The eagle-eyed amongst you might have noticed that there's more space in the RotR box for henchmen than there is for monsters. This is because they have to provide seven copies of each henchman to allow enough for an 8-location (6-character) game.
However, all these henchmen are the same and it means that each new expansion pack contains fewer shiny goodies than you might have hoped for - just lots and lots of copies of a few henchmen.
So, here's my suggestion... why not put five "Henchman" placeholder cards into the base set and two more into the character expansion pack?
When you set up a scenario you could then use these placeholders to mark when you encounter a henchman and put the actual henchman card next to the scenario card on display. This would mean that:
a) you only need one copy of each henchman card
b) we could get more non-henchman cards in the base set
c) we could get more non-henchman cards in each expansion set
d) there would never be the edge case of needing a henchman card but not having one to hand (e.g. finding a Skeleton Horde barrier when all the Ancient Skeletons are shuffled into the location decks)
e) perhaps you could put the $%^& "if defeated you may attempt to close this location" text onto the placeholder cards instead of the henchmen cards themselves (this is a personal niggle since I've fielded lots of queries from people confused by this text and its interaction with summoned henchmen)
I don't think it would detract from play to turn up a placeholder - you then just refer to the henchman on display for the details. You can even keep it face-down until it's first encountered if you like the surprise element.
The unique/named henchmen could still work as normal, e.g. Tangletooth, and be shuffled into the decks. This proposal is just for the un-named minions at the end of each scenario's threat list. Actually, maybe "Minions" is a good name for the placeholder card? :)
So... what does the community think about this and, almost as importantly, what does Paizo think?
I think that's a good idea. The only reason I could think for not doing that is aesthetics - basically, if you encounter an enemy, you want to see the art for that enemy. That doesn't bother me overly much, though, so I wouldn't mind placeholder cards.
|
Henchmen are a good way to distinguish one scenario from another...in fact, it's one of the most important ways to do so. One could certainly argue that the henchmen could be more unique from one scenario to the next, but I certainly wouldn't argue to make all scenarios more similar to one another by giving them all the same henchmen.
I like the idea... I wonder about the production... I think it might well add to the cost.
To follow xris' example, they currently develop three cards and print 7 of each.
Instead, they would need to produce up to 14 unique cards:
3 different henchmen
11 other cards saved by using placeholders. Some of theses will be duplicates, but that is still more cards that need to be developed and play tested etc. Or maybe these will be duplicates of other cards....
Chief Technical Officer
|
At one point in the game's design, henchmen actually worked a lot like that—there were generic henchmen, which would refer you to another type of card called archetypes. The scenario would tell you to what archetype to use for the scenario.
So the scenario would say "use the Vampire archetype," or "use the Trap archetype," or whatever, and the henchman would say "Check to Defeat: see archetype card", and the archetype card would basically be the only place that statted out the vampire or trap.
I felt that it added an unnecessary, unpleasant, and sometimes confusing layer of abstraction. Removing that concept, and letting henchmen be what they were, I think, helped henchmen get a lot more interesting. I would consider returning to that abstraction a step backward.
(It actually went even further than that—a lot of monsters had generic names like "Enemy Leader" and "Enemy Sneak", and then they had the keyword "Mook." The adventure card would tell you "in this adventure, all Mooks are Goblins, and in addition to whatever it says on the mook card, they also have these special Goblin powers." It was kind of clever, but I thought all the cross-referencing was kind of a pain in the ass.)
It would also add more complication for scenarios with named henchman. You would need a card that said "On your third henchman encounter, draw a skeleton. On your fourth encounter draw Ratfink the Ratman, on your fifth encounter..."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
It would also add more complication for scenarios with named henchman. You would need a card that said "On your third henchman encounter, draw a skeleton. On your fourth encounter draw Ratfink the Ratman, on your fifth encounter..."
Such a thing could happen now, on the scenario card.
It would also add more complication for scenarios with named henchman. You would need a card that said "On your third henchman encounter, draw a skeleton. On your fourth encounter draw Ratfink the Ratman, on your fifth encounter..."
Not at all... the idea would be to put the actual named henchmen into the location decks, plus placeholders for the "minions" (i.e. the last henchman listed on the scenario card, of which there are usually several in play, especially when playing with 8 locations).
I think that's a good idea. The only reason I could think for not doing that is aesthetics - basically, if you encounter an enemy, you want to see the art for that enemy. That doesn't bother me overly much, though, so I wouldn't mind placeholder cards.
I'm guessing this is why Paizo have done it the way they have, but I (with my statistically relevant sample size of one) wouldn't have any problem with looking at the henchman card next to the scenario for my art and details instead of at the physical placeholder drawn from the location deck itself.
At one point in the game's design, henchmen actually worked a lot like that—there were generic henchmen, which would refer you to another type of card called archetypes. The scenario would tell you to what archetype to use for the scenario.
So the scenario would say "use the Vampire archetype," or "use the Trap archetype," or whatever, and the henchman would say "Check to Defeat: see archetype card", and the archetype card would basically be the only place that statted out the vampire or trap.
I felt that it added an unnecessary, unpleasant, and sometimes confusing layer of abstraction. Removing that concept, and letting henchmen be what they were, I think, helped henchmen get a lot more interesting. I would consider returning to that abstraction a step backward.
(It actually went even further than that—a lot of monsters had generic names like "Enemy Leader" and "Enemy Sneak", and then they had the keyword "Mook." The adventure card would tell you "in this adventure, all Mooks are Goblins, and in addition to whatever it says on the mook card, they also have these special Goblin powers." It was kind of clever, but I thought all the cross-referencing was kind of a pain in the ass.)
If I understand what you're saying then it's slightly different to the suggestion presented here.
I'm not suggesting that you use archetypes or that anything (at all) needs to change about the henchman cards themselves. Just that it seems a real waste (with more negative than positive imho) to have so many identical henchman cards in the base game and expansion packs. There's not really much abstraction when you pull a card from the location deck then refer to the actual henchman card sitting next to the scenario.
In fact, it's effectively the same as when you currently pull a barrier which summons a monster (e.g. the Skeleton Horde barrier is already effectively a placeholder for Ancient Skeletons, it's just that games with more than one character encounter multiple Skeletons), but that barrier is more work since you have to fish through the henchman deck to find a Skeleton to face (if there are any left).
In summary, I felt a little cheated when I realised that so many cards in Skinsaw were identical copies of Henchmen that I was probably only going to see in a couple of scenarios. I would much rather see more variety in each pack, whether that comes in the form of more named henchmen, more banes or more boons is immaterial. More is good ;)
+1 for H4ppy's idea!
Well, in fairness, it was my idea first….
Anyway, for the Pathfinder ACG, we had a lot of cards to work with, so making the game center around the same eight cards over and over would have been less flavorful, as Vic notes. For another game, I might make a different call, but for this one, it made quite a lot of sense to go the way we did.
I do see the potential logistical issues with this idea, I do agree with H4ppy for sure on the "More is good ;)" part. Just in case you guys were interested in more opinions. We have done this for the character created scenarios/adventures with great success.
+1 for H4ppy's idea!Well, in fairness, it was my idea first….
Anyway, for the Pathfinder ACG, we had a lot of cards to work with, so making the game center around the same eight cards over and over would have been less flavorful, as Vic notes. For another game, I might make a different call, but for this one, it made quite a lot of sense to go the way we did.
This is a great game!!!! the system is very fun... a mix of card game with a dungeons dragons.... wow!!!!
one point... i just hope for better graphic. More games have high quality
and the price is not very more high!!!
@Markon - I obviously agree with you entirely and don't quite 'get' the merit of the arguments against. Hey, you could probably even put a NEW henchman placeholder in each Adventure Pack and still come out ahead, using the space saved for some more interesting cards!
Legendary is an interesting game to compare the suggestion to.
On the one hand, part of me prefers the idea of using a placeholder card for the henchmen (and maybe the villain too), and having the specific henchman *for that scenario* set aside. As has been noted, it frees up a lot of space in each AP, and we're accumulating a LOT of different henchmen cards - most of which are needed for just one scenario, and all of which are provided in large numbers *in case* you play a 6-player game (we do, quite often, but it *still* grates). So I have lots of Bandits and Ancient Skeletons which I think are likely to stay in the box now - unlike all the other banes and boons, which might come out again and again, the henchmen are pretty much a one-time thing. So the generic hench card makes sense, although dealing with scenarios with more than one hench-type gets a little clumsy, and as Vic & Mike have both said, setting aside the card you encountered to refer to a different card that you had set aside at the start of the game breaks the flow of the turn.
But that *is* the solution chosen in Legendary, for both the "scheme twist" cards (which are seeded through the bad guy deck, and mean different things in different scenarios) and the "master strike" cards (which are also seeded through the bad guy deck, and mean different things when playing different master villains). And it *is* a bit of a pain in Legendary to cross-refer, and it *is* less immersive as a result.
I think that on balance I prefer the PACG way of doing things, but part of me thinks that having so many henchmen in the box which get used exactly once is a bit of a waste of space and materiel.
+1 to Markon's post.
Since you would have the card to hand (next to the Scenario card) I don't think it would cause any problems with immersion.
@Wyphy - I know it's like that in the RAW but if you skip out on summoning skeletons due to a lack of cards then you need toughening up :) Personally, I don't think that solving this particular component limitation is a drawback.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, I quite simply have no interest in doing this to the game. While it isn't an issue to expert players such as yourselves, it's an added layer of abstraction that makes the game just a little less easy to approach, and also less immersive. And this isn't theoretical—this is something I actually observed in a prior version of the game. It's a better game for having moved away from it.
Just to play devil's advocate for a minute...
If players had some generic cards like these, maybe Henchman #1->#8, Villain #1->4 (being uniquely numbered would be important), and maybe some other card types too... they could be used in custom scenarios as placeholders alongside actual Henchmen/Villains (yes, we could use other cards as placeholders, but this would give a definite cue that it is a placeholder versus the actual card. Alternately, just a few blanks of each type would also work.
It could be included in the POD card errata or bundled as a standalone expansion (essentially a custom scenario builder's toolkit). I would buy it. :)
I apologize if something like this was already stated, but maybe future Henchman can be "recycled." They can be used like the "veteran" type cards.
Here's what I mean: Like h4ppy said, it would be nice to have different cards in our future packs rather than so many of the same Henchman. Perhaps a scenario or Henchman card can give off "veteran" conditions. Those conditions being "increase this card's difficulty by the number listed on the scenario card" for using a previous scenario's henchman
I think this way other Henchman can still be used and keep some of their threat with an added increased difficulty.
Currently, the issue of this could be the immersion to the game might be thrown off a bit for certain scenarios.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
There's nothing in the game preventing henchman from being reused *now*, or from having the Veteran trait. Keep in mind, though, that we're adapting a storyline from the RPG, and the story-specific things that are important enough to be used as henchmen in the ACG are generally things that appear just once in the RPG. (For the "named" henchmen, this is because we generally expect that most parties kill off or otherwise permanently sideline that character. For the generic henchmen, it's because they've already been presented as a challenge once, and bringing them back later would be anticlimactic in most cases.)
Now, there *are* very rare times when we'll present a character in the RPG that we basically don't let anyone kill because they need to come back later in the storyline... but odds are good that when they reappear, they'll have done more than just level up—they'll also have some powers or equipment they didn't have the first time around. In the card game, that means we'd want to give them a bump bigger than just Veteran. (Heck, odds are good they'd be making the jump from henchman to *villain*!)
|
|
I think the proper way to view this is not as an idea to reduce the number of henchmen - which Vic has indicated isn't going to happen, and which I agree is a poor resolution - but rather as a means to increase content. The real issue is not that there are so many henchmen, but that those henchman cards could be used for something else - or, perhaps, used more effectively (having henchmen re-appear, or having more unique henchmen).
Having more barriers that summon henchmen (making them useful more than once), having more adventures that mix or re-mix content from one or more adventure paths (including the henchmen), and / or simply increasing the number of cards in a base set might all be solutions to this perceived "problem" that this "solution" is trying to fix.
EDIT: There's also the fact that content is now coming monthly rather than bi-monthly...would we really be discussing the 10-15 or so cards we're "wasting" on henchmen if we weren't waiting for the next adventure pack to hit our mailboxes? You'll have all the content you can swallow, and perhaps more, come next July or August.
Maybe not related to this topic /thread, but I think I have a great idea for henchmen (side note: part of this idea does come from another game). I think it would be do-able, not that hard to implement, and make the henchmen a little more powerful and a bit more like a sub-boss. The suggestion I will say bellow can apply to bosses as well (other side note: sorry if someone has mentioned this idea already; I'm a bit new to the forums!)
Here's my idea. For a harder and more interesting game, maybe the henchmen / boss should be able to equip a weapon and gain those bonuses! Just think about it, rather than just some flat rate of difficulty, they could possibly become a great challenge if they roll high. I was thinking the first henchman you fight is normal, no weapons. After that any other henchman can have like a basic weapon with a die roll increasing their difficulty. Here's where another idea comes into play...several cards sometimes require you to pass a check "x," otherwise "y" occurs. So for a weapon that might have an extra dice if weapon is discarded the enemy can also have this extra dice if the player rolls a 6 dice prior to combat and gets a 1, then the enemy gets the extra dice on top of the initial weapon dice.
Maybe for those seeking a little extra treasure in their game, the same roll of the dice principal could be in place. After the combat, if you are successful at beating the baddie roll a 6 dice and if you get a 6, you can obtain the weapon. Anything lower than a 6 will render the weapon "unusable" and banished to the box.
I probably explained myself very poorly, but the main thing I want to get across is being able to provide henchman / bosses that extra random chance of additional danger. They already have their base difficulty plus whatever the maximum roll of the dice could be. So, even if the "extra" dice idea is a bit too tricky to implement, I don't think it's too hard to just add the base dice of a weapon card.
Sorry for the long post!
Don't forget that all villains and henchmen have another use: They can be the bad guys in whatever scenarios you design.
I'm going to side with the Designers on this one. A very good comparison has already been made with the comparison to Marvel Legendary. When I played that game, I often get confused by the cross-referencing of "Scheme Twists" and "Master Strike". And that game is way simpler mechanically compared to PACG. Another good point is the wear and tear that could occur with placeholder Henchmen cards if the same ones are used every scenario, even when Sleeved.
@Markon. You're right. I've posted it elsewhere. Just got excited.
Perhaps when enough adventure decks are out, there could be a mode where the monsters are henchman only. When building the location deck, instead of selecting from the monster deck, you select from the henchman deck. Thus, every monster you encounter is a previous henchmen. You still need to locate and defeat the scenario's henchmen in order to attempt to close the location.