Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Maybe have it where evil charecters can't attack other evil charecters and same with good and neutral. Neutral can't attack neutral and good can't attack good. Even then though, I feel it is too much of a change to the core of gameplay
Bloodbath gets rid of these restrictions while also making for a faster game.
Note to devs... maybe with bloodbath settings you could make players discard the talismans they draw from the adventure decks or get as treasure rewards making the 1 talisman in the talisman deck truly the only one in the game. Just a personal preference from my old group of board game players' house rules.
Now to get back on topic I agree with chrispok077. In practice it would give evil characters way too much of an advantage (like they don't already have one, try getting fate as a goodie {although this is much easier with "highlands" expansion.})
That's why for the table game, I made a house rule that I can't remember my offical name for right now, but the alternate is "Can vs. Cannot vs. Common Sense"