[Board/Tactical Game]: Talisman, reviewed by ShannonA (4/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13237.phtml

Shannon Appelcline's Summary:

A brand-new edition of Talisman with great components, but not much changed beyond that.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Maniac]

Thanks for the great review.

Does the new edition do anything to address any of the Character imbalances in the 2nd edition?

While the base set characters were more closely matched than some of the later additions, the Monk was clearly the best overall since his fighting power increased with both strength and craft. I can only believe that the addition of trading in craft of killed spirits makes the monk even better.

M.

[WillyPete]

Originally Posted by Maniac

Thanks for the great review.

Does the new edition do anything to address any of the Character imbalances in the 2nd edition?

While the base set characters were more closely matched than some of the later additions, the Monk was clearly the best overall since his fighting power increased with both strength and craft. I can only believe that the addition of trading in craft of killed spirits makes the monk even better.

M.

At least in the original game, about 1/3 of the characters were worthless, about 1/3 were playable, but not exciting, and about 1/3 of them left you feeling like you had a real chance of winning.
If this edition only has 14 character types (as opposed to the hundreds that I remember from the original, with all the expansion sets), the balance feature becomes a LOT more critical!

But, this is only a preview of the game, not a playtest...

[Robin Low]

It's worth noting that a signifcantly revised edition came out in the 90s. I'd be interested in knowing how the latest compares with that edition.

Regards

Robin

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by WillyPete

At least in the original game, about 1/3 of the characters were worthless, about 1/3 were playable, but not exciting, and about 1/3 of them left you feeling like you had a real chance of winning.
If this edition only has 14 character types (as opposed to the hundreds that I remember from the original, with all the expansion sets), the balance feature becomes a LOT more critical!

But, this is only a preview of the game, not a playtest...

As noted in the review, it was a playtest. We played twice, once with the standard rules, once with the optional speed-ups.

However, I don't really know enough about the original to note how characters have changed. From what I've been told, it's minimal, though some effort was made to nerf the more powerful characters. Most notably there's now a limit on spell-casting: you can only cast as many spells on a turn as you had at the start of the turn, which I believe was intended to nerf certain spell-casting characters.

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by Robin Low

It's worth noting that a signifcantly revised edition came out in the 90s. I'd be interested in knowing how the latest compares with that edition.

I mention that briefly in the rule. The newest game is largely based on the second edition, not the third edition that came out in the 90s. I believe some of the polish/clean-up might have been introduced in the third edition, then ported here, but you won't find the notably changed maps and such.

[Robin Low]

Originally Posted by ShannonA

I mention that briefly in the rule. The newest game is largely based on the second edition, not the third edition that came out in the 90s. I believe some of the polish/clean-up might have been introduced in the third edition, then ported here, but you won't find the notably changed maps and such.

Sorry, I missed the reference to it. I've just dug the 3rd edition out of the cupboard - I'd forgotten how much they had changed some of the components, such as the character cards. It's odd, really - the second edition has a pleasantly old-fashioned feel about it, but the third edition now looks dated. However, I don't know if I need a fourth edition, especially if it doesn't actually play any faster.

Regards

Robin

[WillyPete]

Originally Posted by ShannonA

As noted in the review, it was a playtest. We played twice, once with the standard rules, once with the optional speed-ups.

However, I don't really know enough about the original to note how characters have changed. From what I've been told, it's minimal, though some effort was made to nerf the more powerful characters. Most notably there's now a limit on spell-casting: you can only cast as many spells on a turn as you had at the start of the turn, which I believe was intended to nerf certain spell-casting characters.

Sorry... It might have been a playtest, but it was still a preview, in that you didn't have enough of a chance to compare all the characters to each other, and determine which were obviously too good, or too poor...
{I'm not blaming you, that would likely take a year or more!}
Sadly, if that's all they've done to 'balance' things, this is going to be a problem...
At least, in my experience, the Spellcasters were never that big a deal.
It was always the Fighters with the really nasty special abilities (like the Chaos Knight) who bulldozed their way through the game...
{It's been a long time since I played, though...}

Thanks for the review, and let's hope this one stays around long enough to bring back the Expansion sets!

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by WillyPete

At least in the original game, about 1/3 of the characters were worthless, about 1/3 were playable, but not exciting, and about 1/3 of them left you feeling like you had a real chance of winning.
If this edition only has 14 character types (as opposed to the hundreds that I remember from the original, with all the expansion sets), the balance feature becomes a LOT more critical!

Um, Talisman 2nd ed had 12 characters in it. If you add the expansions, it had hundreds, but you can't compare 2nd ed + a dozen expansions with 4th ed.

Also, it is in fact much easier to balance 14 characters than hundreds.

My real worries are the item misbalance - the Wand was devestating (you'd just cast spells until you hit the good ones), the Runesword was a game winner (you become almost immortal) and the Mule was so important we gave one to everyone at the start of each game.

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by SteveD

My real worries are the item misbalance - the Wand was devestating (you'd just cast spells until you hit the good ones), the Runesword was a game winner (you become almost immortal) and the Mule was so important we gave one to everyone at the start of each game.

The aforementioned rule about casting only as many spells in a round as you had at the start of the round nerfs wands, but is a bit illogical in some situations (e.g., you can't cast when you get a wand if you didn't have spells previously, and is the spell of Command a spell for this purpose?). Nonetheless wands are still quite powerful.