As the title - should older cards that refer to "a henchman or a villain" now be considered as referring to "a story bane"?
(This matters for the Danger, and possibly for other circumstances.)
That's an issue that we discussed in the Core Set Version Character Sheets for Legacy? project (link goes to where the actual discussion on that issue starts).
The conclusion we came to was that it will vary from card to card. We've only addressed the character/role cards and the wordings of their powers, but it's likely that similar criteria could be applied to other pre-Core cards.
Since story banes can be used as more than just villains and henchmen*, that's definitely not safe to do by default, as it would expand the scope of many powers beyond their original intent.
*In addition to often being the danger, a bunch of cards summon story banes.
How is that meaningfully different to before? If a bane pre-Core had you summon and encounter a specific named card (as is the case when a Core card tells you to summon and encounter a story bane), the banes summoned by pre-Core cards were always villains or henchmen. They had to be, because asking you to summon a specific monster or barrier runs into the issue that the card may be shuffled into a location.
A pre-Core card that worked against henchmen would similarly work just fine against those summons.
Since story banes can be used as more than just villains and henchmen*, that's definitely not safe to do by default, as it would expand the scope of many powers beyond their original intent.
*In addition to often being the danger, a bunch of cards summon story banes.
Your word is explicit law on these forums, so I feel like I'm walking a tightrope suggesting a counterpoint here.
But I feel that's an... odd ruling. Absolutely every pre-Core scenario power, location power or bane power that summoned a named card for you to fight summoned Henchmen, as they previously existed in card type form. (For example, summoning Bandits, Ancient Skeletons, Servitor Demons, Hammerhead Sharks, Pirate Shade Haunts, etc.)
If I have an ability that benefits me against Henchmen (like RotR Lem, Charlatan role, where he can add +2 to checks against Henchmen), I don't really understand why Mob of Undead (Core) or Flanking Attack (Core) would not count but Zombie Nest (RotR) and Goblin Raid (RotR) would, even though they all represent basically identical themes of "Everyone encounters a given named card".
If anything, such a ruling seems to explicitly nerf all previous powers that referred to Henchmen and Villains, which has always included any bane that was summoned by a card effect by name.
Was the 'original intent' of pre-Core "Anti-Henchmen/Villain" powers to only include henchmen/villains shuffled into location decks, and never summoned ones? Certainly they were never worded in such a way (with the very rare exception of powers that explicitly were mechanically tied to closing locations). Take the original Sage's Journal, for example; was it not supposed to work during Zombie Nest or Goblin Raid?
Chief Technical Officer
|
Lem's Charlatan role is actually a really good example of why it *shouldn't* automatically be applied. If his ability to add 2 to his check against a henchman is changed to add 2 to his check against a story bane, that would increase his power by making it work against story bane villains as well, which is clearly not desirable—it's actually a separate feat for that character to do that! [Original text: (□ Add 2 to your check to acquire an ally (□ or defeat a henchman) (□ or villain).]
A pre-Core card that worked against henchmen would similarly work just fine against those summons.
Same problem—if you make a card that worked against henchmen work against story banes, it works against villains too, and that's an increase in power.
It is definitely not safe to change powers that affected only villains or affected only henchman to affect story banes. It might be safe to change powers that previously affected both villains and henchmen to affect story banes, but we'd have to examine all instances of that to be sure.
As you mentioned, each instance might have to be looked at seperately, but it seems - at a high level - safe to redefine pre-Core terms/templates to the following...
"Henchmen" -> "Non-Villain Story Bane"
"Villain" -> "Villain" (No change)
The term "Villain" and "Non-Villain" still work, after all, but the former makes clear that powers vs henchmen don't accidentally (and erroneously) include villains.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
As you mentioned, each instance might have to be looked at seperately, but it seems - at a high level - safe to redefine pre-Core terms/templates to the following...
"Henchmen" -> "Non-Villain Story Bane"
"Villain" -> "Villain" (No change)The term "Villain" and "Non-Villain" still work, after all, but the former makes clear that powers vs henchmen don't accidentally (and erroneously) include villains.
That does seem to be worth investigating.
I definitely don't agree with that. Making powers work against villains when they weren't intended to is a pretty significant side effect.
It is definitely not safe to change powers that affected only villains or affected only henchman to affect story banes.
Of course not. That wasn't what I was asking (although I can understand the confusion). Things that previously affected henchmen only should not now affect villains, that's perfectly clear.
I suppose what I really was asking here is what Yewstance said: can the category of "henchmen" on older cards be expanded to "non-villain story bane"?
(This covers the "villain and henchman" case as well, since "villains + non-villain story banes" should become "story banes" (unless we start having villains that aren't story banes, I suppose).)
(As Skizzerz and Yewstance pointed out, though, the category of "Henchmen" in the Core set is narrower than the category of "Henchmen" pre-Core, so this represents a loss in power for some characters and cards if not changed.)
I'd like to first say that redefining henchmen as "Non-villain story banes" seems more sensible anyway, but there's something Vic said which confused me greatly, so I'd like to get more clarity on the reasoning why such a powerful statement was made now (but not in prior circumstances).
I definitely don't agree with that. Making powers work against villains when they weren't intended to is a pretty significant side effect.
There must be something I'm missing, because the definition of that as a "significant side effect" seems to contradict actions undertaken by both the Core rules changes and the Conversion guide in dozens of other cases.
The Core Rules changes have undermined dozens of powers and dozens of boons, fundamentally improving, weakening, obsoleting or changing an incredible variety of cards and characters over the history of PACG - only some of which have been covered by the Conversion Guide (which openly hands out buffs - like extra proficiencies - and nerfs - like to Javelin of Lightning - in the process).
Why is this extreme corner case - where I struggle to think of more than 3 impacted powers and boons over the history of PACG - an unacceptable "significant side effect"? Why is this special?
(To clarify, a huge variety of old cards referred to "Non-Villain banes", and they will absolutely still fail to work against villains even in the current ruleset. Powers that mentioned "Henchmen" explicitly (but not "and/or Villains") have always been vanishingly rare.)
Rivani has a power feat that benefits multiple people play a blessing on the same check - something made very hard in Core (especially alongside Class Decks).
Feiya (S&S) has a power feat that makes her move when her location is closed.
Amiri (Barbarian CD) has a similar power feat that makes her move when her location closes.
Recovery has impacted a wide variety of characters and greatly impacted their efficiency, including Zarlova, Crowe and Seoni (WotR).
Many more issues are being brought up daily in other threads.
I have not taken issue with characters becoming more powerful (or, more frequently, weaker) than intended, because previous designer statements have emphasised that there is a preference to instill rules that are consistent and intuitive over maintaining perfect pre-Core character/boon balance..
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Three of the most important considerations in balancing most scenarios are the challenge level and rules surrounding henchman encounters, location closing requirements, and villain encounters. When a potential change has a direct affect on any of those three things, it could dramatically affect the playability of some scenarios or even break them entirely. Such a change requires an extra-deep dive, so it needs a really good reason to even be considered.
I just don't see any good reason to allow cards that were designed to affect only henchmen to also affect villains.
Sufficient explanation for me, thanks.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We are also having a discussion about making “non-villain, non-henchman bane” equivalent to “non-story bane barrier or monster," and other occurrences of "non-villain, non-henchman” equivalent to “non-story bane,” but I'm not yet convinced that's safe.
Added to Conversion Guide, with some additional related rules.