females of the pride are the serious hunters.
	Animal	Strength 2. Are you going to kill some farmer's prized lost livestock... you common thug! Instead, you could catch it (no weapons or combat bonuses) and take it to any "Fields" space or the "Village" for 1G reward.
	Monster	Strength 3. Ætheric. A fouled exorcism created this "cursed" thing. If you roll 1 on any die while in its space, all your Magic Objects failed - and fail to work until your next turn.
	Monster	Strength 1. Magical. If you lose by 3+, lose a Turn to poison. If you win by less than 3, it scurries away undamaged and remains.
	Monster	Strength 3. Criminal. Lose and you lose a Gold or Life; lose by 4+ & they steal 1 Object or Magic Object (random). They keep & use anything for Strength or Attack (Weapons). Aftewards, roll 1D6 & move them clockwise.
	Monster	Strength 5. If you lose, it eats a random Follower. To save the Follower, sacrifice a Life. If you have no Followers, lose a Life.
	Dragon	Strength 4. Win or lose, roll 1D6 versus Current Strength. Fail and you succumb to its diseased breath. On movement of 5+ (rolled or not) lose a Life until you visit a Doctor, Healer, Witch, or Physician. NOTE: This is a little known form of limbless dragon that lives in fetid water, though I wasn't able to account for the folk legend way of driving it off. It's one theorized origin for the "gargoyle." The image is not fully representative.
	Spirit	Craft 4. Ætheric. A fallen adventurer appears (1D6): 1) Castle, 2) Warlock's Cave, 3) Cursed Glade, 4) Sentinel, 5) City, 6) Village. Visit it to see what it wants: 1) Follower [C+1], 2-5) Attack!, 6) Vengence! Take 1 Life from a character of differing Alignment & gain 1 Fate. NOTE: The classical Greek eidolon is akin to (forerunner of) the true wraith (or warth): an apparition of a person appearing to loved ones just before, during, or after death. It is a portent of imminent demise, not a spirit (undead or not). That wouldn't work for Talisman, so this one is another lean to pop-culture / modern media misinterpretations.
	Spirit	Craft 3. If you lose, roll 1D6 for each [Magic] Object & add the amount by which you lost. On 6+, it is knocked: 6 or 8) 1 space clockwise; 7 or 9) 1 space counterclockwise; 10+) into the river (discard). NOTE: I just had to put in a real one. Couldn't help myself.
	Spirit	Strength 5. He's (in)corporeal in a blink, as he wishes. So Armour and Weapons are worthless, and you must fight him with Craft vs. his Strength. NOTE: Yes, you read it right; Strength because he causes physical damage, but physical attacks don't affect him. This "Spirit" gives Craft-based adventurers a shot at picking up a Strength trophy (as illogical as it is). And it might give Strength based characters (weak on Craft) a moment's pause.

Within the one week, I'll provided a download link for the "Alpha" version of In the Balance: Adventure Cards, Part 1 to a limited faction of the Talisman community in the hope of feedback for further refinement. The complete expansion will eventually include cards of equal count to the standard game for all decks: Adventure, Spell, Object, and even Alignment, Toad, and a couple of Characters. These will be dealt with in the near future as time permits around my novel work.

Thank you for taking the ride so far. I hope you'll return in a couple weeks once I get back to posting new articles concerned with "Balancing the Talisman."

Once again we continue in our multi-part exploration of the 7 sub-decks of the Adventure deck, this time in looking at Event cards. Without further preamble, let's proceed to looking at all Event cards of which we might select 1/4 appropriate to include in a Part 1 of a four part Supplemental Expansion.

2.22 Events - Standard Card Inventory

These represent local (space), regional (Inner or Outer), and Land (whole board) effects upon Characters and sometimes other cards in play. Once again, I added sub-type considerations which might interact with other cards. Let's categorized what the standard cards do.

ASIDE: Sub-types here (or sub-sub-types elsewhere) are a continuation of my new addition, though this time they are mostly about seeing how many of each type have been included. We could classify evermore finitely, but five basic categories are enough for what I intend in how some interact with, or might be affected or negated by, other cards.

• Ætheric refers to any Event associated to the generic powers of Alignment - Good, Evil, and Neutral (or if you prefer, Nature/Balance) - as in the the realm of Æther outside of the physical world where the Powers reside (or some of them). It is somewhat related to other cards sub-(sub-)typed as Æther (such as the Archon of Champions among Strangers).
• Faerie (or Fay as a realm/force) is often considered halfway between the Ætheric and the mundane world, or somethine else entirely. It is otherworldly regardless of whether it is closely or remotely attached to the mundage world. Hence its separate classification regardless that its is semi-associated to my redefinition of Neutrality in Talisman.
• Magical refers to anything related to Magic Objects, Spells, sometimes the spirit world (Astral) or otherwise, and magic in general, though in Talisman (as in historical occultism) the line between pure magic and theurgy (deity or otherworldly sources of miracles and powers) is blurred to the point of a fog.
• Worldly refers to events related to civilizations, cultures, and peoples.
• Natural obviously refers to events of the natural world. And no, Pestilence doesn't just occur in civilized (Worldly) areas. For that matter, Pestilence implies disease spread by pests, most commonly insects, and not just a Plague. Unlike Weather (which ordinarily would be a Natural event), those of Natural type sometimes allow an adventurer (Character) to do something to avoid or lessen their effect.
• Weather is separated from Natural because (1) it's usually wider spread, (2) its reach my have more to it than just area of effect, (3) is far harder to avoid than Natural events, and (4) often has a lesser effect if the outcome is negative. It can also cause localized or centrus-oriented Natural and secondary events (Flood, Landslides, Wild Fires, etc.). Certain Weather type Events can sometimes be local (space-oriented) which are often the most dangerous and destructive kind.

Some Events are hard to sub-type. Take for instance the Imp, which to some might have been classified as Magical by what he does - he Teleports a victim. But Teleport is just a reference term here to describe the effect, not how he actually does it. He isn't using magic, per se, but a power bestowed up on him. An Imp in classical multi-cultural mythology is most often demonic (a demon) or diabolic (a devil), and these two not being the same, by the way. Ætheric was more suitable choice once we look behind the fanciful title this card was given.

If you choose to use any sub-typing (for an actual purpose, otherwise skip it), you'll have to make some similar hard choices by a bit of reasoning and research. And please don't think a quick trip to Wikipedia (or the internet at all, for that matter) will give you accurate information. As an ex-academic who taught research writing, I know all about it, so take me at my word.

As we can see, there are some definite imbalances.

• Mephistopheles is the only card that changes a Character's Alignment (always a purely mechanical notion that can't be well reasoned). At least once in the deck there's a chance for Evil to automatically gain a convert (willing or not), but no such for Good or Neutral. Not that Alignment really means that much in Talisman.
• One Weather Event, the Blizzard, somehow covers the whole land, though we know that's not really how this weather event always works.
• There is one beneficial Magical Event, but it only affects one space, hence one Character, while the Magical Vortex whips through the entire land (a bit much to believe, but there it is).

And so, with these and others, we'll have to think carefully when it comes to creating new Events - not just in proportionalizing new cards but in balancing small and large inequities. But first...

2.23 Card Mechanics Inventory

Let's look at this sub-deck from multiple angles, for Events are the most difficult (mixed up) sub-deck to inventory by mechanics. Not only do they range in what aspects of a Character's existence are affected, they have differing durations and - very important - area of effect. One card can affect every Character on the board; few other sub-decks have cards with this kind of reach. But mechanics, or specifically how they affect and what affect about Characters, is the key. We'll first organize by Character Attribute affected (which this time includes Activities and Possessions as well).

Notice that for the most part, negative / deficit effects cover a large area (Land to Region), while anything with benefits usually targets a smaller area (usually local, a space). A strange choice for these unavoidable effects. I suppose there's a some sense in that, as it slightly levels the playing field for a moment here and there. But one wonders "why would the playing field need to be leveled?" Perhaps because the game is so random in so many directions and dimensions, it is a nightmare to make all of it balance out. And/or because the design of certain game elements never has been balanced, and with some, they've gotten worse with new editions. Or Events were just put in as a way to mess with the characters. Who knows.

We should treat them as extra spice in the game, perhaps looking to be slightly more balanced that the standard cards, though overall Events will be obstacles, challenges, and setbacks. But they should not be utter unavoidable catastrophies... as seen in some nonsense one-off cards at times. Let's look at this from another angle.

Note that the number of Events that favor Good and Evil are 2 each. It seems equal (if we disregard Neutral) by this superficial count. It isn't, because the two Good oriented Events target only a space, while one Evil favoring event affects the whole board (essentially giving all Evil characters an extra turn). The one non-Aligned Ætheric event is the Imp, and though it will affect any character it encounters, its nature by its title is also Evil. Hmm, seems like for new Ætheric events we can almost drop a brick on the Good side of the scales just to achieve balance. Not true, because it wouldn't work, and it would still ignore Neutral characters.

Let's look at other potentials for the differing subtypes and how any might affect Characters by their attributes and/or possessions and activities.

2.23.1 ÆTHERIC...

The Powers seem mostly interested in whacking Characters for a Life or giving certain Alignments an extra turn or an extra Craft point (Evil ones only, of course). Overall, I don't quite see Evil Darkness actually bringing Good and Neutral to a halt (or if your prefer, giving Evil characters an extra term, since the result is the same). And again, we could mimic or mirror these effects for other alignments, though that would be rather boring if that's all we did. Let's look as some possibilities.

Lives might be lost or gained by Alignment, and often are in the same event, the benefit or deficit being based on Alignment when the Event occurs in one instance and only for one Space. Using Ætheric Events to affect Lives across a Region or the whole Land isn't logical. If one of the three Powers did this, you can bet the other two would jump in. Next thing you know, everyone is losing and gaining lives right and left. That's too random and nonsensical... and there's enough of that as it is.

Craft and Strength should be treated for gains only, as having Ætheric events taking such from characters connected to other Powers would again make the other two mad enough to start messing with the offenders own adherents. The result would be much the same as for Lives, too random, and make players feel like they have no true control in building up their only two worthwhile Character attributes. In general, the Powers want those serving or aligned to them to work to become champions. Otherwise they'd have just given their believers all the Craft and Strength needed at the beginning of the game.

Gold and Objects generally shouldn't be dished out by Ætheric Events. There's just no sense in it. The Powers aren't interested in making Characters wealthy, since then they (the players, rather than characters) get a bit power mad or lazy if they haven't had to work hard for what they've gained.

Fate is perhaps one attribute that the Powers would give or take, for it is their domain. As for Lives, but more so, they wouldn't do so wholesale across a Region or the whole Land. This attribute should only be affected positively, for Characters of the correct Alignment. Such Events shouldn't take Fate from Characters of another Alignment - with one possible exception. If we consider that Characters have a Starting Alignment and may have a different Current Alignment, (changed willingly or not), perhaps an Ætheric Event could put that one (or all characters) under divine judgment, taking away a Fate for deviance, falling from grace, straying from the path, etc. Exactly how that might be written up on a card is something that would take some thought.

Physical and Psychic Combat (but not Defense / Armour rolls) might be affected as well, when one Power of one Alignment attempts to assert its influence. Perhaps this should be limited to one Region or Space, as throwing its weight around across the whole Land could incite the other two to jump in wholesale as well. The effect of such an Even should be in the positive, and likely not affect Adventure cards. It would be an Event that attempted to give a +1 in Combat for any Character of particular Alignment who could assault another Player of different Alignment during, say, the next 1 round only. To keep things balanced, three such Events (or none at all) should be included as three separate cards, one for each Alignment.

2.23.2 FAERIE...

The one Faerie event, the Siren, affects all characters in a Region. It used to be a Stranger card (2nd & 3rd editions) that affected only Humans, doing so throughout the whole Land. Why it was changed is as yet a mystery, since (1) it doesn't stay on the board at all and (2) that old way is the real siren by myth and legend. It was likely reclassified as an Event based on what it does rather than what it is (a poor choice), yet the change of range and effect still makes no sense. It should have been relabeled and made into some other creature or effect.

These types of Events, counter to the Siren's example, should be dealt with somewhat like Ætheric. In actuality, the realm of Faerie has little interest in issues of mortal morality, or Good and Evil, contrary to some very tilted fairy tales which, after-all, were written by humans (or mostly Christian adherents and clergy). The Siren's "song" is actually misrepresented, even for correct myth and legend. So let's not go there again. If you choose to make Faerie based Events outside of the concept of Alignment, keep them whimsical, sometimes mischievous and inconvenient, or humorous, and leave it at that.

2.23.3 MAGICAL...

The two standard magical events are purely about Spells. In one, everyone throughout the Land loses theirs, while the other let's one player draws it's Character's full compliment by Craft.

Anything to do with Magic would not have to be limited to Spells, but whatever we come up with should be limited to how Characters interact with magic and it should not be confused with the theurgical, religious, or Ætheic or Faerie. So basicly, beyond Spells, the only other possibilities are Magic Objects and/or immunity to certain magical or non-magical general effects in the game.

Balancing the two standard Magical Events might be an option, though certainly a Land-wide gaining of maximum Spells would through a game out of balance at least for a short while. Some type of counter to the Book of Spells might be interesting, where something happens to strip one Character of its Spells. There might also be something else to consider, like the changing of Spells suddenly, making those who have them discard all and draw new ones, just for fun... or some cases, to their relief.

If Magic Objects are to be affected by a Magical Event, either by space, region, or whole, such would always be negative. Magical Objects are positives as they stand. Two possible effects come to mind: Negation, Temporary or Permanent.

• Temporary would turn Magic Objects to a normal one for perhaps 1 Turn. Weapons and Armour might still function as normal weapons and armour, but other objects (like a Ring, Crown, or Orb of Knowledge) might cease to function. Area of effect would also play a factor, though it would be best to make it no more than a Region or Space and not the whole Land.
• Permanent would strip one or more Magic Objects of all their powers (this might even classify as an Ætheric event, depending on how it is implemented, the conditions therefor, and how it is described). In this case, to keep things from getting too complicated, the object in question (even if a weapon) should immediately be discarded.

A sudden Blessing of an Object, making it Magical (likely just a bonus in Physical or Psychic Combat) is another possibility. Though now that it comes to mind, this should probably be handled under Ætheric, and only for a Character with the right Current Alignment. Overall, such an Event might be too complicated to regulate and balance against standard rules, and there are plenty of Magic Objects available, considering commercial expansions on top of the standard deck. Best to just stick to affecting Spells and Magic Objects when it comes to Magical Events; it's simpler and cleaner that way.

2.23.4 NATURAL...

These kinds of Events don't always have to be in the Natural "disaster" category, though thats going to be what most people will think of first. Overall, any Natural Event will Likely affect only Lives and Movement, Never Fate, unlikely Gold, though perhaps Objects might be lost in some cases. As to Strength and Craft, for a loss not a gain, there are some possibilities with a few types of disease or noxious Events. They should perhaps be limited to a Region and not the whole Land, and no more than one should be included in any expansion (perhaps only one among a set of 104 expansion Adventure cards)

Among possible positive Natural Events might be things like a good harvest, a fair season for growing, or other nature related issues (if you can think of any). Properly described and implemented, they might even enhance the 4th editions claimed aim of speeding up the gain. Such might affect Movement (a bonus of some kind) or Lives (allowing a free 1 healed, not gained). They probably should not affect Strength or Craft nor Gold or Objects or Fate.

2.23.4 WEATHER...

Weather is mostly about affecting Movement or Turn, slowing down characters by Region or Land; there are other possibilities from the real world that if carefully reasoned and adapted could be fitted into the game's mechanics wiithout destroying balance.

Like Natural Events, these are most commonly conceived of in negative / detrimental forms. Again, that doesn't always have to be the case. Examples that exist in the standard deck are also not the only negative ones, especially if you take time to look at some that were in previous Talisman editions that weren't carried over to 4th. But be judicious, as some standard previous ones, past and present, were a bit ludicrous, poorly reasoned, and poorly implemented. In general, weather would affect Movement, possibly Lives, and rarely Objects, but never Strength, Craft, Fate or Gold.

Positive Weather Events might include clear days or fair weather that would affect Movement only. Some types of weather might affect some character types either negatively or positively, base on their implied race (not Alignment or profession/calling). Imagine a long period of sunny days and how it might affect the Ghoul and other such dark to undead creatures. Foul dark days might have an inverse effect. Cold and hot have possibilities as well. But we should be (1) well reasoned in such effects and (2) able to implement them cleanly an clearly in a short description... otherwise skip it.

2.23.5 WORLDLY...

Worldly events, the two represented, have to do with Objects and Gold. In 2nd edition the Raiders took Objects as well as Gold from the Character they encountered. In 4th they take only Gold, and then (as before) run off some place where they can't actually spend it (the Oasis). Oh, and they've always disappeared for some reason, leaving their trove undefended. Go figure.

Please, don't ask me to explain any of this nonsense, especially the 4th edition's further addition to this messed up card, much as the old version did add some fun as everyone tried to get to those stolen goodies. Still calling them Raiders in 4th is baffling, since they're little more than very stupid Bandits. I guess changing to a (truly) more appropriate title would have (1) confused them with the Enemy cards bearing the same title, and (2) been too much verisimilitude... maybe.

These already have a positive and negative effect. Both are indiscriminate when in comes to Character race and profession / calling as well as Alignment. All Worldly Events should be indiscriminant in general, though some might affect certain Characters (and Followers!) not by race or Alignment but by where they come from. Avoid basing Worldly Events on gender, race, alignment, profession, etc., but rather on conditions, activities, commerce, war, etc., and all the other worldly things of daily life in a feudal, semi-civilized land. Try to balance between beneficial and detrimental, though even positive events would leand toward inconvenient to greedy, power-hunger, meglo-manian adventurers.

Most such events will affect how Characters interact with the Talisman world on a mundane level. That means through Gold and perhaps Objects, though possibly Lives as well, as these are the only truly mundane avenues for affecting Characters. Some Worldly Events might affect Movement (curfews, warfare, free trade initiatives, increased wild life incursions, etc.)

As you can see with Events, and as with Places and more-so, examining possibilities has been kept sketchy. Going into great detail for Events would create the most bloated of all analytical guidelines compared to even other sub-decks examined so far.

2.24 Balancing Event Cards

There are two major considerations for balancing Event cards, regardless that they can be a collective hodge-podge seemingly complex beyond analysis. As we create 13 new ones (with or without the sub-types designated), we should look to

1. balancing as needed against standard Events that create imbalances in what affect they have on Characters, and/or
2. balancing those same losses and gains, durations and areas of effect, among newly created cards.

Doing so in all dimensions won't be wholly possible, but the consideration should get us part way... and keep new Events from at least adding to imbalances created the standard ones. Considering Alignment based effects among standard cards, we have

1. One "Space" oriented card that benefits Evil, deficits Good, and ignores Neutral (by Lives)
2. One "Space" oriented card that benefits Good, deficits Evil, and ignores Neutral (by Lives)
3. One "Land" oriented card that benefits Evil (by Turns)
4. One "Space" oriented card that benefits Evil (by Craft), and converts Good/Neutral to Evil.

Does it still sound a bit tilted? It does to me, including the conversion part, though it can only occur once. So our attempt at balancing (if possible) should include

1. One "Space" oriented card that benefits Neutral (by Lives, preferably)
2. One "Land" oriented card that deficits Evil (by Turns, preferably)
3. One "Space" oriented card that benefits (slightly) Good/Neutral (by other Attributes), and possible converts Evil (to at least Neutral).

That last item I'm not so certain of, since changes of Alignment are far too mechanical (and almost pointless) in Talisman. But let's see what I can come up with.

2.25 Example Event Cards

Table 20: Place Sub-Deck Creations

Title	Type	Description
	Ætheric	All adventurers whose current Alignment differs from their character card lose 1 Fate for deviance. Those with zero Fate are unaffected.
	Ætheric	Nature awakens to your presence. If Neutral, gain 1 Life. If Evil, lose 1 life. If Good, there is no effect.
	Ætheric	All Evil adventurers cringe and hide... and lose 1 Turn. All Enemy-Spirits present in the Land (board) vanish in fright (discard).
	Faerie	The "Lively" Fay, demiurge of Faerie, confronts you. If Neutral, gain 1 Strength. If Good, heal 1 Life. If Evil, become Neutral.
	Magical	Magic goes awry! All Spells are discarded, including any held by Followers & Magic Objects. Shuffle the Spell deck (including discard pile). Starting with you, all adventurers re-draw the number of Spells they had.
	Magical	Oh no, you saw your reflection! Nature has a wicked wit. Draw one Spell and immediately cast it upon yourself!
	Natural	All adventurers lose 1 Life or 1 Follower unless they pay 1 Gold or discard 1 Object for food at a high price.
	Natural	All adventurers in the Region roll 2d6 against Current Craft or Strength. Fail and you must choose to lose 1 Life, Follower, Magic Object or Object.
	Weather	Nature rests peacefully, and tomorrow, serenity covers the land. All adventurers on their next movement roll may optionally move one extra space. Any who move without rolling don't gain this bonus.
	Weather	All adventurers in this Region roll 1D6 against their Craft for each "Animal" Follower. Fail and the animal runs off (discard) along with anything it carries.
	Worldly	All Rural & Urban Places & Strangers close for 3 Turns. All adventurers must reach Castle, Temple, or an Outer corner space by the 3rd turn, or "Noble" & "Urban" Followers leave for festivities (discard).
	Worldly	An eve of ease & cheer is declared. All adventurers with "Human(oid)" Followers must pay 1 Gold or lose 1 Turn or they leave (discard), you ingrate!
	Worldly	For 3 Turns all "Rural" Places & Strangers close. Each adventurer must visit Forest, Woods, Hidden Valley, or Sacred Glade by the 3rd turn - or their "Wilderness" & "Faerie" Followers leave for wassail rites (discard).

Some are wild and out of the ordinary, but among most I've tried to apply options (good and bad) that don't exist in standard Event cards. Balancing Alignment inequities was difficult and wasn't fully achieved, but perhaps enough to be worth it. A few are a bit of Worldly nonsense and jibes that all adventurers (instead of some) will have to face. As you can see, here we also have Events that interact with Strangers, Places, and Followers based on newly applied Sub-Types found on those new cards. We'll see if any of this finds some favor once they are play tested.

And so, we near the end of expansion examinations for the Adventure deck. Next time, we'll look at Enemies as a whole and return to doing just a 1/4, Part 1 of the In the Balance expansion. Watch for the next installment in another week to ten days.

If you're a Talisman enthusiast visiting here for the first time, you may wish to read "Adventure Cards, Part 1-4" before continuing. This time around we look at Place cards sub-deck of the Adventure deck, which exhibit a range of Activities which seem to blend Services and Abilities from previous sub-decks with some additional effects as well. Let's proceed, looking at all the cards before creating new ones, of which we might select 1/4 appropriate to include in a Part 1 of a four part Supplemental Expansion.

2.18 Places - Standard Card Inventory

When compared to the other 6 sub-decks, Places appear to be a hodge-podge, some acting like localized Events, others like a few Services among Strangers, and a bit more. They're a catch-all for anything (1) that doesn't fit elsewhere or (2) something extra desired when other sub-deck inventories are already full. Let's categorized what the cards do.

ASIDE: Subtypes here are a continuation of my new addition for potential future use (as first introduced for Followers). In this case, only an Origin is designated, which shows roughly where some Places would occur regardless of what kind of space they are drawn on.

Examples: Let's face it, that Maze isn't going to stay navigable unless someone's trimming those hedges, so it can't possibly be in Wilderness; it sure wouldn't be Urban, since no city or town would put somthing like that in the way of its citizens. Hence it has to be Rural, and even if placed in Woods or Hills, perhaps there's some unvisited hamlet nearby, where some wacko lives who just had to keep that Maze trimmed and groomed. The Market's business wouldn't thrive in the Wilderness, but could be found in any settle zone from Urban to Rural (which includes Suburban in this case); Rural just seems best for its standard realm of origin, and again, wherever it pops up, obviously there's some little settlement that just doesn't offer any other services (like the Village).

At present I don't know how I'll use Place subtypes as compared to those for Followers and Strangers. Ignore this new attribute for Places unless you wish to match like proportions of such among your own cards or have notions for use (which you might tell me about). Proportions according to subtype aren't as important as for previous sub-decks and wouldn't affect game balance dramatically.

2.19 Card Mechanics Inventory

We'll examine shortly what each generic "Activity" category really means, though they're probably obvious. First we re-inventory based on mechanics, counting not the number of cards but the number of times a particular Activity is present among the standard 9 Places.

There really aren't that many Activities among Places, and worse, there aren't many other options unaccounted for among the standard cards that we might apply to new Places (without overloading or further blurring the definitions of differing sub-decks). With a little bending and imagination, we might come up with new Activities, but others may be a stumper. Let's look at them from a more generic standpoint to see if there are possibilities not covered (and perhaps why not).

2.19.1 CHALLENGE...

These seem like just a list of 6 random possibilities by the one example present - the Cave. Honestly, it is a poor example or rather an example of all the wrong things to do with this card type, which had/has great potential. It has changed a bit in the 4th edition, so let's pause and look at its history, though this may not reveal much that is useful (but implies much that was overlooked).

Differences in the Cave by Edition

Roll	2nd Edition, Optional Roll	3rd Edition, Optional Roll	4th Edition, Require Roll
1	Dragon, Str. 7	Dragon, Str. 7	Dragon, Str. 7
2	Goblin, Str. 2	Goblin, Str. 2	Goblin, Str. 2
3	Lost 1 Turn	Lost 1 Turn	Lost 1 Turn
4	1 Gold	1 Gold	2 Gold
5	2 Gold	2 Gold	2 Gold
6	3 Gold	3 Gold	3 Gold

Nothing changed until in 4th edition. FFG's has stated that general changes in 4th were done to speed up the game (among other goals). It's not clear how that is accomplished here, since one card may not be drawn in every game, nor how a mandatory roll speeds up anything. The forced risk could lead to extra lost lives with no gain if encountered early on. Why a character is forced to enter without choice can't be reasoned at all, regardless that it's consistent with other 4th edition forced encounters, such as in the City, Village, etc.

Talisman takes its inspiration from fantasy role-playing games (FRPGs), yet this card doesn't truly represent such - less so in the 4th edition. The Cave represents FRPG's most basic and mundane challenge: defeat the evil monster and be rewarded. Yet this card is not only more pure randomness (in the wrong way) but backward from its origin inspiration. Locations like this are supposedly where monsters have made a den or warren, but defeating an intelligent (and potentially greedy) monster doesn't give you any treasure. If the place is uninhabited (or the monster isn't at home), somehow there's treasure to be had. It's almost the opposite of most FRPG encounters of this type.

In addition, how does one get lost (miss a Turn) in a simple Cave? Does it actually mean a subterrane complex, fissure, natural labyrinth? There were/are plenty of other better terms, better options, and ones where a change of wording could support a character getting lost, so why weren't they used? Sorry, I don't have a true answer myself.

Needless to say, it's a board game, and simplification is required versus a full FRPG. But obvious better possibilities should've been seen after multiple editions or decades. Here's a slightly better way that the Cave could've been set up from the beginning. And we'll put back the character choice option (so the cowardly can run away but get nothing).

The Better Cave:
If you enter, roll 1D6:

1. Dragon, Str. 7
2. Ogre Str. 5
3. Goblin Str. 2
4. Empty
5. Empty
6. Empty

Fight any Enemy. If you rolled "Empty" or defeat an Enemy, subtract the roll from 5 for Gold you gain (min. 0).

It's only a tiny bit more complex than the original card, yet it links increased danger to increased gain (instead of decreased danger for increased gain). It makes more sense to anyone who isn't just looking for more freebies. I'm betting those truly interested in fantasy escapism would say its more fun this way.

On rolls of 4, 5, or 6 (no one is home), possible Gold found is 0, 0, and 1 - less than freebies on the 4th edition version, but still a chance of finding one coin. And look at what's gained if you face a real challenge. On rolls of 1, 2, 3, with Enemies less and less difficult, the reward is also less, but the Dragon has 4G, the Ogre has 3G, and the Goblin has 2G. The overall amount of gold by the odds is higher than the original card, though to get the big bucks you have to beat the monster. That's the way it works in FRPG. Obviously it still works here in a simplified board game fashion.

ASIDE: This links into a topic I'll cover months from now called "Rules by Equation." Certain very simple equations are easily understood by anyone who learns some basic game notation. We've all seen them, though we might not remember them by this reference. The Better Cave is just such and example: 5 - 1d6 = Amount of Gold, if criteria described are met. See, you were already reading a simple Equation through words, and I'm betting most of us figured it out with little trouble. Simple equations can also be combined with tables in some cases. But what I'll be looking at in another month or two is how simple Rules by Equations can work for some game rules, avoiding having to look up rules (some containing tables) in order to find out what you can and can't do, what you can and can't have, etc. More on this in months to come.

Similar approaches can be done with other Challenge type Places, where the spirit of FRPG is kept but simplified for a board game in actual "Activity". This is better than more blind randomness for freebies that will be patched with yet another Fate re-roll showing no grit for facing a Challenge. Having "adventurers" gain when they avoid danger is... well... is that really what adventuring is about?

Another option exists for the Cave (which I don't particularly recommend) where the amount of treasure might be random (as in FRPGs), even for what is faced. Chance truly becomes a factor for choosing a risk... again, like in FRPGs. But the extra random is used within the true nature of facing a challenge for greater gain.

The True Cave:
If you enter, roll 1 die:

1. Dragon, Str. 7
2. Ogre Str. 5
3. Goblin Str. 2
4. Empty
5. Empty
6. Empty

Fight any Enemy; if you win or rolled Empty, roll 1D6+1. Subtract the 1st roll from the 2nd result for the Gold you gain (min. 0).

Okay, so that's a lot to fit on the card, and we've definitely left some simplicity behind. It may also need better wording (editor please)! But the range of reward when fighting the Dragon would be 1 to 6. For the Ogre, 0 to 5, etc. Even on a 1st roll of 6, there's still a 16.7% chance of 1 freebie Gold. As you see, chances range more widely (like in true FRPG) but the possible rewards are greater... maybe even too great.

NOTE: Fate should be banned from either of these Cave options... or for any Challenge card where the roll is outside of the Character's actions (Physical & Psychic Attack, Defense / Armour roles, and Prayer or Invocation). For that matter, its use needs to be rewritten for what is a Character's roll and what isn't.

Here's yet a third option, if we wish to cram even more on one little card (and admittedly this option is likely going way too far).

The Ultimate Cave: if you enter, roll 1D6. Defeat any Enemy, then roll for treasure by your 1st result.

		Treasure
	Enemy	1-2	3-4	5-6
1	Dragon (S7)	2G	3G	3G, 1 Purchase
2	Ogre (S5)	1G	2G	2G
3	Goblin (S2)	0	1G	1G
4	Empty	0	1G	1G
5-6	Empty	0	0	1G

Treasure amounts could be heightened, but these are in line with others in the game; this is its advantage over the True Cave. Other problems are evident. First, fitting all of this on one little card; second, players must be familiar with shorthand to understand that S7 (etc.) means Strength 7 (etc.), and that 1 Purchase means a "randomly" drawn Purchase card as part of the treasure (which was just a notion for something new). As I said, this version may be going too far toward the old encounter tables of FRPGs. Simplicity got left further behind than even in the True Cave. But it may still appeal to some FRPG enthusiasts. A more difficult issue to overcome is that all this won't really have much impact no matter which option we choose, because....

In the entire standard Adventure deck, there is only one card of my so-called Challenge type. So sad, considering this is the mainstay of FRPG adventuring. Yes, there are Enemies to defeat for trophies, purely so one can discard them in quantities to gain Strength and Craft. And it should be noted that Challenge cards don't leave players with a trophy; they get treasure instead. So herein is another drawback versus a game built with the limited goal of becoming powerful enough to achieve the Crown of Command and slaughter all other players.

After ten or twenty games (or ten or twenty years) this gets monotonous, and half the endgame altering expansions we've seen weren't any good. Talisman could've been much more, and perhaps even without sacrificing this limited endgame. Challenge based cards (among Places or even Enemies) would provide this, so long as some limiting innate ideology in the game is abandoned. It's conceivable that a supplement of pure Challenge cards (as a new subtype) in greater number might be created. And yes, that's something I will do in the future, though not for the In the Balance expansion. Such an addition would be innately unbalancing, at least as measured against the game as it is. And such a new sub-deck has some special balance considerations which I will not discuss herein.

2.19.2 RESERVOIR...

These are always Temporary in duration, limited by the number of tokens upon the place card for some Character attribute to beef up. Any Character landing on the card can take 1 token. Once all tokens are gone, the Place is removed.

There are three such in the standard deck for Strength, Craft, and Lives. Considering that leaves only Fate and Gold, there's not much to work with for more Reservoir type Places. And maybe there shouldn't be. Talisman has too many gimmes and freebies in it's fervor (built over editions) to speed up the game. As to Fate and Gold, well, they aren't a good idea for Reservoirs in general. But still, we can put them in if all we're interested in is keeping the games pace.

Gold is already plentiful for the having; you just keep drawing Adventure cards. Or of all strange things, you can pray at the Shrine; regardless of Alignment, a shiny gold coin might fall from the sky. Creating another source of free Gold doesn't make sense, but at least in a Reservoir the Characters have to do something to get it; they have to get to that Place. If a Reservoir for Gold is created, it should have a random placement on the board (like the Hermit among Strangers), so the player drawing it has to work as much as anyone else to get to it.

Fate is highly questionable for a Reservoir, since it is (or should be) attached to how the generic Powers favor individual Characters. At least we should think so, or why else call it Fate (instead of just Luck, Fortune, etc)? Fate should be hard to acquire or mess with, but again the Shrine brings in the fact that there are places to go and engage the Powers irregardless of one's Alignment. Overall, Fate is more difficult to acquire than Lives or Gold, and should be. If a Reservoir for Fate is created, it should have a random Placement as for Gold. There is no sense in a player drawing this card and gaining immediate favor from all three Powers by the pure luck of the draw.

Two other potential Reservoirs come to mind, though they are less rational than even Fate or Gold. They require that we bend the nature of what Reservoir cards should be linked to - Character attributes.

Objects might be found in a special (again, randomly placed) "trove" of old adventure's equipment. Instead of tokens or taking Purchase cards to put on the Place, a die with the propor number turned up could be set on it, indicating how many objects are still left in the Trove - to be randomly drawn from the Purchase deck, one per visit. This avoids Purchase cards being prematurely removed from that deck until someone gets to the Trove. And yes, some could get there when there are no Purchase cards left. The Trove would remain as a place to get at the Purchase deck if and when it is replenished during normal play. The Trove should likely start at only 3 tokens (or according to the die) instead of 4 (as found on standard Reservoirs). Each time a Purchase card is drawn, the die on the Trove is turned down by one number, until it hits 0 and is removed from the board.

Spells could be handled in a similar fashion to Objects. And again with all the same limits.

2.19.3 TRANSPORT...

The only example of this is the Magic Portal, another random. There's nothing wrong with chance, and it is the mainstay of board games, but other options for meaningful choice might be possible (and are obvious). Transport can be broken into 3 or 4 subcategories.

Land transport is simply anything that moves a character along board spaces instead of flying over them (Magic Carpet) or going around them (river or sea travel), or just blinking somewhere else (teleport). A Place card might offer either quicker or more regular land movement (sans a die roll) via Trade, Purchase, or other option. Caravans and mule/wagon trains moving between populated destinations (corner squares of the Outer Region) might be one possibility. This might mean the Place has to be placed in the Outer Region. Upon arrival, the character misses a turn (and makes payment) to guarantee arrival at a specifically need corner space (that's a fair trade when you're deparate to reach the Chapel or City for some healing). The Place card itself would be an Outpost where this Activity is offered. Perhaps (logically) the destinations offered are only the two closest corners between which it is placed.

River transport might be handled like Land transport, but with the option to reach any of the Outer Region corner spaces and bypass any obstacles on spaces along the way. In Talisman, the river is a barrier limiting access between the Middle and Outer Region. It's best not to violate this by other mundane means beyond crossing via the Raft, the Tavern, and the other cards besides challenging the Sentinel. Such a Place would be a small fishing village or hamlet on the river with someone for hire who (unlike at the Tavern) won't go to the Inner Region for love nor money.

Teleport is already exemplified by the Magic Portal, though other options might be possible, broken down into subtypes. The Magic Portal is for a random destination, so that option is already covered. There are others to consider.

• Single Card, Fixed Destination would be a gate or other entrance with one known destination indicated on the card. Access might be available through purchase, a sacrifice, or perhaps a Craft (cunning and willpower) roll. The destination should never be in the Inner Region, nor likely even the Middle Region if we wish to avoid making the innate endgame even easier to accomplish.
• Single Card, Multi-Destination would be one of two possibilities.
• • Listed Destinations on the card would have higher cost for those of greater difficulty to reach otherwise. Or, the gate might require a roll as in the Mines to either determine where you end up, or to designate an upper limit for selecting among desitinations listed.
  • Multi-Space Types might be such as Plains, Woods, etc. where the character enters and then chooses which space of the said type they wish to transfer to. Again, there should be a cost for using it, and likely it should be limited to space types only found in the Outer Region.
• Multiple Cards, Multiple Destination would be a two or more card set up, where until a second gate is put into play, the first one leads nowhere. Once more than one are in play, it becomes a magical shortcut in either direction. If more than two are included in the deck and are in play, then choice of destination is among any other gates besides the one entered. This option avoids a lot of the needed note limitations of the others, but it does create problems, for some gates might show up in different regions (Outer and Middle), creating an automatic way to defeat the river as a barrier. Still, a portion of the Magic Portal's destinations do this anyway.

Sea transport is a bit of a warp of the Talisman board, assuming the Land is actually an isolated continent, which it is, when you consider there is no way to travel beyond it. Another rational would be that it is actually a pocket universe or flat world where there is nothing beyond the board's edge but an inaccessible void. Of course the past 2nd edition Timescape expansion already threw that out the window. Sea transport would likely only be purchasable and not just a walk-in freebie. A Place card for this would be a Port of some kind, with destinations limited to populated spaces of the Outer Region, such as the four corner spaces (there is no rationale for a ship to go anywhere else). Payment would be in Gold, and likely cost for all Followers as well, though Objects (not Spells or Magic Objects) might be bartered at a value of 1 Gold each. Yes, this type of transport, available at a permanent location to access any corner space, should be expensive! Otherwise its just another way for certain characters to continually juice up for little or no cost. Imagine Good characters having another Place which would get them to the Chapel automtically. Make them pay for it!

2.19.4 TRADE...

The Market Place is the obvious example, and other similar cards were added through 2nd Edition expansions. But there are possibilities for additional special shops. Imagine one for frontier equipment, such as Mules and Water Bottles (or more, if using Purchase cards offered in other expansions). Another might be a master weaponer living privately, who sells only swords, axes, or other weapons. An armorer would be another possible specialist. For the most part, Trade-based cards will pop up in commercial expansions, and the Market Place already exists. Like Reservoirs, there might not be a need for more Trade cards, especially since such also exist among Strangers... and even some old edition Events.

2.19.5 OBSTACLE...

Akin to Challenge cards, these don't offer anything to gain but are less detrimental in deficit (usually). The Maze and Marsh already represent two that are base on the Characters only two Statistical Attributes, Strength and Craft, in determining automatic passage or loss of a turn. And the automatic part is so boring, though it was a choice for board game simplicity. Other more interesting possibilities exist, ones in which players get to do something. Overcoming an obstacle might require a

1. roll vs. Current Strength or Craft (including non-combat modifiers) to avoid missing a turn,
2. roll vs. Natural Strength or Craft (no modifiers) as a puzzle challenge to pass by at all, or
3. roll as per Physical or Psychic Combat to overcome a natural obstacle.

In addition, losing a turn isn't the only outcome for failure. Being turned back, trapped, injured, misdirected are all possible consequences of an Obstacle. The impass variation is the least damaging and potentially the most interesting for strategy. (Those looking to slaughter characters with endless traps need to take a valium... seriously, we've all seen enough of that nonsense.) Card notation would indicate it is impassable in either direction until overcome or removed... or it simply must be overcome to continue the current move (or be halted at the Obstacle). The Physical or Psychic combat option above might include either

1. remove the Obstacle permanently if defeated, or
2. pass it and finish movement; it is only removed if defeated by a certain amount.

2.19.7 INVOCATION...

The Shrine is the one example. The term Invocation is used to indicate that it could be a place to pray (a religious invocation) or to summon the attention of unearthly influences (a magical invocation) as in the old form of the Graveyard before FFG's alterations.

Between the Chapel and Graveyard, Good and Evil, this nothing for Neutral characters (the alignment of No Alignment) on the board. The Temple is for all and has deficits, so isn't comparable to either of those spaces. The Shrine also isn't equivalent, since it could pop up anywhere, if at all during any particular game, and Good and Evil can pray there as well. (That card also is a poor amalgam of the Chapel and Graveyard because unto itself it has a rather high rate of benefit for being an access point to any of the three alignment Powers.)

Aside from an addition for Neutral characters, there are few other options for an Invocation type Place, unless we wish to conceive of variations that lean more to one type of benefit (Spell, Fate, etc.) with a like type of deficit possibly included. That's actually outside the range of Invocation when considered properly.

2.20 Balancing Place Activities

There are 7 types of Activities spread among a full sub-deck of 9 Place cards. Ignoring other possible Activities (which would lean toward Strangers and their Services or Event cards), we've seen that some Activities are either plentiful already and/or are off-balance.

Creating an actual methodology or scheme for matching the standard Activities amond new Place cards just doesn't seem possible at this point. Sort of annoying, considering such was commonly possible among the other sub-decks. But in this case, setting such a standard approach might be detrimental, likely reinforcing and exaggerating imbalances. So we might as well proceed to examples, keeping in mind which types of Activities might not be needed as much (or at all) and which ones need to be represented with altered options to balance the standard ones.

Here's how I might begin with a first draft of 9 new Places for the eventual whole deck expansion called In the Balance. Descriptions need to be condensed and some better artwork might be desirable in a few cases.

2.21 Example Place Cards

Table 17: Place Sub-Deck Creations

Title	Type	Description
	Wilderness	A rainbow points to the Leprechaun's pot. Roll for placement and put 5 gold on this card. You may take 1G per visit. Once the pot is empty, it vanishes (discard). 1-2 Forest, 3-4 Crags, 5 Hidden Valley, 6 Oasis.
	Wilderness	Place the Cove in in Woods of the Inner Region with 3 Fate tokens. The three Aligned Powers once fought here. You may take 1 token on each visit. When all are gone, the cove dries up (discard).
	Wilderness	If you're Good or Evil, you may heal 1 life per Gold, Object, or Magic Object sacrificed (discard). If you're Neutral, you may heal to your Starting Lives or pray (per the Chapel).
	Wilderness	STOP HERE. A wall bars the way. Overcome it in Battle by Strength (10) or Craft (9) to finish your move. If you fail, turn back on your next move. If you defeat it with Strength by 6+, the wall is forever breached (discard).
	Wilderness	STOP HERE. The river has breached its shore. Roll 1D6 plus the number of [Magic] Objects you personally carry. If less than your Strength, continue; if not, lose a Life, Follower, or Object, and turn back on your next move.
	Rural	Place on the nearest Fields. When you stop here, you may pay 1 Gold; on your next turn, move directly to either corner space nearest the Landing. The boatman won't transport Mules, Horses, or Enemies as followers.
	Wilderness	if you enter, roll 1d6 for Enemies; if "Empty" or you triumph, roll for Treasure. Treasure Enemy 1-2 3-4 5-6 1 Dragon (S7) 1G 2G 3G, 1 Purchase 2 Troll (S4) 0 1G 2G 3 Serpent (S2) 0 0 1G 4 Empty 0 0 1G 5-6 Empty 0 0 0
	Rural	If you enter, roll 1D6: (1) Revenant S7, (2) Wight S5, (3) Ghost C4, (4-6) Empty. if "Empty" or you defeat and Enemy, roll 1D6, subtract the first roll, and see what you find: (2 or Less) Nothing, (3-4) 1 Purchase, (5) 1G, (6) 1G & 1 Purchase. (Purchase drawn randomly.)
	Wilderness	If you enter, roll 1D6: (1) Demon C8, (2) Wraith C5, (3) Shadow C2, (4) Ghost C1, (5-6) Empty. if "Empty" or you defeat an Enemy, roll 1D6+1, subtract the first roll, and see what you find: (2 or less) Nothing, (3) 1G, (4) 2G, (5) 3G, (6) 2G & 1 Spell.

This time I leaned only a little toward something for Neutral characters (1 card). I also skipped creating another Trade card (like the Market) and put in only 2 Reservoir cards (ones that probably shouldn't be there). The excess cards gained were used for extra Challenges, providing all three previously mentioned options. We'll wait and see if some of the more outlandish ones find favor with players once they play tested.

Next time, we look at Event cards... and beyond that will come the varied types of Enemy cards. So we're getting closer to the end of exploration and analysis, such as it is. Watch for the next installment of Balancing the Talisman in another week to ten days.

Those joining us for the first time may wish to read "Adventure Cards, Part 1," "Part 2," and "Part 3." With that said, we move on to looking at Stranger cards in the standard Adventure deck to determine the "what" and "how" of creating new ones. Once examination is complete and alternative Strangers are created, we can select 1/4 appropriate to include in a Part 1 of a four part Supplemental Expansion.

2.14 Strangers - Standard Card Inventory

Strangers usually offer one Service, sometimes akin to certain Abilities seen among Followers - and sometimes not. We'll categorize and define such in a manner similar to Followers, but types of Services are few and should remain so.

ASIDE: Subtypes are my new addition for potential future use (as first introduced for Followers) where special Objects, Events, etc. may interact with Followers based on their Type (Human, Animal, etc.) and their Origin (Wilderness, Faerie, Urban, etc.). Ignore these unless you wish to match like proportions of such among your own Strangers or have notions for use of your own. Proportions aren't really important at this level for game balance. Just don't put in too many of one type, but make the majority Human(oid). Most all Strangers should be Human, particularly those of Permanent duration, or the land's inhabitants wouldn't tolerate them sticking around.

2.15 Card Mechanics Inventory

We'll examine shortly what each "Ability" means. First we re-inventory based on mechanics, counting not the number of cards but the number of times a particular Ability is present among the standard 7 Strangers.

As we can see, there aren't really that many Services among Stranger if we disregard differences in Conditions and Duration (how long a stranger sticks around on the board). We'll take a look at these, and then perhaps consider additional ones that could (or should not) be added in new Strangers (and why).

2.15.1 GIFT...

This type of Stranger if Permanent usably has restrictions on who it will deal with (such as the Mage and Good Characters). If Temporary, for 1 Instance, it gives whatever it has to the first character who comes along; this is also why its Placement on the board should be random, so that the first player to draw this card isn't automatically gifted (as in an Event card). The type of gift can vary, but when permanent should always be a card or some other acquisition that would normally require effort to obtain. I'm not found of Gifting Strangers, since there are enough goodies in the deck that get picked up randomly for free. Personally, I can't think of much beyond a Talisman and Spells that any Stranger would just give away. Certainly not other Magic Objects or Objects, considering they are costly (and that Hermit probably just found that Talisman sometime during his wanderings).

Much as we want to create a balanced addition to the standard Adventure deck, if we choose to cut any particular type of Stranger, those providing a Gift Service are a good choice to by-pass for new Strangers. We especially don't need yet another Talisman given away, unless we want to make the Warlock's Cave almost pointless for anyone to visit. On the other hand, there are two Talismans in the Adventure deck. The notion of such a sought after Magic Object (yes, that's what it is) just lying about to be found is baffling. As a side issue beyond cards for an expansion, other Strangers who either have to know where to find a Talisman might be interesting (though none such give quests like the Warlock).

2.15.2 HEALING...

Honestly, with the standard Healer and other places on the board or among other Adventure cards, we don't really need another one. Even dealing in other Character needs (Gold, Fate, etc.) as freebies is also covered. But what about Lives to gain? Is that really something we want to make available through a Stranger? Likely not, since gain (for Lives or Fate) is something above the norm of heal (and replenish) and should remain rare. But if the notion does stick, then the cost should be something painful but not devastating. Gold is the obvious trade, Perhaps 3 for 1 Life gain through base commerce; perhaps the same stranger might offer to transfer 1 Fate point to 1 Life point at a cost of 1 Gold as well.

This of course would be some arcane Stranger, neither mundane nor theurgical. Of course now we're dealing with Lives as being "sold," so this might seem better placed un under Trade (see below). The problem is that Lives aren't a commodity, so it isn't really Trade.

NOTE: No Stranger should mess with giving away Fate points except as based on Alignment and as a Temporary, 1 Instance (then discard). This is also already covered under Wish (see below). No Stranger should (or even could) sell a Fate point (as delivered by the Powers of the Alignments); forget this notion entirely.

2.15.3 TRADE...

The only example of this Service is the Sorcerer, who trades Spells for Gold. We're talking a Trade, as in a profession or commerce, and that's why his card says he sets up "shop." In general, Trade as Service should offer a possession to be acquired for cost and not bonuses to Attributes or things like Lives or Fate. But Trade could be conceived of for acquiring a couple other things (which did occur with some Place and Stranger cards in 2nd edition expansions). Other things to gain from a Stranger who sets up "shop" might include Objects and Gold.

GOLD might be gained for turning over Objects, Magic Objects, and Trophies... or possibly even Spells. All of these have cards with indicate something carried (sort of) by the Character. Yes, there's the Alchemist in the City, who turns Objects and Magic Objects into gold, but that doesn't mean another Stranger can't do something similar, buying objects and paying a cut rate of 1 Gold for them.

• Objects might be sold off for 1 Gold at a Trader's or Pawner's shop. In turn, the card would be left there instead of returning to the Purchase pile. Another Character visiting the Stranger could buy the Object at a higher rate (at least 2 Gold or the price the item sells for elsewhere, whichever is higher). Thus the Stranger would make a profit and have a reason to remain in business (on the board).
• Magic Objects values would be a nightmare to establish. For the sake of simplicity, they should be purchased for 1 Gold and immediately discarded. Attempting to have a Stranger hold them and resell them, at a rate representative of their value versus mundane objects, means assigning a price likely beyond the means of any character. And, from a business perspective, no Stranger would set up shop based around Magic Objects, in part or whole.
• Trophies might be purchased by a Trader of a special type, though not all kinds would be sought. Certainly Enemy-Spirits don't have a carcass to haul around, and Enemy-Monsters are unlikely (except maybe criminal types like the Bandit, where a bounty might be paid). The best possibilities are Animals and Dragons, where hides and other body parts might be put to good use. Perhaps 1 Gold for an Animal, and 3 Gold for Dragon (ignoring the fact that hauling a Dragon carcass is about impossible, even with a horse and cart).
• Spells traded in for 1 Gold might be possible, but we'd probably be wasting our time making such a Stranger. Who's going to sell their hard earned luck of the draw spells? The only exception, we all know of, is a spell that is worthless to a particular character. In that case, selling it for 1 Gold might be interesting if the Spell was then held by the shopkeeper (as described above for Objects). Pricing Spells by what they do would be a headache, so such should be resold at a flat premium. 3 Gold might sound pricey but remember that the Spells are now on display (visiting Characters know what they're buying) and are not drawn blinding. So we should make the Characters pay for such an advantage! The one downside is Characters (or ones with items) which allow automatically regaining a Spell. A limit of one Spell sold per visit would have to be established, forcing Characters to leave and return before selling another Spell.
• Followers aren't a good choice for Trade-in, but if still considered, there should be strict limitations, even a deficit, for selling one into indented servitude or slavery. Any Good Character should immediately become Neutral, and any Neutral Character might even shift to Evil, for selling a Followers. An any Follower with explicit instructions for how to get rid of it wouldn't be bought by any Stranger.

RE-SELLING: It's possible any Stranger buying Followers might hold and sell them to other Characters coming along. But there are two problems with this. Establishing the value of differing Followers makes for severe headaches, so it is best to set trade-in value for all at 1 Gold. BUT when it buying Followers, we know not all are equally sought by players, so a flat fee for purchasing them from a Stranger might mean some never re-enter the game, as they would if discarded (when the Adventure deck is used up and re-shuffled). Some criteria is needed for Follower values to differentiate between them. Again, we're looking at headaches and probably too much description to fit on the Stranger's card. If Followers are purchased by a Stranger, the deficits mentioned should apply, but best to assume the Stranger sells them off immediately and they are discarded.

OBJECTS might be gained in Trade with a Stranger. Obviously, since there were or will be such in commercial releases. We've pretty much covered that above under Gold but simply in reverse. Some kind of shopkeeper or craftsman might be setup for such, though likely it wouldn't sell all types of Objects, but some, and never Magic Objects. Price would be competitive with others elsewhere on the board, matching at least the highest price listed among other spaces and cards. Possibilities would include something like and Armorer (Armour, Shield, Helmet), Weaponer (Sword, Axe), etc. Some system for separating what they create and sell might be needed, for they are specialists and shouldn't be limited to the normal count of similar items in the Purchase deck. Any such special craftsman might also buy back items of interest to it at 1 Gold each.

MAGIC OBJECTS as mentioned before should never be for sale in the game. Even in creating simplified ones, as touch upon in the last post concerned with Followers and their Abilities, there are enough magic items in the standard deck and more coming all the time in expansions. Still, if you wish to create such a Stranger with such a Service, see the notes for Followers and Abilities in the Adventure Cards, Part 3.

SPELLS for Trade are already covered through the Sorcerer among the standard Strangers, so I'm not certain another such is needed (other than special options for Spells and Strangers already mentioned).

2.15.4 Wish...

In general, this Service covers most all other things a Stranger might offer. Any such are always Temporary, 1 Instance, and have criteria an encountering Character must fulfill to have the Wish granted and the chosen benefit selected. There really aren't any other options to consider, other than there are inherent imbalances for Wishes in the use of (1) Alignment and (2) other Character Attributes as criteria. There are no Wishes granted to Neutral Characters nor ones for a Strength level achieved. Lives would not be an acceptable criteria, since it isn't of interest to emissaries of the Powers and nothing exceptional to any other Stranger (like the Enchanter). Fate would be unacceptable as a criteria, since it is already a boon of the Powers. So we are left with very limited possibilities, other than to have a balance of Wish granters in our expansion.

For my own purpose, I will focus of trying to insert Wish-based Strangers that rectify imbalances and leave it at that.

2.15.5 OTHER SERVICES...

Certainly we could all think of some, but Strangers in general aren't plentiful, and the standard ones already offer what would be sought by Characters. Some of these services might be combined as described above, or be something in-between one or more. Beyond these, new services would be far too dependent upon additional rules or other additives to the game. This is outside the realm of simply creating a balanced expansion to the standard Adventure deck, and would likely be unbalancing at that. Certainly that doesn't mean such shouldn't be created, but these Modification oriented options will not be addressed herein.

2.16 Balancing Stranger Services

We've already inventoried the Services by mechanics. There are 7 spread among a full sub-deck of 7 Strangers. With the inherent imbalance in Wish granting, those should be dealt with first, while others might be modified slightly to provide something new. Here's how I might begin with a first draft of 7 new Strangers for the eventual whole deck expansion called In the Balance. Descriptions will need to be condensed and some better artwork might be needed in a few cases.

2.17 Example Stranger Cards

Table 14: Stranger Sub-Deck Creations

Title	Subtype	Description
	Spirit, Faerie	A "primal fay" appears and remains until she grants a boon to the first Neutral character that visits her, then she fades to the discard pile. Gain one Spell, Gold, Strength, Craft, Life, or Fate, or Teleport to any space in this Region.
	Human, Wilderness	She appears in the Cursed Glade until favoring a character of Natural Strength 6+ and then retreats to the discard pile. Gain one Spell, Gold, Craft, Life, or Fate, or summon another Character to Attack (Physical Combat).
	Spirit, Æther	He remains here until visited by a character of Natural Strength & Craft of 5+ each then vanishes to the discard pile. Gain one Spell, Gold, Life, or Fate, or draw 3 Adventure cards.
	Human, Wilderness	Roll 1D6 and move him clockwise in your region. The first to reach him rolls to learn a Talisman's location; first to reach that space takes the Savant as a Talisman. 1 Mines, 2 Plain of Peril, 3 Cursed Glade, 4 Black Knight, 5 Temple, 6 Ruins.
	Humanoid, Rural	No one can steal from the dusky elf. Draw a Spell and Purchase, and place these face up on him. He'll buy any one Object, Spell, or Magic Object for 1G to resell. He sells his wares for Object 2G, Spell 3G, Magic Object 5G.
	Human, Wilderness	Sacrifice 1 Fate or Spell, and pay 1 Gold. You may gain 2 Lives or heal to your Starting Lives, but not both.
	Human, Rural	He'll pay 1 Gold for every 3 Strength points of Animal and/or Dragon trophies you give him (discard).

Once again, as with Followers, you'll note I leaned toward providing something for Neutral characters while creating new opportunities for all characters regardless of Alignment. AND... as you can, I even violated a few of "don'ts" mentioned earlier, though I was careful to keep them simple and costly. We'll wait and see how they work out when I release them for play testing after having addressed all 7 sub-decks of the Adventure deck.

Next time, we'll look at Place cards, which as a whole sit somewhere between Strangers and Events. Thanks from stopping in, reviews and suggestions are always welcome, and I'll be back in another week to ten days.

If you're not up to speed, read "Adventure Cards, Part 1" & "Part 2" to understand the basic approach used herein. This time around we look at Followers, all of them rather than a 1/4 expansion focus. Once examination is complete and alternative Followers are created, we can select 1/4 appropriate to include in a Part 1 of a four part Supplemental Expansion.

2.10 Followers - Standard Card Inventory

Followers have similar (and different) "Abilities" to those of Characters, as well as other services and/or benefits. We'll categorize and define such in a way that may be useful later when returning to Character cards. As with Magic Objects, we'll use multiple line items to inventory all abilities, benefits, and deficits for each Follower.

ASIDE: Subtypes are my addition for potential future use where special Objects, Events, etc. may interact with Followers based on their Type (Human, Animal, etc.) and their Origin (Wilderness, Faerie, Urban, etc.). Ignore these unless you wish to match like proportions of such among your own followers or have notions for your own uses. Proportions aren't really important for this non-standard classification versus game balance. Just don't put in too many of one type and make the majority Human(oid) with logical consideration of Origin (Noble, Urban, Rural, Wilderness, Transient, and Faerie).

There are a lot of Abilities spread over the 13 standard Followers. Note the proportion of those with deficits only (2 of 13, or 15.4%), or deficits in order to gain a benefit (3 of 13, or 23.1%) versus those of pure benefit (8 of 13, 61.5%). These proportions should be maintained within reason in any expansion for the Followers sub-deck. To do otherwise affects game balance, and player perspective on Followers, and Follower viability (versus being left behind to clog up the board).

2.11 Card Mechanics Inventory

We'll examine shortly the defintions of differing Abilities. First we re-inventory by mechanics, counting not the cards but the number of times a particular Ability is present among the 13 standard Followers.

2.11.1 AFFLUENCE...

This comes from the Prince and Princess. Though what is gained through them is Healing, this isn't their Ability. They act as a recognized intermediary at a location where influence brings favor to the Character. Affluence shouldn't be confused with bonuses on rolls, which is covered by varied manifestations of Enhance. In most cases, Affluence shouldn't be used to affect rolls by personae on board spaces or cards.

Other board spaces might offer unknown benefit from Affluence, where the benefit is by the space's type and the reasoning of what might be available there is legitimate (and limited). For this, the variables are almost too great to consider. There are also standard goods and services on some spaces which are easier to set up rules for use of Affluence. Care must be taken to avoid allowing Characters to gain possessions, goods, and services for free in unlimited quantities. Other limits should be in place as well.

• Goods
• • Objects: no Follower should reduce the cost of an Object below 1 Gold, nor allow a reduction of price on more than one object per visit; such is economically ridiculous. If such is the case, it should carry harsh deficits, such as one time use, loss of the Follower, warrants issued for theft and coercion, etc. Trade is also a possibility, where instead of Gold, and the Follower allows one object to be traded for another available in the Purchase deck.
  • Spells: These are more valuable and rare than objects, though they have a one time use. At least 1 Gold must be spent. if more than 1 Spell is purchased/acquired, the total cost should only be reduced by 1 Gold through Affluence.
• Services:
• • Healing: no Follower should turn a heal into a gain, or allow more than 2 Lives be healed for free. Where healing is Purchased, no Follower should allow total cost to be reduced below 1 Gold, and likely should only allow total price to be reduced by 1 Gold.
  • Soothsaying: this is essentially what the Mystic does, though its representation on the 4th edition revised board is so far off of myth and legend that it shouldn't be called a Mystic anymore. Some Followers might be reasoned to know of other locations where this service (another mystic or soothsayer) lives in seclusion unknown to the world, and through Affluence allow this to occurred within limits. Limits on number of visits might be placed on this as well.

NOTE: changes to the Mystic in 4th edition are inaccurate for what a Mystic does. Automatic change of a character's Alignment already exists among Event cards, is implicitly linked to emissaries of the Powers (not mortals), and isn't what a Mystic can / would do. Even a character hearing a prognostication about its inner nature - Alignment - cannot be reasoned to automatically change. With the introduction of Fate into the game, an obvious better choice was evident and ignored by the developers. I recommend the use of one of the following tables (by whatever alternative wording) as a reflection of what a Mystic truly does. My preference would be for the first one.

1. Lose 1 Fate (You're not as important in the scheme of events as you thought you were)
2. Ignored
3. Ignored
4. Gain 1 Fate (You are indeed important in the scheme of things to come)
5. Gain 2 Fate (The Powers have plans for you)
6. Gain 1 Craft (A wise incite elevates your wisdom)

1. Lose 1 Fate (You're not as important in the scheme of events as you thought you were)
2. Ignored
3. Ignored
4. Gain 1 Fate (You are indeed important in the scheme of things to come)
5. Gain 1 Spell (An arcane secret is revealed to you)
6. Gain 1 Craft (A wise incite elevates your wisdom)

2.11.2 ENHANCE...

Certain Followers, like Magic Objects, add to a character's Quantitative / Statistical Attributes... meaning Strength and/or Craft. Among the cards we notice a similar limit as found among Magic Objects. No one Follower adds more than +2 in Strength and/or Craft total. One that does (the Mercenary) only does so temporarily, for one activity (Physical Combat), and has a cost/deficit. This implied rule should be adhered to for the sake of game balance in Followers we create. It should also be noted that Followers can be designed to Enhance specific activities rather than general Strength or Craft.

NOTE: With 4th edition's addition of Fate, some might conceive of Followers who would Enhance this for a character; this is not appropriate and a misinterpretation of Fate's mechanics in the game. Strength and Craft, as Statistical Attributes, are built up; their increase represents "skill" gained on top of Starting Strength / Craft, and hence the character's Current Strength / Craft. (Modified Strength / Craft includes modifiers from Followers and Objects added on top of Current Strength or Craft, whether for general or activity specific benefit.)

Fate operates like Life in how it is acquired. It is limited to Starting Fate when replenished and only exceeds this when gained. There is nothing a character actually does to build it, earn it, and it isn't based on skill acquired. Fate is the influence of a generic sense of spiritual and/or aligned Powers, just like in myth and legend. Likewise, any Fate that a Follower might possess (making it a pseudo character of interest to the Powers) would be its own Fate and not transferable to a character. Any Follower capable of offering a way to replenish or gain Fate would not do so through Enhance; this is not how Enhance works even when temporary.

ADDITIONAL: Just as for Fate, neither should Lives or Gold be handled through Enhance. There is no skill being built or used with either of these. All three are more likely to handled through Exchange. See below.

2.11.3 EVASION...

This allows avoiding Physical or Psychic Combat with Enemies (all or a particular type) and/or Characters. It is usually linked to particular board space Types (those that occur multiple times for drawing Adventure cards). Evasion in most cases shouldn't be linked to an Inner Region space - unless there's a severe cost, such as losing the Follower. Additionally, the general rule is that an Evaded opponent cannot be subsequently attacked; this rule shouldn't be overridden by any Follower. In some past Talisman editions, Evasion could only be accomplished if an opponent was already visible and not when drawn from the deck or encountered through a random roll on a space (you are surprised and have no chance to Evade).

Evasion is potent, no matter any restrictions or conditions, so no more than one multi-space type or singular space should be possibly through any one Follower (let alone as an Ability on a character card).

Space Types without deficits include: Fields, Woods, Plains, Hills.

Single Spaces without deficits include: Oasis, Hidden Valley, Portal of Power.

Space Types with deficits include: Runes, Desert.

Single Spaces with deficits include: Cursed Glade.

We should be logical and thematic in choosing Evasion spaces in general and per a Follower. Most Followers with Evasion are matched to spaces that in line with its heritage or culture. (A Dwarf evading in the Woods makes no sense.) For example, it's unlikely that anyone could Evade in open Plains or in crop Fields - there's no place to run and hide without being tracked / chased. Likewise, the Oasis seems doubtful considering it is just a lone spot of vegetation in the middle of Desert. The Hidden Valley might be possible, but as a multi-draw spaces (likewise the Oasis), any Evasion used should then be for all cards drawn (Enemies or otherwise). Allowing characters to dodge multiple Enemies and then pick up objects or other benefits is unbalancing to the game. Besides, if you run away and hide, you're not there anymore to pick up anything.

2.11.4 EXCHANGE...

This is about trading one thing for another. Usually what is gained is less than the value of what is sacrificed (a deficit) and keeps characters from simply trading endlessly for advantage. Choosing to Exchange should be an option when what is gained is more useful at present or near future; Exchange shouldn't be used as an endless Conduit of no consequences. The Alchemist's ability to turn Objects into Gold is useful when a Character is (1) carrying its maximum burden, (2) has an object it no longer needs, or (3) has run out of Currency. This in turn puts Purchase cards back into availability in the game, useful for keeping the Purchase deck revitalized. There are other Exchanges that might be considered, though not all are rational, reasonable, or even acceptable for balance.

STRENGTH or CRAFT should never be gained through Exchange ability on a Follower, except when a point of one is exchanged for the other - and always with an additional cost / deficit (often in Gold, but maybe other costs as well). Even so, it is a ludicrous idea, as if one could just toss away Physcial or Intellectual skills to be turned into the other. These two attributes are the basis for winning the game; they shouldn't come cheap or gained primarily through luck of the draw from the Adventure deck (via a Follower). Anything that boosts Natural Strength or Craft above their Starting level should be earned through risk and sacrifice.

LIVES should be handled via Healing (Follower activity or otherwise), which limits (1) how many can be acquired (to Starting Lives), and (2) according to required conditions. Healers wouldn't follow a single character around but setup shop to serve the people. "Physicians" as an alternative would only follow a character if they gained something personal by doing so rather than set up business in populated zones. Arcane or theurgical variations would also have their own agenda. Possible exchange payment might include Gold, Fate, Objects, Magic Objects, Trophies, or even Followers. (The last should make any Good character turn Neutral if not Evil).

• Gold exchanged for gain should be pricier than heal on board spaces or cards. Gaining Lives is a chance occurrence and rarer than healing, so it shouldn't be cheapened through a Follower or have additional sacrifices or conditions as to when, where, and how often.
• Fate exchanged to heal could be at 1 to 1 ratio via a theurgical (not arcane) Follower of an Alignment similar or the same as the character (Possibly Neutral, hence usable by all characters). Fate used to gain a Life is a whole other matter. It should be more like 2 or 3 to 1 ratio. Fate gain would require an arcane (not mundane or theurgical) Follower, likely not Good but Neutral or Evil, and likely one that the Powers (of any Alignment) would whack (discard) for manipulating their influence upon Characters. Perhaps a chance on a die roll each time this ability is used for the Follower to be discarded.
• • NOTE: Should you choose to have two Followers in a deck who can Exchange Fate for Lives, make the one for heal only available to Good and Neutral characters, and the one for gain for Neutral and Good characters. Both followers being of a theurgical nature would have appropriate costs and risks for services; the one of gain should have a chance of being lost for pissing off the Powers.
• Trophies exchanged to heal should be at at 7 points of Strength or Craft (not both) for a Life - and much more if gain is involved, though it shouldn't be allowed for such. There are already objects that allow gaining lives through combat.
• Magic Objects (and especially Objects) make no sense in Exchange for Lives, even via an arcane follower. For something like Healer or Physician, exactly how are they going to carry around goods? I suppose such a Follower might be possible, but it would immediately leave (discard) after one use, taking its goods off to sell for actual currency.
• Followers exchanged (killed and discarded) to gain (not heal) a Life is inherently an Evil act by most moral or ethical codes. It should likely carry additional cost as well as cause an Alignment shift (Good to Neutral, then Neutral to Evil, cumulatively). Or it might be a kind of Follower that would not join any Good character.
• Turns might be part of an Exchange, but that really isn't a currency or resource that is given to the Follower or sacrificed in general. Better to consider this under Healing later herein.

FATE (replenished or gained) through Exchange has the same considerations as for Lives, and Lives would be the only logical exchange for it, but with one greater consideration as well. It is one thing to replenish Fate to Starting Fate (by a theurgical character of a particular Alignment), and any such service would annoy the Powers, since meddling with Fate is meddling in their domain. Any Follower who makes exchanges for a character to gain Fate would really piss off the Powers for insolence. There should be at least a percentage chance (equal to Fate gained in one use) that this Follower gets whacked completely (removed for the rest of the game). Again, sacrificing a Follower to replenish or gain a Fate should be considered Evil, so no Good character should allowed such.

OBJECTS acquired (made) through Exchange should require a special location and loss of a turn (for the mundane work needed to be accomplished); perhaps even 1 turn per the City cost of the item and likely 1 Gold for base materials. Gold shouldn't be used for direct Exchange for Objects, since the Follower can't be carrying around an entire shop of goodies on their back. The other option would be a Follower who can get the character a better market price for Purchases, though this should be handled via Affluence.

MAGIC OBJECTS should never be available through Exchanges, and in most cases should not be used as sacrifices for Exchanges. It is wholly unbalancing to the game. But if the notion still appeals, in the case where a Magic Object is to be "created," it should require a normal Object (Sword, Axe, Shield, etc.) to be enchanted, etc. A Magic Object should never be altered or enhanced. As a rule, any Magic Object so used would have its original benefits destroyed and replaced (the Runesword would become a normal sword with newly created benefits). DO NOT let players use such a Follower to continually juice up their favorite Magic Object! The cost should be heavy, and whatever bonus level is sought should have to be put in all at once - no layering of bonuses / benefits in multiple use of an Ability.

NOTE: We are talking about creating magic objects that are not subject to having their benefits removed by a Spell (truly artificed rather than just charmed).

Benefits for Objects gained through arcan Follower using an Exchange ability should be kept simple and limited to rolls such as Physical Combat, Psychic Combat, Defense in Armour (and otherwise saving lives) at the most. Anything more creates an ad-infinitum set of rules that grows unweildy. No bonuses to made on board space or card instructions (the unknown decisions of personae in the game) should be allowed. Some of those are already covered by Fate use anyway. To do so lets a player take control of aspects of the Talisman land as if it were a demigod.

One might use a rule of thumb that any benefit created for an Object should cost at least 3 Gold plus 1 Gold per benefit point sought AND an equally elevating sacrifice of a Life, Fate, Craft, or Strength per point advantage, AND a missed turn per point of advantage for exceptional arcane work to be accomplished. Overall, this kind of Exchange should be avoided anyway. There are enough magic objects in the game, and more pop up in all expansions. Magic Objects shouldn't be plentiful; they are already.

I mention all of this because I know this kind of Follower (or even a Character) has already been tried and the cost was never high enough for what it did. That Follower (or Character) was always whacked as fast as possible because of its excess, so it was a pointless creation in the first place.

2.11.5 GUIDANCE...

This is usually an Ability for one of the Inner Region spaces and involves either a bonus to a roll or a reduction in the number of dice rolled against a board space's challenge (one with no benefits other than overcoming the challenge). It shouldn't be applied to any a single die roll space where potential benefits are gained, regardless of low or high deficits for failure (in places like the Crags and Forest). That would be like giving a partial Immunity AND a bonus for the same board space, because the Follower allows the Character to avoid rolling a 1. That's too much, and obviously unbalancing. The Gnome's assistance with the Mines is a prime example of Guidance. There are actually few options for this Ability on the standard board. But it is a potent one where applicable without breaking the implied rules found by examples of it in standard Followers.

2.11.6 HAULING...

We might have called this Bearing or Bearer, but sooner or later, the old 2nd edition Follower called the Bearer will likely pop up, and then things would get confusing. The typical Hauling Follower is obviously the Mule. Of course there's the Horse and Cart as well. (That's actually a Follower and an Object, when you think about it, though without the horse the cart really can't be taken by a character.)

Hauling is related to carrying Objects above what a character is allowed (usually 4). Of course, most objects carried by a Follower cannot benefit the Character. The character has to be carrying a sword, shield, wand, etc. to use it, or be wearing such as an Amulet or Crown to get its benefit. Some objects with more generic use like the Orb of Knowledge (reasoned to be used before any encounter) might be allowed to have effect while carried by a Follower with Hauling Ability. But the rule should always stand that if a Hauling Follower is lost, so are all Objects it is carrying.

With two standard Hauling Followers (the Mule and the Horse and Cart), others aren't really necessary and shouldn't be made plentiful for wide spread hoarding. Some Followers with other abilities and suitably reasoned bulk and strength, might be to allow to carry 1 or 2 extra objects (or maybe one other Follower as well as the character). A Horse is a reasoned possibility, though this was never done to that standard Follower. If intelligent Followers are the case, such as the old Bearer, they should be paid at least 1 Gold to take up the job. Followers which have Enhance or other Abilities of direct benefit to die rolls, or provide gains or acquisitions, should generally not have Hauling as well. Exceptions might exist to this, but if so, should have a cost or deficit to balance such substantial and multiple benefits / abilities.

2.11.7 HINDRANCE...

This is a pure deficit Ability among followers. Obviously the Poltergeist is the prime example among standard Followers. Hindrance is anything the interferes with a characters most common activities, usually involving rolls, and can take one of three forms:

Typically a Hindrance should only affect one character activity or it is simply too hindering, but multiple hindrances might be a possibility if mixed with a benefit that might make such worth bearing. Fate use should not be affected by Hindrance in a Follower; that's giving the Follower demigod status over the character. Among the standard die based activities for Characters are:

Rolls instructed by spaces or cards should not be designated for Hindrance. Too many complications would come up, and most such rolls are for the persona, place, or event encountered and not for something under the character's control anyway.

Getting rid of the Hindrance (hence the Follower) should involve something on the board itself, such as a location or path to follow, or something of sacrifice. In general, the remedy shouldn't involve drawing cards from any deck, as seeking a remedy becomes too purely random. Such a Follower card would soon to ditched in the trash by most players' groups. Crossing water (for the Poltergeist) is the easiest cost-free remedy, though Movement of 1 space per turn means it might take some time. Applying this to other spirit based followers would be acceptable. Visiting destinations is more difficult, since hitting a singular target space on the board is accomplished by random rolls in most cases. Generally, spaces for drawing Adventure cards should not be used (singular ones might be an option).

2.11.8 IMMUNITIES...

These are mostly limited to board spaces where (1) a roll is made by space instructions and (2) bad things can happen. Such spaces which also have potential benefits should always have Optional Immunity, where the character can choose to roll but doesn't have to. Most spaces so inclined are represented among Immunities found on standard Followers, so originality is somewhat limited. There are also some Immunities for Adventure cards with like conditions, either rolls or automatic deficits (like losing a turn). Others where a roll isn't made but automatic deficits occur might be considered, but should not be piled up (as is done on the Guide and the Gnome). If applying more than one Immunity to a Follower, consider the following rule of thumb...

1. Die roll spaces with deficits are an Immunity value of 1. If Benefits are also available, the Immunity is optional.
2. Spaces with automatic deficits are an Immunity value of 1.5.
3. Any deficit space that occurs more than once should have an Immunity value multiplied by the number times the space occurs.
4. No Immunities should be given for any Inner Region space.
5. No Follower should provide Immunity to effects based on the Character's Alignment (that is already covered by some Magic Objects, which the character must have on its person to work).
6. No Follower should have a totaled Immunity value greater than 3.

Deficit Spaces with rolls include: Crags, Tavern (sort of), Forest, Chasm, City (Enchantress).

Deficit Spaces without rolls, and not Alignment oriented, include: Desert (x2), Runes (x3, so impossible by the rules above), Black Knight, Cursed Glade (which has multiple deficits, so might be a value more like 2).

Immunities for Adventure cards are more difficult to consider. In general, these should be few and limited to Place cards. Potential Immunities might also be considered for Event and Stranger cards, but shouldn't include Alignment based ones. Ones for weather would be even harder to justify. Since cards are rarer to encounter, Immunity values for them should be half those for Spaces above.

Deficit Place, Event, and Stranger cards with rolls include: Witch, Imp, and Cave (its being a forced encounter is new to 4th edition and makes little rational sense; and so, it now qualifies for potential Immunity).

Deficit Place cards without rolls, and not Alignment oriented, include: Marsh, Maze, Siren, Raiders, Evil Darkness, Magical Vortex (difficult to justify for Immunity), Storm and Blizzard (almost impossible to justify, as these are weather events), and Pestilence (again, very hard to justify).

2.11.9 LOSS...

Like Hindrance, this is the one other pure deficit Ability among followers. There might be other forms of deficits to imagine among Followers, but these two seem to cover all possibilities I can think of that would be reasonable. Loss is the immediate loss of some type of possession, but might include other aspects of the character if not over done. Possibilities include:

1. Gold
2. Objects
3. Magic Objects
4. Followers, All
5. Followers, Type (Described)
6. 1. Craft Benefit
   2. Strength / Combat Benefit
   3. Subtype (Nobles, Commoners, etc.)
   4. Mages (Alchemist, etc.)
   5. Others..
7. Followers, Animals
8. Trophies, Strength
9. Trophies, Craft
10. Spells

Loss can also be of two kinds:

• Continuous: whatever was lost cannot be replaced until the Loss Follower is removed (see the Hag).
• Singular: what was lost is gone, but along the way to a getting ride of the Follower, the loss can be replaced through normal play.

Degree of loss and how it affects the character continuing with the Loss Follower should be carefully gaged. Unless we want the Follower card tossed out after one game, severe loss should not be coupled with an overly difficult way to achieve a remedy and get rid of it.

2.11.10 RETAINER...

I had some difficult labeling this Ability, since it really isn't an Ability as described on the Prince and Princess. It seems more like either a Reward or a Ransom, though neither of those open this Ability up to other possibilities.

A Retainer is a one time or repeating payment for a one-time or ongoing service or duty rendered. Type of service would have to be proved according to the Follower's description and nature. Returning a Follower to a particular location is only one possibility for a one-time payment of substantial amount; such an occurrence should immediately require that the Follower be discarded. On-going payment would require accomplishments by the character that the Follower was interested in seeing completed and possibly reaching a specific space to acquire the payment.

For one-time Retainment payments, Gold is not the only possibility, so long as the payment form could actually be available at the delivery location and be of suitable type to Follower and location in question. In general, Strength, Craft, and Fate should not be used for such payment. Objects, Spells, and possibly Services are possible; a Magic Object might be a very rare possibility and would require additional special rules and descriptions (probably too much to put on the Follower's card).

For on-going Retainment payment, Currency (Gold or otherwise) would always be used. Other forms of on-the-road benefits are already covered by other Follower Abilities. Such continuous payments should be far less than those for the one-time scenario and rendered by the Follower as needed... or be held by the Follower to be spent as needed in the character's favor; if the Follower were lost, all such built up retainer payments would be lost as well.

On-going retainer tasks might include:

• Defeat Enemy of Type (possibly with a minimum Strength / Craft of 4, so it doesn't happen all the time)
• Defeat Character of a particular Alignment
• Visit a particular location where the Follower would want to make a stop.

One-time payments (for discarding the Follower, and at an appropriate location) might include:

• Object of choice from the Purchase deck
• Spell (either of choice, or draw three and choose one, then shuffle the deck)
• A one-time service available at the location but free of charge.
• Others?

2.11.11 OTHER ABILITIES...

Certainly we could all think of some other Abilities for Followers off the top of our heads. But if we read the above carefully, almost all other notions are covered by those previously described in one way or another. And the guidelines presented help to keep Followers from turning into something overpowered and unbalancing for the game. Next home-made Characters and Magic Objects, Followers are the most abused cards for this.

2.12 Balancing Follower Abilities

By examination of standard Followers, no such should have more than 3 Abilities. If Enhance is used, and total benefits are permanent and not temporary based on payment or other deficit, the total benefit should be no more than +2 and with no other Abilities. Temporary Enhance (with payment or deficit) should be limited to a particular Activity (Physical / Psychic Combat, Defense), and again, the Follower should have no other benefit. Enhance is the most sought after Follower Ability so should be severely limited among all Followers in a full or proportional expansion.

We've already inventoried the Abilities by mechanics. There are 24 Abilities to be spread among a full sub-deck of 13 Followers, so slightly less than two Abilities per each one, discounting two purely deficit Abilities (Hindrance or Loss). In some cases we could add limitation, payment, or deficit along with an Ability if we wish a Follower to have a bit more benefit, or have more benefits to spread around. BUT we should not go overboard, and where extra benefits are concerned, the deficit should be well-balanced.

With these standards in mind, along with our previous review of Ability categories, we should be all right in proceeding without calculating costs for each Ability. Here's how I might begin with a first draft of 13 new Followers for the eventual whole deck expand called In the Balance. Descriptions will need to be condensed and some better artwork might be needed in a few cases.

2.13 Example Follower Cards

Table 11: Follower Sub-Deck Creations

Title	Subtype	Description	Ct.
	Animal, Faerie	The "fay hound" will not serve Evil. +1 Strength, or +2 vs any canine or Werewolf, and you are safe in the Forest. NOTES: +2 vs the Werewolf was used in place of a Guidance.
	Animal, Faerie	The "fay serpent" will not serve Good. +1 Craft, and you never become a toad (treat as ignored). Forfeit her to enter the Vampire's Tower unharmed. NOTES: Sacrifice was used in place of a Guidance. +1 at the Enchantress was used in place of an Immunity.
	Human, Noble	Heal 1 Life in the City (as your one choice); Forfeit (discard) an Enemy-Monster trophy for 1 Gold.
	Human, Noble	Heal 1 Life in the City (as your one choice); Forfeit (discard) an Enemy-Spirit trophy for 1 Gold.
	Human, Rural	+1 Craft. You may Evade in the Woods and are safe in the Forest. If you aren't Neutral, this fanatic will run off with the first Neutral character you meet.	2
	Human, Transient	Drop all "Noble" followers immediately on your space. A "diseased" figure follows you and will carry 2 Objects. On movement of 5+ (by any means), lose a Life or another Follower. Visit the Chapel or Doctor (City) to wash your hands of her.
	Human, Wilderness	She shuns religious characters (Priest, Monk, Holy Warrior, etc.) By her grace, gain +1 Craft, immunity to the Cursed Glade's effects, and safety in the Forest. If Neutral, you may pray in the Forest (per the Chapel). NOTE: +3 Enhance, Temporary was sacrificed to avoid deficits in the Cursed Glade.
	Human, Urban	At your turn's end, spend 1 Gold to heal 1 Life. At 0 Lives, you're dead, and he cannot heal you. Roll 2D6 under Current Strength to resist pestilence, plague or disease from any source.
	Human, Wilderness	Arcane & insane, no Magic Object can be used against you, but you suffer -1 Movement, Combat, & Psychic Combat (min. roll of 1). To be rid of her, sacrifice a Magic Object or visit the Cursed Glade. NOTE: This one's definitely Hindrance, but with some extra benefits and deficits just for something different. Some players might even keep her for a while... like the Poltergeist.
	Animal, Rural	She can haul 4 Objects and carry you through the Desert without losing a Life.
	Humanoid, Faerie	He's short, ugly, crude, and stinky, but Giants, Ogres, & Trolls won't bother you (unless you bother them). You're also safe in the Crags.	2

And so, there we have it. You'll note that during development, I leaned hard on providing something for Neutral Characters while keeping some benefits for any who draw these. Compared to standard Followers, they do seem just a bit more potent, but some had limits and others have some nasty deficits.

Next time, we'll look Strangers, once again as a whole sub-deck and not by a 1/4 (25%) approach. Thanks from stopping in, review and suggestions are always welcome, and I'll see you again in another week to ten days.

If you're not up to speed on this topic, read Adventure Cards, Part 1, to understand the basic approach used herein.

ADDITIONAL: I'd intended to show how to work a 25% expansion approach with two sub-decks at once, Objects and Magics Objects. Since my last post, and while preparing this one, I had to extract a worm that inserted a rootkit into my system. During restoration, I lost half my work on this post, but during that previous post work I discovered that multi-subdeck inventory introduced more unforeseen complications greater than benefits gained. So, while re-creating this post, I've gone back to the previous process, dealing with one subdeck only, Magic Objects. A lesson learned - and enforced by Fate, I guess.

2.6 Magic Objects - Another Standard Inventory

We continue creating a 1/4 sized Supplemental Expansion for Talisman's Adventure Deck that maintains its innate balance of 7 card Types (or subdecks). This time we'll inventory Magic Objects. We'll have to use multiple chart lines for cards with multiple benefits. Notation has changed also; where not specified for Attack, Conditions includes opponents of all applicable types.

ASIDE: Adorn(ments) are my created Subtype for Magic Objects (and possibly Objects), referring to those "worn" by a character in order for the benefits to have effect. Talisman, in its needed simplicity, always had two loopholes where Magic Objects (and some Objects) are concerned.

1. They are often interpreted as being effective when carried in baggage, on a mule, in a horse and cart, or elsewhere not actively on the character's person.
2. With Expansions adding new but physically similar objects, characters have been seen wearing 2 belts, 3 rings or bracelets, or a crown on top of a helmet or helm, etc..

These are ludicrous. All justifications have come from the power hungry wanting to exploit holes in the rules. Adornment Subtypes (and Sub-subtypes) are a foundation for simple optional rules to be included with my future expansions:

1. Adornments must be worn (or in some cases carried in a secret place (Hidden Pouch)) on the Character in order to be effective. Carried in baggage, such as a Bag of Holding or a Pack, does not count unless so stated on a card.
2. Only one of each Adornment subtype (distinguished by designated body area) may be worn at one time by a Character. Differing types can be worn at the same time so long as no more than one of each subtype are worn at any time.
3. Adornments may only be switched at the beginning or end of a player's own turn, not during turn activities or another player's turn.

There is considerably more to balancing Magic Objects than Objects. Aside from benefits for Attack, Defend, etc., we have an array of ability and attribute benefits. Some have Alignment limitations to face (indicated in red text). Re-inventory by mechanics will be challenging.

2.6.1 A note about Talisman cards

Their activity / benefit is an Immunity to the Valley of Fire in order to reach the Crown of Command. I don't know of a rule concerning Characters who enter that space without one. Logically the character and everything/everyone with it would be incinerated, though I don't see how it could happen by the rules.

Talisman cards (two in the standard deck) are not listed Table 6. They or their proportional count in the deck are not to be altered, nor should we add new object types with a like benefit. To do either of these changes the game's balance, difficulty, and duration, and could alter the innate endgame as well.

During any game, fewer players means more chance of a Talisman drawn, hence a quicker game; more players means they must vie for a Talisman or acquire one in another way. (ASIDE: the idea that such potent items are left lying about is a bit absurd.) Only the players should choose whether or not to decrease / increase the count of Talismans in the Adventure deck. We do not presume to alter that choice for them - nor should commercial expansions do so. Otherwise, any claim by developers or expansioners for speeding up the game is false.

Including Talisman cards in expansions raises the question of re-using artwork to which we have no legal right. We're talking about the image of the Talisman. Much as card templates have been made available to fan creators, this doesn't automatically mean the same for card art. Someday we may get a ruling from the game company on this. Until then, perhaps an alternative illustration is appropriate for additional Talisman cards, though such card(s) must be labeled and described for the same function. Just a suggestion, and I leave it up to you. I'm only reasoning how law would interpret this if a conflict arose.

2.7 Card Mechanics Inventory

We now begin to condense into a mechanics oriented inventory.

1. Physical Combat benefits for a Weapon subtype as a Magic Object must be understood correctly. Any initial Attack +1 versus all or specified types of opponents is for being a Weapon, not for being magical. You will note that the original +3 vs Dragons has been listed as +2 instead, and that basic Attack +1 has two counts. The +2 vs. Dragons, however it is changed or moved, implies an additional to a +1 if and only if this benefit is applied to a weapon. Yes, could create a non-weapon with attack bonus, though this wouldn't be logical and highly unbalancing, since it could be used with any weapon or none at all (a very bad choice). When it comes to a Magic Object card, we may describe this as "additional" or increase it by +1 to have a description similar to what was on the Holy Lance, where it is +1 vs. all opponents or +3 vs Dragons (not both when facing a Dragon).
2. Immunity, All Spells is difficult to judge. Counting this as a 1 benefits seems paltry unless we remember that it refers to one whole deck: Spells. The character ignores all effects of that whole deck, but rightly eliminates use of that deck. Finding something different but equivalent for a proportional expansion may be difficult.
3. Destroy has the same problems as for Immunity, Spells. Perhaps even worse.
4. Enhance is the most sought after benefit. One Enhance benefit card had a +1 Craft and +1 Strength (a total +2 on one object) so it was split in half for counts of benefits we might use. Note that no Magic Object has a total "permanent" Enhance (for Strength and/or Craft) greater than +2 collectively. Even the "temporary" Potion of Strength has this limit. This is a design standard to obey, involving intricate aspects of game balance. We do not want to fall prey to the "Invulnerable whatever" or the "ACME pocket cannon death-ray" syndrome seen in fanciful standalone cards.
5. Conduits allow acquiring counts of a resource when the affected character's resource is (1) depleted and (2) the character can have such a resource. Spells are the only such I can think of, except perhaps Fate and questionably Gold, though a conduit for either is unheard of and hard to even rationalize. Conduits, like Reservoirs (which we'll see among Place cards) can offer either a limited or endless amount of replenishment for a resource. In the case of the Wand, the amount is endless so long as the object is retained. A Limited Conduit is also possible, which only allows so many counts of reacquisition.

Let's continue for a 1/4 (25%) sized expansion of Magic Objects. First we'll peek ahead at how many cards we'll eventually create.

2.7.1 Card Counts Needed

• 25% Adventure deck (104) = 26 Cards (for reference only)
• 25% Magic Object sub-deck (11, minus 2 Talismans) = 2.75 Cards
• 25% Talisman Cards (2) = 0.5 Cards

2.75 Magic objects isn't possible as a count of cards, neither is 0.5 Talismans. But if we think ahead, assuming we'll create three more 1/4 expansions thematically matched to this one, we can plan compensations between the four parts. A similar approach can be taken with any of our subdecks.

Out of four parts, we only need to include two Talismans, so only two of four parts need have one. Balanced against this, and balanced for the whole standard Adventure deck, we need a total of 11 Magic Objects across a four parts. It's complex to describe in words, so I'll let the chart below speak for itself, showing also why we create 3 Magic Objects (and no Talismans) in this Part 1 of a full expansion deck.

Assuming we'd always do a multiple part approach (yeah, right), this approach could have (should have) used with Objects as well. It shows that we need disproportionate percentages of benefits to work with among our four parts. In other words, we need more than 25% (one fourth) of them for this time. We must divide 100% by 11, then multiply by the number of cards we're doing in each part.

Obviously these are going to produce some strange remainders when we take a percentage approach to benefits in any one part expansion. But we'll just deal with it. Our objective is simply build a set of guidelines for benefits and their potency, and not try to reproduce those exact same benefits cut down.

2.8 Pure Mechanics Inventory

Let's proportionalize (27.3%) for our Magic Objects. We'll be mindful of keeping potential "benefit" counts stable at all stages of adjustment.

In seeking whole number benefit counts, some of what I'll be doing - as only one example of possibilities - will be rather convoluted. No one else has to go this far. We'll work by items grouped by Activity.

PHYSICAL COMBAT...

• Attack +2 Additional, vs 1 Subtype, Aligned by 2 must be faced before Attack +1 for what I already have planned. If we drop to Align by 1 (yes, I'll need that), we can increase the benefit's count a little (we'll need that too).

ASIDE: I have a new weapon in mind that will have a base Attack +1 for all, but with additional benefits for 1 Alignment. It'll be tricky, so follow carefully, and you'll see the end result when we get to actual cards.

NOTE: Changing from 2 Alignments to 1 or 3 is a 50% change, not 33.3%. It is based on altering from 2 Alignments, not all 3. Changing to 1 is a 50% decrease so a 50% increase in count (or benefit). Going the other way to 3 (or all) Alignments is a 50% increase so a 50% decrease in count (or benefit).

• Attack +1, Aligned by 2 doesn't change for what I have planned. Here's why...
• • Previous work for Attack +1 vs Monsters will be Aligned to Neutral. It's an "Additional" +1 if applied to a weapon object which always has an Attack +1.
  • The base Attack +1, Aligned by 2 could be designated for Evil and Good Alignment (no, we don't have to stick to Alignments mentioned on the original cards). With the previous Aligned by 1, with its implied base +1, means we already have a weapon based Attack +1 for all Alignments on a weapon type object.
  • Since I've already implied this is all about a special weapon, we now combine these two line items into one. The total count becomes 0.946, close enough for on whole benefit on a weapon item
    
• Gain Life, Aligned by 2 in Attacking is a paltry 0.273 but only happens when defeating an opponent. We don't have anything equitable to combine it with. It might still be used as a percentage chance of gaining a life instead of automatic. We might even consider switching it to against one type of Enemy and not Characters, which would let us start raising its count to something usable.
• • Originally from a weapon for Physical Combat, we'll risk some imbalance to the game by switching it to Psychic Combat. Again, I have something in mind for a later actual object. There are about half as many Spirit (Craft) Enemies versus Strength Enemies, so we can immediately double the count to 0.546.
  • We next reduce the Aligned by 2 to Align by 1, a halving of alignment, so a doubling of count to 1.092.
  • We eliminate the ability to take lives from characters through Psychic Combat, since we've made this benefit very purely against Spirits.

CONDUIT...

• 1 Spell drawn at 0.273 of a benefit is worthless, but there isn't a like or similar activity (as yet) with which to combine it. It's approximately a 1/4 or 25% chance of benefit, but that approach might be too cumbersome to describe with a die roll. We'll leave it for now.

IMMUNITY...

• All Spells, No Spell use at 0.273 is worthless unless we change it somehow. Perhaps later we can consider a more selective type of Spell Immunity.
  
• Save Life, Aligned by 2, 2 Spaces is at 0.273 . If we cut to Aligned by 1, we double the count to 0.546. If we cut to 1 Space, we double to 1.092 and a full benefit for some item. (Yes, I have something in mind for this.)

DESTROY...

• Spirits, Forfeit Trophy at 0.273 is another problem. Being able to eliminate an Enemy-Spirit is potent, even for losing it as a trophy, and especially since there are some seriously high Craft Spirits (as much as Craft 10).

NOTE: this benefit has always been questionable. It was in the 2nd edition when defeating Craft Enemies wouldn't allow trophies for raising a character's Craft. With the Cross in 4th edition, you still don't get a Trophy, but Craft Enemies are eliminated for anyone to use in building Craft. Although Craft based Enemies were increased in 4th edition, there are still notably fewer than for Strength. This object actually reduces the potential to increase Craft. The continued presence of the Cross is baffling, makes no sense for balance with the rule for building Craft, and has become a detriment. We don't need - or want - another benefit like this!

ASIDE: Has anyone noticed a blatant ideological slant in the game? The only religiously based items are all Christian. It has been this way since 1st edition. The same goes for religiously based characters, as if this is the only spiritual ideology in all of fantasy, myth, and legend by which characters would be granted spiritual (versus magical) power. Don't try claiming anything concerning the Druid, for it isn't representative of that implied faith and is poorly implement for the archetype. Some expansions for certain Talisman editions included minor representations of other or generic ideologies - very minor count - but more stuck to the Christian archetypes. This non-mechanics imbalance remains to this day.

For those who aren't Christian (up to 70% of the world's population) it's a potential slight, if not an outright mis-representative of ideological diversity, from monotheists in general, to polytheists, henotheists, animists, and all other categories of spiritual ideology. I know, it doesn't seem that important... unless you of another ideology. Did I mention that in a grand census, Christianity isn't the majority most thinks it is? We don't need to perpetuate this kind of marginalization in a game; aside from obvious problems, it makes the game uninviting too many. We should think more broadly than this in our new additions to any part of the game. Better yet, we should instead turn to the inbuilt generic representations of Good, Evil and Neutral in the Talisman world and keep factional representations out of it. Here endeth my rant.

ENHANCE...

• Craft +1.333 at 0.683 can be reworked to something closer to full use. 0.683 times 1.333 renders +1 at count 0.911. That's roughly close enough for acceptable use on an item.
  
• Strength +1 is worthless at 0.41 count. No matter what we do, we can't raise the count without putting limits on it via Alignment or other considerations. We'll let it sit for now.
  
• Strength +2 is only Temporary at 0.273 count. If we lower it to +1, we can raise count to 0.543. To make it permanent instead of temporary, we could cut its count back in half again as a cost and combine it with the previous Strength +1. That's a lot of fudging, but it brings us a little closer to having 1 whole Strength +1 benefit to work with. So we'll do that and eliminate this line item.

FORESIGHT...

• +1 Card Draw was originally from the Orb of Knowledge. At 0.273 it's worthless, yet there aren't other line items with similar Activity or benefit. We need something more limited, perhaps even dealing with the another deck.
• • We left behind a Conduit activity, which was equally useless at 0.273. Maybe a Foresight ability for the Spell deck (with fewer cards less often drawn) might be enough limit to justify combining them. That's a lot of horrible fuzzy guesswork, but these two line items leave us little choice.
  • The Spell deck is 24 cards versus the Adventure Deck at 104; That's 1/4 the cards, allowing up multiple this line item's count by 4 to 1.092.
  • There is the fact that the Spells are all benefits of some kind for those who drawn them. Not so for the Adventure deck. So that's something else that has to be paid for. Instead of doing more fuzzy math in trying to combine Conduit with Foresight, we'll sacrifice that Conduit to keep the Foresight and call it even for a count of 1 on Foresight for Spells.

And now, there are still the problems to address: Immunity to Spells at count 0.273, and Enhance Strength +1 at 0.683. There's nothing left to tweak, but between the two counts we'd get close to a full one. Since Strength +1 is greater, will sacrifice Immunity, Spells for it. I know, they aren't at all equivalent, but most of our calculations have kept us close to balanced. Even so, we likely have more benefit line items than are reasonable to put on just three Magic Objects. Let's take a look at where we ended up.

Now take a look at the potential examples below, and some of all this fussing about should become clear. Hopefully we've also note something more along the way. In trying to keep some balance, we were not limited in creativity. If anything, the examination in keeping things fair and equal, and not disrupting the game's mechanics, actually sparked a few notions (at least for me).

2.9 Example Magic Object Cards.

Table 9: Magic Object Sub-Deck Creations.

Object Card Preview	Subtype	Description
	Weapon, 2-Handed	+1 in Physical Combat. If you are Neutral: +2 in Physical Combat vs any Enemy except Dragons & Animals. You are immune to the Cursed Glade's effects. NOTE: Due to some strange new Enemy subtypes in coming commercial expansions, I've worded this to include any Strength based Enemies not mentioned.
	Adornment, Hand	+1 Strength; +1 Craft NOTE: Not very original, but with rulings for "Adornment, Hand" subtypes, this offers players a second item equivalent to the Magic Ring.
	Adornment, Hand	When drawing Spells, draw 1 extra then discard 1 drawn. If you are Neutral: +1 in Psychic Combat. Gain 1 life for each Spirit you defeat.

And so, there we have it. You'll note that during balancing process as well as card development, I leaned hard on providing something for Neutral characters while still keeping some benefit any character who picks up these items. Compared to standard Magic Objects, they do seem just a bit more potent, but they have limits on them for most characters not of the correct Alignment.

Next time, we'll be setting aside our 1/4 (25%) approach and look at Followers as a whole. Honestly, most of the standard ones (and some appearing in pas 2nd and future 4th editions) already cover most possibilities. New Follower cards would likely be geared to thematic Addition or Modification Expansions, but we'll give it shot anyway based on just the standard Adventure deck.

And yes, once I finish addressing all 7 subdecks, I will release actual cards in some limited fashion for people to play test. There may even be a new character card thrown into the mix. Until next, comments and critiques are always welcome.

Powered by Zoundry Raven

[Revised a little as of Wed., 2009-01-14]

I've put aside Character cards for now; there are too many incongruities in the standard ones, which will take more time to analyze before I reconsider how to start addressing new ones. In the meantime, the work of others has turned my thoughts in another direction.

2. The Adventure Deck

Players often want something fresh in their adventures. We're talking about what is loosely called an "expansion" pack or module, this time specifically for the Adventure deck.

ASIDE: Not all Expansions serve the same intention in varied games that use them, Talisman or otherwise; the differences are in if and how they change the game and/or its components.

• Supplements provide new variety without changing a game's mechanics, scope, etc.
• Additions to game (or an element of it) add something new in mechanics, scope, rules, etc., but without altering what is already there.
• Mods or Modifications override and/or alter mechanics, scope, game-play, rules, endgame, interpretation of elements, etc.

These differences reflect how deeply and finitely we define changing the game (as in Additions and Modifications). Again this is related to Balance. As an example, the recent Reaper expansion for Talisman might be called an Addition (from what I've heard, having not yet purchased it). The Reaper character itself adds the ability of characters to use it against each other without actually engaging directly or through Spell cards. I'm operating on assumption that it includes no component or rule changes (which would make it a Modification). Some expansions can be more than one of these types.

Some fans have described methods for creating balanced expansions to the Adventure deck. Most I've encountered were limited to the count of card Types (Follower, Enemies, etc.) and sometimes Subtypes (Spirits, Animals, etc.). In the end, these didn't produce fully balanced expansions. For that, we must look at what the cards do, individually and collectively, rather than count by Type and/or Subtype.

2.1 The Standard Inventory

The 4th edition revised deck has 104 cards divided among seven Types. We'll get to Subtypes - known and made-up - when we look at Types separately as "sub-decks." Some might imply their differences, but certain cards in one have the same effects as in another. It is their effects upon Characters that truly matters. First let's do a typical inventory based on Types and Subtypes.

As the simplest example, Objects (not Magic) are kept by characters if possible. These modify Strength Combat (Attack), Defense after Strength Combat (Armour), or are Tools (my own Subtype label) that allow doing other things. The Water Bottle protects against losing a life when entering a Desert space. The Raft allows one to pass over the River in to or out of the Middle Region. These two are examples of a "Tool" Subtype (anything not classifiable as Weapon or Armour).

But wait, the Axe allows characters to build a Raft (a Tool) in the Woods or Forest spaces. Now what do we do, since that makes the Axe both a "Weapon" and a "Tool" to consider for a card in our expansion? To complicate matters, there are Weapons Subtypes to be found in both the Object and Magic Object sub-decks. We immediately see that counting Objects and putting a proportional amount in an expansion (if creating less than 104 cards) won't cut it for keeping the deck's balance.

How many Objects should be for Attack, Defense, or Tools for other uses? How much benefit should each Subtype have in the distribution? All of this from looking at only the Objects sub-deck. There's only one way to find the answer, and it won't be by inventorying card counts.

2.2 The Card Mechanics Inventory

All benefits and deficits from, and interactions with, Adventure cards are encountered through the Character's attributes, abilities, and activities. Characters are the conduit through which players interact with all other game elements. It's the interaction that counts, not the card itself. So that is how Adventure cards have to be inventoried in order to proportionally determine not only (1) how many of each Type and Subtype to include, but (2) how much of each benefit (or deficit) must be included. Again, we'll begin with the Objects sub-deck.

NOTE: "Relocation" is listed for the Axe and Raft because they aren't about Movement. These Objects allow a character to relocate from the Inner to the Middle Region or the other way. A movement roll is forfeited for the use of either Object, so the activity isn't related to a Movement roll / activity as defined in the game. Later on, we'll look at Adventure cards that do affect Movement, so it's best we distinguish this early on.

NOTE: "Immunity" is listed for the Water Bottle because it makes the character immune to losing a life in the Desert spaces. It's not unlike some characters' Special Abilities that allow them to ignore dangerous spaces like the Crags, Forest, and Chasm. The Water Bottle accomplishes this in the Desert. The term Immunity was mentioned in earlier posts related to Character Conditional Attributes or "Special Abilities." It will reappear when we look at other sub-decks of Adventure cards (like Followers) that provide a similar passive benefit.

The weakness of this type of inventory is evident; the only total(s) we have to divide for the Adventure deck for a proportional expansion is/are still counts of Object Types and Subtypes, hence card counts. We still aren't yet looking at benefits for an expansion of less than 104 (or 19 Object Cards). But the solution is visible here, if we restructure the inventory based on Activities and perhaps varied Benefits and Conditions.

2.3 The Pure Mechanics Inventory

* Defend's Total Benefits, as derived from Table 2, come from multiplying the count of each Armour Subtypes Percentage chance of Defending against a Life lost in combat, then adding all subtotals together: (1 x 50%) + (1 x 33.3%) + (1 x 16.7%) = 100%.
** Immunity's Total Benefits is the total cards that have this Activity times the number of Spaces where it works.
*** Purchase's Total Benefits is the total value (in Gold currency) of all Currency cards.

We're getting closer to what we really need to distribute among expansion Object cards - the actual benefits rather than the Types, Subtypes, or especially descriptions and titles. Let's consider how many cards we might want in our expansion. For this example, we'll look at doing a 1/4 or 25% Supplemental Expansion for the Adventure deck.

• 25% of the Adventure deck (104) = 26 Cards
• 25% of the Object sub-deck (19) = 4.75

So we don't have a whole number, but that shouldn't bother us. We can do one of two things to solve this:

1. Round off. It's not a large change and wouldn't likely have a large effect upon the Adventure deck's balance when the expansion is inserted.
2. Hold off and Shift. Likely our expansion includes all Types of cards (all 7 sub-decks). We could wait for other problematic remainders in other sub-decks, and "shift" remainders between similar sub-decks and card Types. This would achieve whole card counts (hopefully) among all sub-decks in our expansion. A possibility here would be Magic Objects, since some of those have similar activities and benefits to Object cards.

For the moment, let's try the Round Off solution first. We apply the 25% to each of the identified Activities, their Total Benefits, and keep track of Conditions (if needed). The "Total Benefits" listed are what we must distribute among our 5 Object Cards.

We're again dealing with non-whole numbers. There's no way to have half a Raft (perhaps) or save half of Life in the Desert. Again, it's not insurmountable. First, we reason it through, looking at shifting remainders (percentages and decimals are the same) between like areas for similar possible benefits. Second, we could instead lower potency of benefit that mimics a card which already exists. We'll get to both methods shortly.

ASIDE: Our example points out that higher count Expansions would create few decimal remainders, making designing cards effects easier when focused on a balanced expansion. But creating 104 new card graphics for printing is a lot more time consuming in contrast. There is a cross-over option. Plan 104 cards, avoiding frustrating remainders, but produce only 26 cards at a time in 4 installments (as one example). Cards from each sub-deck could be selected in rough proportions for inclusion in each installment. Once all 4 installments are inserted into the Adventure deck, we know we'd have balance. Along the way, the installments smaller counts won't create drastic imbalances if card Types are proportionally split among them.

For shifting adjustment, Defend's total is 25% and doesn't match any percentage on a six-sided dice for any Armour card. Rolling a 1 is 16.7% (the Helmet); Rolling 1 or 2 is a 33.3% (the Shield). If we reduce our Defend to 16.7%, we have a percentage that will work on a die 6, though doing yet another Helmet is sort of boring. Put that on hold, and shortly I'll show how we can still do something new (with benefits as stated) that I'll be releasing in a near future expansion.

We also gain 8.3% (or 0.083) to move elsewhere. Attack and Defend are both applicable to Physical Combat. Though not exactly the same activity, we might shift this remainder, raising Physical Combat (Attack) to 0.837. It's still not a 1, but we may be able to build a weapon with +1 that compensates for the shortage with some minor limitations. Thereby also avoiding merely duplicating what a Sword does (again, boring).

Likewise, we have Immunity's pitiful 0.5. Purchase power (Gold or other Currency) is often used to Heal lost Lives. We could simply sacrifice the Immunity (which saves a Life), shift that 0.5 to Purchase, and likely it wouldn't cause much imbalance in the end.

For potency adjustment, we'll be looking at Relocation. The raft is the object in question, and we all know it isn't used very often. Sometimes when that 1 and only card in the deck comes up, it just gets ignored. It is capable of carrying the character, any equipment and followers, and that's pretty potent. Maybe there's a less potent version that carries only the character and its limit of 4 Objects, just as one obvious notion, and we ignore building of a raft with an Axe. More on this later. Let's look at where we ended up.

2.4 The Adjusted Mechanics Inventory

It's getting better. We know we're close enough to think of Objects for 1 Attack (with some limits), 1 Defend (rolling only 1 on a die), 1/2 Relocation, and Purchase points groupable as needed to fill out our 5 cards!

Remember that we're not dealing with cards here. We're not limited to remaking the same cards from which we extracted these proportional benefits. We can invent, create limitations to balance tweaking benefits up, drop conditions or other factors as part of compensation either way. We're freed from thinking explicitly about Objects known, while creating a guide to new Objects (or rather their benefits) in balance with Adventure deck. Look below at what I've come up, one set of possibilities and kept simple for example only. Some of the shifting, potency adjustment, and other fudging should become clear on top of choices that try to maintain balance.

2.5 Example Cards

Table 5: 25% Object Sub-Deck Creations.

Object Card Preview	Subtype	Description
	Weapon	Add 1 to your Strength in Battle. You may not use any Shield, Weapon, or hand-held Object or Magic Object in the same Round in which you use these blades. NOTES: Since the amount of benefit in Physical Combat, Attack, was less than 1, I added limitations then found a title and illustration (small weapons in each hand) that justifies such.
	Armour	If you are defeated in battle and just lost a life, roll 1 die. On a roll of 1, you do not lose a life but still lose the battle. Bracers can be used with the Helmet (for separate rolls) but are useless with any other Armour Object. NOTES: Another helmet was boring for the Defense point. This item has potential combination with a Helmet while being balanced as benefitless with other Armour types. Full Armour likely includes such, and with a Shield, only one bracer would be exposed anyway. And they might make an interesting combination with the Battle Blades as well.
	Tool	On your next turn, instead of a movement role, this hide & branch craft can take you and allowed objects across the River. Abandon all Followers and extra objects. Whether you cross or not, it floats off to the discard card pile. NOTES: Since I didn't have a whole benefit point for Relocation, this little vessel requires sacrifices to use it.
	Currency	You find one lone coin dropped on a pile of leaves. Immediately discard this card and gain 1 Gold. NOTES: Yes, I'm using a different title and image. I have never liked the whole "bag" of gold nonsense, especially if in turn Gold isn't a bag and doesn't count for an object carried. I'm just fussy I guess.
	Currency	Worth 3 Gold at the Chapel, Village, City, Market, Market Day, any Stranger's "Shop" or other established business. Spend it all at once, for you get no change if you don't. NOTES: Just a little change of pace. I've also never liked that Gold is an utter "gimme" just left lying around. This one's better than 2 Bags of Gold, but requires thought to use it in most (but not all) situations. And if another player trounces you, they can take 3 Gold via this one object instead of 1 Gold. Isn't greed a wonderful motivator?

These cards - or rather variations of them - will appear in a 1/4 installment of my future In the Balance Supplement Expansion pack. If they interest you, please respect my efforts and wait for them to come out officially. They will change more, which is why I'm showing partials with textual explanations.

In the next post, we'll look at Magic Objects. Perhaps we'll back track a little, taking another look at Objects as well. We'll try the untried Shift approach on moving remainders between these two similar sub-decks to achieve whole numbered benefits in both simultaneously. Hopefully I'll have this done in another week to ten days. Until then, thanks for stopping by and feel free to make observations of your own.

Last but not at all least, my great thanks to Jon New at Talismanisland.com for creating the Photoshop card templates used to create these examples. Jon is a long time supporter of the Talisman fan community.

Powered by Zoundry Raven

Barb and I now head into revising Series 2, Book 2, Through Stone and Sea (January 2010), our next book in the "Noble Dead Saga". Dealing with character creation for Talisman will beput on hold for the next few weeks, as it is a complicated investigation and analysis.

If time permits, I may turn to the easier task of analyzing the make up and balance of cards in the game's standard Adventure deck. Others have done this before in different ways, but I still hope to bring a little something new of my own. It will take far less guesswork than the Characters cards, so perhaps something I can touch on more easily while buried in a novel on schedule for publication.

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned.

Powered by Zoundry Raven

Whether you're an old or new fan of Talisman the fantasy boardgame, or just interested in learning more about it, check out the interview with game designer John Goodenough at Talismanisland.com. There will be a follow-up 20 questions session for players and the curious to ask him direct questions. Go to the announcement on the Fantasy Flight Games Talisman Forum to learn how you can submit your own question(s).

Powered by Zoundry Raven

I've done my best to make adjustments to previous posts in this series after reviewing changes to the game made by the Upgrade to 4th edition "revised." Additions and changes in previous posts are marked in dark red so you can quickly scan for them. Changes were fewer than expected (as applicable to those posts, that is). All future posts for "Balancing the Talisman" will be based on the revised 4th edition.

Powered by Zoundry Raven

Having just received my upgrade pack to 4th edition "revised," I want to take time to inventory the new cards and update previous posts concerning Characters. Please be patient if you've been following along, and with a little luck I should have the next article ready by January 1, 2009.

Powered by Zoundry Raven

Here's a little something until I finish the next installment of "Balancing the Talisman." Others may know about these but not all. It's novel and/or interesting for any type of game that uses dice.

We all know players who think force will get the roll they want. They chuck those little cubes like a mad Troll hyped on a gallon of coffee. Playing pieces, cards, tokens, and other dice are knock about the board like some insane skittles game. Then there's the dainty Sprite who (mischievously) tips the die off her palm in hopes of that desperately needed roll. And for 4th edition Talisman players, let's face facts: that new gargantuan board, piles of tokens for attributes, character cards doubled in size, and a board the will get covered with cards all use up lots of playing space. Enter the possible solution... the Dice Tower(s).

I'd forgotten about these until my upgrade to 4th edition arrived on Xmas eve, and I was googling for something else entirely. They range in size but can be compact, and you can make one out of all sorts of handy materials. I may give it a shot. If you're not crafty, buy a kit or a ready made unit. So without further explanation, here's some linkage for the curious.

Kits and/or Instructions

• http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=57908&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=2461
• http://www.history.com/minisites/ancientdiscoveries/guides/DiceTower.pdf
• http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=58038&filters=0_0_0
• http://mordheim.ashtonsanders.com/category/creating-mordheim/buildings/mordheim-dice-tower-building/
• http://www.ehow.com/how_2106614_build-dice-tower.html
• http://www.io.com/~beckerdo/games/articles/HirstDiceTower/HirstDiceTower.html
• http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/330925
• http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=35083
• http://files.boardgamegeek.com/geekfile_view.php?fileid=35084
• http://www.io.com/~beckerdo/games/articles/DiceTower.html
• http://www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-Formboard-Dice-Tower/
• http://richarddblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/dice-tower-construction.html

Ready Made

• http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=015997
• http://www.worldworksgames.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=78
• http://www.geocities.com/crosstowngames/dicetower.html
• http://www.bluepantherllc.com/GamingAccessories.htm

Custom Made

• http://www.vixentorgames.com/subcategory.asp?category=2
• http://greywolf.critter.net/construction/dice-tower.htm
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikechambers/sets/72157603805912932/
• http://www.boardgamegeeks.com/tag/dicetower
• http://www.marquand.net/article.php?story=20080810181034686

Powered by Zoundry Raven

Time to turn to the last group of character attributes, essentially the "Special Abilities." Not all such on standard character cards are actual abilities. Addressing all of them will take a few separate posts.

ADDENDUM (2008-12-26): text in dark red was modified based upon changes found in the Upgrade to 4th edition "revised."

1.3 Conditional Attributes

We call them Conditional because they don't come into play except under certain conditions. Put aside descriptions on the cards, which make us think there are more than there really are. We'll loosely group them by what they do versus differing descriptions,one character to the next, and thereby focus on how they affect character (and game). The creative description, suitable to the character's Name / Title, can come until later.

1.3.1 Immunities

When a character is unaffected by deficits from a board space or an Adventure card, we call it an Immunity. (Certain Spell cards might be considered for Immunities but are not standard to the game, so we'll leave that out for now.) For example, the Troll need not roll upon entering the Crags, the Elf entering the Forest, or the Dwarf entering the Crags or Chasm or upon drawing / landing upon the Maze Adventure card. Aside from different locations and descriptions, these are all Immunities, one and the same. Immunities are further subdivided into those for Spaces or Cards (the first subdivision) and those that are optional or not (the second level subdivision).

Wording like "is unaffected by" (the Dwarf and the Maze) or "is safe in" means there is no choice; the character never interacts with that space or card. We call this a Forced Immunity, which usually indicates there are no benefits (only deficits) to such an encounter. Phrases like "you need not roll the die" imply an option to encounter the space or card by choice. We call this an Optional Immunity, which only occurs when the specified space or card has potential benefits to encountering it.

It's possible for a character immune to a space or card with benefits to be disallowed from choosing to encounter it. In other words, a space or card typical for an Optional Immunity is described on a character card with wording for a Forced Immunity (no choosing to encounter). As yet I don't know of any standard characters as examples of this, but the possibility exists none-the-less.

NOTE: Immunities do not exempt or stop a character from ...

• drawing an Adventure card if the space says to do so and the number of cards to be drawn aren't already on the space.
• encountering an Adventure card on the Immunity affected space, even if a card is not drawn there and yet one has somehow ended up there.

We'll organize potential Immunities by Space and Card type and whether suitable for Optional or Forced Immunity.

NOTE: Immunities shouldn't be given for Inner Region spaces, though other Conditional Attributes might apply there.

NOTE: Think twice about Immunities to spaces or cards where deficits are based on the character's Alignment. Evil characters generally should not be immune to the Chapel, and so on. Though such an Immunity is possible, the rational would be questionable.

The following table breaks down type of deficit encountered. It's not definitive but intended as a starting point that may lead to something useful later.

• Loc(ation): in a board region or the Adventure deck by type. O = Outer Region, M = Middle Region; E = Event, P = Place, S = Stranger.
• % : chance of encountering a space or card as a simplified percentage of the game component (sans expansions).
  • NOTE: 24 Outer Region spaces, 16 Middle Region spaces, and 104 Adventure cards are the totals used to calculated percentages.
  • Place & Stranger Cards: unlike Events, some Adventure cards can remain on the Space where drawn and become part or all of its encounter. The most common for Immunities are Place or Stranger cards, which also eliminate drawing of one Adventure Card there until this card is removed. Their % starts as a Card (1 out of 104, or 0.96%) but then changes to that of a Space (1 out of 40 for both Middle and Outer Region, or 2.4%). Any card that can remain on the board has a potential % of 3.46% (0.96 + 2.4).
• S,C,L,G,F: the Quantitative / Statistical Attribute (see 1.2) negatively affected by the space or card along with chance of occurrence (%) if less than 100%.
• T(urns): lost and chance (%) of effect.
• A(lignment): negative effect applies to characters of a particular Alignment (G, N, and/or E).
• Alt: character's Alignment is altered as specified plus chance (%) of this effect.
• Area: of effect reaches beyond character location, usually a R(egion) or the L(and) (meaning the whole board).
• Other: special considerations or effects not otherwise classifiable.

* The Cave description is not explicit but implies a mandatory (required) encounter . Due to potential deficits and benefits, we could designate an Optional (or Forced) Immunity for this and similar cards.

We can't account for player choices to move our new character away from hazards, nor another player drawing a card to which it is immune and therefor the character never encounters it. We're left with a flawed method, but we'll use it anyway, since this is all we have. We will roughly estimate an importance value for different deficit types by encounter chance, type of a deficit, and its degree of severity to be avoided. We'll start with some educated guesses about severity (see below under Importance Value >> Severity Values).

Losing hard-won Craft or Strength seems the worst possibility. Losing a Life not as much because there are spaces and cards to heal or gain a Life; BUT losing lives can be lethal, so definitely a worry. Alignment change does little except affect places and some Event cards a character encounters as well as Magic Objects that can be carried or used. Losing a Gold or a Turn are the least negative; either is annoying but does not alter the character directly. Since we don't yet understand all of Fate's full implications, we can only guess, and its effect upon play so far is minimal, so it might be equated to an Alignment change.

• Loc(ation): a reiteration from the previous table, with Spaces and Cards reordered without regard to Forced or Optional Immunity.
• % : total chance of encountering the card or space.
• I(mportance) V(alue): a numeric rating for how substantial a deficit the card or space delivers. Deficit amount (by type) is multiplied by its chance of occurrence (not % for space/card encounter) then multiplied by the Severity of the deficit type.
• • Severity Values: we'll start simple with Turn/Gold = 1; Alignment Change or Fate = 2; Life = 3; Craft or Strength = 4.
  • • EXAMPLE: For the Chapel, a 100% chance of 1 Life lost (a Severity of 3) for Evil characters: 100% x 1 x 3 = 3.
  • Multiple Deficits...
    • If more than one deficit occurs simultaneously, the total of all deficits' I.V.s is placed in this column.
    • If only one deficit among multiple is possible, each deficits separately calculated I.V. is multiplied by its chance of occurrence (i.e., 50%/50% for one of two separate deficits, etc.). The separate results are added together and the total is placed in this column.
  • "Other" Effects: These must be estimated based on individual case.
  • • Example: Reduced Movement to 1 space per turn is (1) less loss than losing a Turn but (2) lasts more than one Turn, and (3) makes it hard to avoid hazards on the way to a remedy. It's about half Turn deficit and half Life deficit, so we'll call it an I.V. of 2. If the duration is hard limited, say for only 3 moves, we might use 1.5.
    • "Toadies": becoming a Toad reduces movement, Craft, and Strength to 1 but for only 3 Turns. It also forces the character to drop all gold and equipment. Losing all Gold via the Raiders card, to be taken way out of reach in the Oasis, is estimated at 1 (since that's the Starting Gold for all characters). Since being toaded means leaving Objects as well as Gold - BUT doing so within closer reach - we'll call it a 2. Temporary and time limited movement of 1 is already estimated at 1.5, so becoming a Toad is a nasty if not immediately lethal occurrence which comes out at 3.5.
• Cost: equals total Percentage mutiplied by 100, then multiplied by Importance Value and rounded off [ (% x 100) x I.V. = Cost].
  • NOTE: actual point amounts to "spend" on adding Immunities (or other Special Abilities) will be covered later in Balancing and is based on how much the character already has in the way of high Quantitative Attributes (Strength, Craft, Fate, etc.)

* The Imp has an I.V. calculated from the spaces to which he can Teleport a character. 50% of these have a chance of immediate deficit. Each of those is separately calculate for % and I.V., multiplied by 16.7% (chance of each location on a die roll). All results are added together then divide by 2 for the 50% chance of being sent to a deficit space. As a result, The Imp and The Cave are so low in cost they seem pointless for an Immunity. Both will be abandoned as Immunity options. They remain here as examples of cards (in expansions or base game) that aren't worth consideration for Immunities.

NOTE: We may later adjust Cost figures if they seem too high or low in building our first character. (Yes, we're going to do that eventually.) We have also ignore above the special case to make an Optional Immunity into a Forced Immunity. Doing so, as deficit built into the Immunity, might qualify for lowering the Cost of adding the Immunity to a character.

By calculations, we see why Immunities for certain Spaces (Chapel, Graveyard) and those in the Middle Region (Desert) haven't been given to any standard characters, irregardless of any rational. Such would give an exceptional advantage, and hence have a higher Cost, even if we lowered the base Severity for all attributes affected. In 4th edition an Adventure Card is now drawn on either Desert space after losing 1 Life there. We all know Adventure cards are what all players want most. Any character immune to Desert spaces would have two extra spaces versus others on which to safely draw an Adventure card.

We'll leave these costly Immunities listed, but assigning them to a character means it won't have many (or any) other Special Abilities. It might even take losses in Starting Strength, Craft, Lives, and/or Fate to balance being Immune to a place like the Desert (or Chapel or Graveyard).

Notice that the Forest and Crags (the most common standard Immunities) are not that costly. This is why the Troll with a Craft plus Strength totaling 7 (rare) can have an Immunity for the Crags. It also hints why the Dwarf is possibly the most unbalanced standard character of any in 4th edition... assuming these initial value guesses are slightly accurate.

Time to pause, since there's a lot to digest in all these fuzzy calculations. Next time we'll look at Evasions, a slightly more active group of Special Abilities akin to Immunities. Until then (perhaps before the Yule, but no promises), feel free to share your thoughts with me through a comment or two.

Powered by Zoundry Raven