$30.00
Mike Runnestrand
United States
Carlsbad
California
flag msg tools
You should be reading this comic.
badge
I like nerdy stuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Everything was fine until the Villains game came out. Heroes went in the hero deck, Villains went in the villain deck. Sometimes good won, sometimes evil won, everything was cool.

Villains came out and flipped the script. If you just played Villains, everything was fine, Good vs. Evil. But once you mixed the games, things went a little screwy.

If you don't have Villains, the "villain deck" is called the "adversary deck" and Villains/Henchmen are called "Adversaries/Backup Adversaries."

My suggestion to Upper Deck is to make "Adversary" the official term for "Villain" going forward with Legendary.

There are now SO many groups of typically heroic characters that find their way into the villain deck (even if you DON'T have the Villains game) that calling them "Villains" is a little silly, and typically requires some sort of storytelling to explain to players why Spider-Man is a villain. "Uhhh....he got mind controlled...by....space rays. That's why he's helping Galactus rob the Midtown Bank."

Because of the nature of Legendary, silly scenarios (like Galactus robbing a bank) are going to occur. But to me, those don't detract from the thematic Marvel experience. They showcase how Legendary is a big "anything goes!" where all your favorite heroes and villains are thrown together to enact some crazy comic book plot.

But calling all of these beloved heroic characters "villains" never sits right with me. Spider-Man isn't a VILLAIN for wanting to enforce the new law, he is an ADVERSARY of those who believe the law to be unjust.

I already have to explain to my less geeky friends the concept of "equivalent terms" in Legendary, and I think Upper Deck should take it to the next level. Future expansions should just use the term Adversary.

"But Mike!" you may say, "It's too late! There are already WAY too many things that say Villain! And all of the "heroes as villains" expansions have already come out. You missed your chance for this to happen."

I agree that it sucks that Upper Deck didn't pick up the term Adversary before Secret Wars came out and dumped a ton of heroes into the villain deck. And Civil War obviously would have been the perfect place for this change to be seen. But if a change makes the game feel more thematic overall, should we just ignore it forever because we "missed" the chance to do it at the perfect time? I don't think so. I think it will be a little bit of an ugly transition, but if we just make the change now and go forward with it, eventually it will be better overall.

I think Upper Deck has a perfect opportunity to reprint the base set (new art!) and swap out the term Villain with Adversary. That way new players are introduced to the better term right away, and enfranchised players will have an opportunity to replace their base set with something somewhat new.

Note: I hate the term "backup adversary" but like whoever designed that clunky and awkward term, I am hard pressed to come up with a term that could be used for good or evil "henchmen." Lackey, maybe?
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Atnier Rodriguez
United States
Monroe
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is definitely annoying.

Unnecessary clunkiness added for flavor purposes.

Whenever I'm searching for official text, I have to remind myself to look for both terms just in case.

Also, I didn't like the switch of the city just because. I liked the new mat texture, but so many cards were not counting on Bridge being first space and Sewers last.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Drury
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
The only stupid question... is the one you don't ask!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hear what you're saying, but I disagree. In fact, I'd prefer to have the Villain sets reprinted, replacing Adversaries with Villains.

Here's why; in a Villain's Point of View, they are not the villain. Let us use real life events for a moment. During WWII, Hitler, did not think of himself as the evil mastermind. He did not see the Nazi forces as the Villains. The American and European allied forces were the villains with Churchill and Roosevelt were the Masterminds. It's all a matter of perspective.

(Back to the game) So in my opinion, UD should have stuck with the Mastermind/Heroes/Villains terms with the Villain sets.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rachael
United States
Williamsburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blipadouzi wrote:
Here's why; in a Villain's Point of View, they are not the villain.


Yeah, but I'm pretty sure when Cap was taking on Iron Man, Cap never considered Iron Man a villain. They were on opposite sides, they were adversaries, but Cap knew better than to classify Iron Man as a Villain. That's where the problem comes in with sticking to the Hero vs Villain terminology rather than Ally vs Adversary. I like the terminology from the Villains side of the game much better.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Green
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The villains terminology is more generic and better suited to more circumstances. It is easy to think of situations where the Heroes terminology sounds wrong, but harder to do so for the villains terms.

Nevertheless, I do not expect this wish to get granted, and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bird
United States
Greensboro
NC - North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I very much wish (and I suspect that the game designers do as well) that they had used Commander/Adversary/Backup/Ally/Plot from the beginning.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
YaVerOt YaVerOt
United States
Arvada
Colorado
flag msg tools
Armchair warriors often fail, and we've been poisoned by these fairy tales.
badge
Aoi Aoi toki ga toke dasheta.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dontfeedthegreen wrote:
It is easy to think of situations where the Heroes terminology sounds wrong, but harder to do so for the villains terms.


"Kidnap a bystander" is the one that has the biggest problems, although "Rescue" feels more wrong now that cards exist that pull out of the victory pile. I know that Captain America will never capture a bystander, but it makes sense to guard one.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Runnestrand
United States
Carlsbad
California
flag msg tools
You should be reading this comic.
badge
I like nerdy stuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yaverot wrote:
dontfeedthegreen wrote:
It is easy to think of situations where the Heroes terminology sounds wrong, but harder to do so for the villains terms.


"Kidnap a bystander" is the one that has the biggest problems, although "Rescue" feels more wrong now that cards exist that pull out of the victory pile. I know that Captain America will never capture a bystander, but it makes sense to guard one.


"Grabs a bystander" or "nabs" could work for either.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Hatinen
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mb
I agree almost completely with Mike, although the poster mentioning how many people most consider villains rarely think that way has a good point too. For a modern real world example, people in ISIS almost certainly consider themselves modern heroes for trying to reclaim the world for a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Mastermind is probably an appropriate term for head adversary in any case, and Ally works better for all those occasions when a bad guy is helping the good guys.

No term seems especially appropriate for Henchmen. Minions and cannon fodder convey their numbers and power level, but neither seems especially appropriate for the whole bunch of guys who easily get beat up.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Steele
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
More villains, adopt Villains terminology, more bindings uses. There is so much untapped potential. I get that people aren't buying it, but I love it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gamer D

Monroeville
Pennsylvania
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I totally agree that introducing new terms in Villains for identical keywords was dumb. Sure you can argue that the original Hero and Villain keywords are a little less thematic in the Villains setting but the additional convolution of terminology in the game is annoying enough that I would have preferred that they kept all the games consistent. In a perfect world I would use the Villains terminology (allies, adversaries, etc) in all the Legendary games for consistency, but unfortunately that ship has sailed and I would be exceedingly surprised if it was changed at this point.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Hatinen
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mb
I say "Yoink" a bystander, which means the same thing but sounds funnier.

Edit: This was a response to Mike's "Grabs a bystander" or "nabs" could work for either.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Lyons
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I prefer most of the terminology in Villains over the original game now - while Heroes vs Villains worked well for the first few expansions, "Allies vs Adversaries" works far better when it comes to combining the games.

Sure, henchmen isn't ideal (though I'd be fine with "Henchmen Adversary"). Commander feels more generic than Mastermind, and plots simply make more sense than Schemes in the Marvel Universe! All you'd need to do is replace "good/evil wins" with something like "Commander/Adversaries win! Allies lose!"

Overrun feels more accurate than Escape in game play.

The only one that would need a full re-do is rescuing/kidnapping a bystander, but that could be replaced with "Adversary guards a bystander" is nicely generic and "Player gains a bystander." You could probably use gain for both and get away with it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.