Raiders as it was, but with altered text!

[Toothless_Night_Fury 103]

 

[Dam the Man 84]

Am I missing something here? Some inside joke?

(since the OP had no pic, no text)

[Mattr0polis 66]

I was hoping this would be a pic of a 4.5e template Raider, but with the text of the 4e version, but now I'm not sure what this was supposed to be about.

[JCHendee 3]

Actually it seems quite accurate. Too bad it's not even close to printable.

[The_Warlock 171]

Well, these are the Raiders we want. 

The current card is very very bland. The most dreaded Adventure Card should definitely be restored to its original splendour. Such as it is, Fool's Gold is more dangerous for a Character than Raiders.

[Mattr0polis 66]

JCHendee said:

Actually it seems quite accurate. Too bad it's not even close to printable.

 

Lol, actually we were referring to when he first started this thread the first post was blank.

Now that he fixed it, yes it is indeed the "good" raiders. But yeah, too bad it's not big enough to print.

[talismanisland 721]

Here's a higher res version for you based on what was posted, along with a more difficult version.

 

[Mattr0polis 66]

talismanisland said:

Here's a higher res version for you based on what was posted, along with a more difficult version.

LOL!! omg I was dying after reading 'Extreme Raiders'.

Lol, nice card TI. And thanks for the 4e Raiders card also.

[Velhart 0]

From the interview with John Goodenough, it seems that we don't have to worry anymore about the weak raider card that was included in the revised base game !

More raider cards will be publish that can steal Followers, Objects, gold, and even Spells!
 

[ameritrasher 0]

Velhart said:

More raider cards will be publish that can steal Followers, Objects, gold, and even Spells!
 

All at the same time! Why don't they just have a card that makes you lose the game when you draw it!! Oh wait, that would be the horrible black void!!!

[ameritrasher 0]

The extreme raiders are the best! 

[Velhart 0]

 

Another option that would be nice is, if you must attack the raiders in their hide out !

It's kind of weird that they stash it at their hide out but nobody is there !

 

[Velhart 0]

I wonder if the new Raiders will come in the next small expansion ( after the big one)

[MegaDestroyo 0]

Velhart said:

 

Another option that would be nice is, if you must attack the raiders in their hide out !

It's kind of weird that they stash it at their hide out but nobody is there !

 

My friends and I recently began playing with that as a House Rule.  We haven't quite nailed down a rule for how strong they are, but I like the idea of rolling to see how many you fight (a la "pit fiends"). 

[Velhart 0]

MegaDestroyo said:

Velhart said:

 

 

Another option that would be nice is, if you must attack the raiders in their hide out !

It's kind of weird that they stash it at their hide out but nobody is there !

 

 

 

My friends and I recently began playing with that as a House Rule.  We haven't quite nailed down a rule for how strong they are, but I like the idea of rolling to see how many you fight (a la "pit fiends"). 

That;s a nice idea.

How about, if you draw the card, you must place it on the oasis, and if you land there, then you must roll a die how many raiders you must fight.

How strong should the raiders be..

[JCHendee 3]

Since Raiders are akin to Bandits, how about Strength = 4 plus the roll of 1 die?

[Velhart 0]

JCHendee said:

Since Raiders are akin to Bandits, how about Strength = 4 plus the roll of 1 die?

Seems fair, but i was more thinking about, that if you roll for how many raiders you must fight, they morale ( strength) goes up by one point..?

1-2 adding 1 strength

3-4 adding 2 strength

5-6 adding 3 strength

or maybe this is too difficult, because you need to defeat many of them with a higher strength

Strength 4 is a bit low for me. then we have the same problem as pit fiends. you can defeat them easily..

 

[JCHendee 3]

A straight roll added to 4 would yield a Strength range of 5 to 10.  Average would be 8.5.  That seems tough enough for a "group" enemy, they are also in the middle region out of immediate reach, and they would be tougher than a dragon in most cases. 

I'm not sure if the Pit Fiends are an accurate comparison... the fact that they are now weaker by comparison these days because characters are achieving higher attributes is something that would require addressing them separately. Admittedly, they have always been too weak.

[Velhart 0]

JCHendee said:

A straight roll added to 4 would yield a Strength range of 5 to 10.  Average would be 8.5.  That seems tough enough for a "group" enemy, they are also in the middle region out of immediate reach, and they would be tougher than a dragon in most cases. 

I'm not sure if the Pit Fiends are an accurate comparison... the fact that they are now weaker by comparison these days because characters are achieving higher attributes is something that would require addressing them separately. Admittedly, they have always been too weak.

The question is: do we encounter them as a single enemie, or do we fight them seperately.

If we roll for example a 6 on the die, and the raiders gets a +6 strength, and you need to fight 6 of them ( same as pitfiends) then it-

is difficult to keep track, of how many raiders you still need to fight, if you lose the battle. ( then we must use counters or some sort.

On top of that, if we must defeat the raiders 7 times with a strength of 10, that would be too difficult, so i presume we must fight them as a single enemie?

[dth2 0]

Velhart said:

 

Another option that would be nice is, if you must attack the raiders in their hide out !

It's kind of weird that they stash it at their hide out but nobody is there !

 

 

They're off raiding, obviously

[JCHendee 3]

You missed my point, V.  They are not a bunch of separate enemies but a "group" that fights as one Enemy.  Multiple enemies is too much in this case.  The groups total strength suggested is a die +4.  Much as I like varied mechanics among cards, this one should be a single battle and not table of results needed on the card.  There's already enough text on it that fitting a table as well would be troublesome.

[Velhart 0]

JCHendee said:

You missed my point, V.  They are not a bunch of separate enemies but a "group" that fights as one Enemy.  Multiple enemies is too much in this case.  The groups total strength suggested is a die +4.  Much as I like varied mechanics among cards, this one should be a single battle and not table of results needed on the card.  There's already enough text on it that fitting a table as well would be troublesome.

Hi JC,

Oke, i got it !

That's why i was talking about pit fiends.

anyway, i think it's a good idea for adding a +1 strength for each raider that is adding to the card.

As you said, it can become a bunch of raiders with a maximum of strength 10 (to fight as a single enemy

[Velhart 0]

dth said:

Velhart said:

 

 

Another option that would be nice is, if you must attack the raiders in their hide out !

It's kind of weird that they stash it at their hide out but nobody is there !

 

 

 

 

They're off raiding, obviously

Haha, that's a good one

But then they are stupid enough to leave all their goodies and money behind.

[JCHendee 3]

Yes, even in tale of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (in a desert region no less), the thieves had some safeguards for their booty.

[Velhart 0]

JCHendee said:

Yes, even in tale of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (in a desert region no less), the thieves had some safeguards for their booty.

Haha

That's why we need them !

Maybe for the future...

we will see

PS: i have actually never read the tale of Ali Baba.... haha