The Treachery Demon occurs as an AD5 Monster in RotR and as an AD5 Henchman in WotR. The WotR version is 'buffed' compared to the RotR version, since it has an additional (cosmetic) trait, increases the difficulty to defeat by 3 and has an additional power.
I get why the WotR is the way it is, but how can this discrepancy be reconciled with the guideline that cards with the same name should do the same?
I get why the WotR is the way it is, but how can this discrepancy be reconciled with the guideline that cards with the same name should do the same?
If I have to venture a guess - they're treating different card types (Henchman and Monster being different for this purpose) like separate categories; this actually seems pretty intuitive and user-friendly, reinforced the different color-coded card frames, which is probably the reason why among all the veteran players around, no one actually thought to ask the question before.
The above logic is the only reasonable solution that I see, that also allows us to have Cohort Leryn and Ally Leryn, or Kollo.
The Treachery Demon occurs as an AD5 Monster in RotR and as an AD5 Henchman in WotR. The WotR version is 'buffed' compared to the RotR version, since it has an additional (cosmetic) trait, increases the difficulty to defeat by 3 and has an additional power.
I get why the WotR is the way it is, but how can this discrepancy be reconciled with the guideline that cards with the same name should do the same?
Hum... not true. And not linked with the fact that cards are of different type or not. Typical example: iconics character cards.
I guess for boons, they should be the same (same traits, check to acquire and powers, although the AD# could be different) if with the same name.But I see your point. Would be better if the cards names were a bit different.
Wrath of the Righteous was created before the whole things about (non-character) cards with the same name and different effects came into play.
There were a few cards that had different traits but effectively the same:
-Glibness (RotR/CD was Elite, WotR was Basic, errata'd into Eloquence)
-Monkey (RotR was not Elite, WotR was Elite)
The actual FAQ said:
'While we were making Wrath of the Righteous, we came up with the policy that cards with the same power but different traits are not the same card. For example, we wanted to bring back the card Wisdom in this set, but since we wanted characters to be able to use it in their starting decks, we needed it to be Basic instead of Elite, so we instead introduced the card Sagacity, which is identical to Wisdom in every way other than art, name, and the presence of the Basic trait. We failed to apply that rule to Glibness. What we should have done is given it new art and called it "Eloquence."'
The Treachery Demon (RotR monster) and Treachery Demon (WotR servitor henchman) don't have the same powers, so it doesn't fall under this case.
AD# can always be different, but that's been established as early as S&S (Blessing of Norgorber in particular).
'While we were making Wrath of the Righteous, we came up with the policy that cards with the same power but different traits are not the same card.
TBH, given the S&S Heavy Crossbow FAQ - it feels like *someone* came up with that policy even earlier (or else, there would be nothing 'wrong' to FAQ there)...
Wrath of the Righteous was created before the whole things about (non-character) cards with the same name and different effects came into play.
There were a few cards that had different traits but effectively the same:
-Glibness (RotR/CD was Elite, WotR was Basic, errata'd into Eloquence)
-Monkey (RotR was not Elite, WotR was Elite)The actual FAQ said:
'While we were making Wrath of the Righteous, we came up with the policy that cards with the same power but different traits are not the same card. For example, we wanted to bring back the card Wisdom in this set, but since we wanted characters to be able to use it in their starting decks, we needed it to be Basic instead of Elite, so we instead introduced the card Sagacity, which is identical to Wisdom in every way other than art, name, and the presence of the Basic trait. We failed to apply that rule to Glibness. What we should have done is given it new art and called it "Eloquence."'The Treachery Demon (RotR monster) and Treachery Demon (WotR servitor henchman) don't have the same powers, so it doesn't fall under this case.
AD# can always be different, but that's been established as early as S&S (Blessing of Norgorber in particular).
Thanks for the quote, the fact that Glibness was turned into Eloquence was the reason I started this thread, although I misremembered the actual explanation.
I agree that the Treachery Demon fits this policy, but I still think it's inconsistent compared to monsters that are also henchmen in RotR, like 'Charmed Faceless Stalker' vs 'Faceless Stalker' and 'Harpy Monk' vs 'Harpy'. The only thing that differentiates those in gameplay terms is that the henchman allow you to close your location; their traits and powers and checks to defeat are identical otherwise. In this sense, they are closer to each other than the Treachery Demons, but still got separate art and names to differentiate them further.
TBH, given the S&S Heavy Crossbow FAQ - it feels like *someone* came up with that policy even earlier (or else, there would be nothing 'wrong' to FAQ there)...
By the time S&S was released they were likely far into development on Wrath.
Chief Technical Officer
|
We have several precedents for cards of different types that have the same name. Daji, Kolo, and Leryn are both allies and cohorts. Mogmurch is an ally and a character. Shalelu Andosana is an ally and (in Season of the Goblins) a villain.
I fully expect that someday, story will dictate that we have a henchman and a villain that have the same name.
You also have cards of the same type that have the same name with different powers - Padrig. I expect Leryn to be the same when the Hunter deck comes out. (And if Leryn in the Hunter class deck isn't a Cohort, I will be sad.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yes—the rules specifically mention that in the Compatibility with Other Sets sidebar: "When the same characters or cohorts appear in different sets, they are represented with different cards having different abilities and powers."
So that behavior is limited to those card types (at least for now).
|
Yes—the rules specifically mention that in the Compatibility with Other Sets sidebar: "When the same characters or cohorts appear in different sets, they are represented with different cards having different abilities and powers."
So that behavior is limited to those card types (at least for now).
Well, except for all the canines with the Mount trait in the Paladin deck but not anywhere else...
Well, except for all the canines with the Mount trait in the Paladin deck but not anywhere else...
Retriever and Mountain Dog first appeared in the Paladin deck, then the Warpriest deck. They had the Mount trait in both.