Actually the perception of the character changes because they can take on and defeat groups of creatures with ease, because they are greatly inferrior to them on an individual scale and hardly a threat.

Though for the most part it also changes the perception of the player in that with 2nd ed they previously had to be wary (on behalf of the character) of even an individual goblin or peasant could get lucky and land a killing blow on their character, while in 3rd ed they dont have to worry about the henchmen individually only larger groups of them.

Fate points realy have little effect to the attitude of the character, just because the character has them doesnt mean an individual goblin is any less of a threat (even though it may still be inferior), sure they may live through the encounter but only by lucky circumstances (the spending of the fate point), and not actually by defeating them.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

Fate points are finite and players try not to even loose one in most cases, henchman they realy dont need to worry about loosing anything.

Ultimatly in both cases its the players feeling of how mortal the character is and what their character is likely to find threatening.

The fate point discussion is more a side and off track discussion we got into than the henchman one, and your tone of post never actually annoyed me in the slightest, it did show you have some passion for the game.  I just offered counter arguments and tried to further explain my point.

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss.  This is where the change of scope lies.

I havent disputed the fact that the henchman rules can make combat faster, that is obviously the case.  I was discussing the change of scope and what to understand why the designers feel that the change was needed, and got into the fate point discussion.

dvang said:

Well, I don't know of a RPG system that can handle with semplicity/quickness a so large group of foes, retaining some believability.

You are entering the real of skirmish/battle.
20+ adversaries are a recon force from an army, not the average group on monsters that PC should encounter.

Though for the most part it also changes the perception of the player in that with 2nd ed they previously had to be wary (on behalf of the character) of even an individual goblin or peasant could get lucky and land a killing blow on their character, while in 3rd ed they dont have to worry about the henchmen individually only larger groups of them.

I think you misunderstand how the henchmen rules work. An individual goblin is still an individual goblin, not a henchman. On his own he's still as dangerous as he was in v2 (ie not much, unless he gets a lucky blow). The henchmen rules only come into play when the GM wants to simplify combats with large numbers of goblins. Instead of rolling for each seperately, they combine their attack (normal attack roll + extra fortune dice). They may actually be more dangerous to the PCs than if the GM rolled for each one seperately, as they may be more likely to hurt the PCs. Depends on how the attack and defence systems work.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

Not necessarily. Henchmen are still a threat.

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss.  This is where the change of scope lies.

Again, not true. Individually the monsters are just as dangerous as they were before. You seem to think that henchmen are the same as minions from DnD, that isn't the case. 

The way I see it, we already had Henchmen rules in v2. It was just always spelled out in the adventure: "when the attackers get low on health, they decide the fight isn't worth it and run". Now, when a group of henchmen run out of health, instead of just dropping dead, they turn and run.

We just seem to have different views of henchmen. How will the PCs know if they are facing henchmen or non-henchmen? Say there are 6 goblins advancing. The GM could have the 6 goblins all be non-henchmen. Or, he could make 1 single and a group of 5 henchmen, or 1 single and two groups of 3 henchmen, and so on. The PCs cant, even in metagame, just say "Oh look, goblins. They must be henchmen so we can beat them really easy" There is no need for a single monster to ever be a henchman (it defeats the purpose of the henchmen rules), and 3 is probably pushing the lower limit to how many should start in a henchmen group. Regardless, the offensive capability of henchmen, even a single-monster henchman, is no different from a non-henchman version (well, it's more powerful the more henchmen in the group). Only the Wounds are different, so a single henchman is just as dangerous a foe to hurting a PC as a non-henchmen. Therefore, still a worry for PCs. Again, though, a GM should never have a henchmen group start with only 1 or 2 individuals in it.

The game scope is however changed, the henchman effect makes the player see that the character is able to do larger heroic deeds by reasonably expecting to survive a battle against mechanically rated henchmen.

What in the world makes you think the player is able to expect to survive against a group of henchmen? (depending on PC experience and the type of mob, of course, but that goes for groups of non-henchmen as well). A group of henchmen is just as big a threat as a group of non-henchmen, although henchmen don't get used if it's small enough to have a group of non-henchmen. A group of 10 beastmen, whether a single henchman group, or 10 individuals, is dangerous to a single PC, let alone a group of PCs. Henchman status just makes it easier and faster for the GM to deal with them. The only difference is that a single henchman was fewer Wounds than a single non-henchman, and the only time a henchman should be by himself is if all his buddies have already been killed. A good rule of thumb is probably that a group of henchmen should start with at least as many total wounds as a single one would, otherwise you really don't have enough of them to worry about using henchmen.

Also, in regards to scope, in long-term campaigns you usually end up with the PCs relatively powerful, and indeed operating on a larger grander scale. They tend to want to take on bigger and badder enemies, overthrow kingdoms, claim their own kingdom, etc. The scope grows with the experience of the PCs. You won't see many (if any) henchmen in early adventures simply because, as you said, the scope of the game (and the PCs influence) is small and focused on the immediate area of the PCs. Once they start getting into 3rd and 4th careers, the PCs are leading mercenaries against nests of Chaos troops, or boarding enemy ships, or trying to take down a Vampire Count in his own castle, etc. The PCs by this time, by the way, tend to have the influence, money, and potential to hire or manage or lead their own array of henchmen mercenaries/guardsmen/followers.  Nothing in v3 is changing the way the scope of the game worked from previous versions, it is just giving the GM tools to handle large numbers of enemies when the scope does (naturally) grow large enough to include larger numbers of enemies.

Loswaith said:

Thanks for an illuminating post. And I am glad we have NOT annoyed each other over a game we obviously both love (not talking about versions here).
Yes, and I think be both wandered off from the main topics a bit.
 

And I am sad that you think the scope of the game have changed everything for you. That in way you feel the game are moving in an unhealthy direction (DnD direction?) We all have different experiences when it comes to playing WFRP, and that may colour our view of  the new version.

I for myself learned how to direct and play out large battles in WFRP when GMing TEW, so for me grand battles are a part of WFRP, wheter they are heroic or just gritty, like war is hell. Some battles where heroic, like joining the rebels to overthrow the evil Wittgensteins, others where bloody affairs (like in Empire in Flames) where my players where just glad they survived, and not taking too many chances.

If I could run these pivotal battles again, using the henchmen rules, they would not change anything for my players and their characters. They would still feel the exictment when climbing the walls in the dawn of day to infiltrate and open the gates to Castle Wittgenstein. And in the civil war of the empire, they would still feel the meaningless and frustration of not being in charge, firsthand they would experience all kind of random things happening  around them. From canon-balls exploding in their midst, to horses running around screaming madly, deadly wounded young men graping their feet, begging for help.   But using the Henchmen rules would make things simpler for me, and shouldn`t affect the PC outlook.

So I think it is more how you use the Henchmen rules, -than the fact they exist for 3v, - that will affect how the player-characters sees their own mortality and accessing threats.

The Hencmen system and its implications:
What Loswaith said about it:

Henchmen in the system indicate that there are creatures weaker than the average PC enough so that they can be treated as an insignificant threat individually (making the PCs actually more powerful by the declaration), while not having it leads to no such premiss. This is where the change of scope lies.

Yes I grand you that, it does make a PC more powerful. But It should NOT affect the players view and threat assesment. Their view of their own mortality cannot be changed by this rule. They have no way of telling that their opponents are henchmen or not, and why shouldn`t they expect to survive a large or even heroic batte?
When Players make risk assesments on the behalf of their character they use all manners of techniques. I would assume that having FATE points available is of far more valuable information, than speculating that their opponents are HENCHMEN. Only after or during a battle with henchmen the players can draw that particulary conclussion. But before that it cannot have been inserted into the threat and risk assessment. Only when the dice is cast the players will know for sure.

Players can ofcourse assume that everyone they attack are hencmen, if so I hope they soon will learn a valuable lession...and its called don`t do meta-gaming.  

No, I disagree with you, the Henchmen system will not change the scope of this game.

Mal Reynolds said:

jadrax said:

I think it's quite clear that the point is to make it easier to run larger combat situations.

jadrax said:

scope
  /sko?p/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skohp] Show IPA noun, verb, scoped, scop⋅ing.
Use scope in a Sentence
–noun
1. extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.: an investigation of wide scope.
2. space for movement or activity; opportunity for operation: to give one's fancy full scope.
3. extent in space; a tract or area.
4. length: a scope of cable.
5. aim or purpose.
6. Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier or operator has control: In “old men and women,” “old” may either take “men and women” or just “men” in its scope.
7. (used as a short form of microscope, oscilloscope, periscope, radarscope, riflescope, telescopic sight, etc.)

The word scope in this connection, is meant as a aim or purpose (5). The underlying message I am trying to tell, is that the rule will no change how we look at the game.  So it will mean something like this: 

No I disagree with you, the Henchmen system will not change [replace scope] the view or purpose of this game.

Poe said:

There are far to many people that keep ending up arguing that Jay's hard work was pointless and changed nothing just so they can win a pointless edition war thread.

Still at least no on has resorted tto the ultimate lameness of quoting a dictionary....

jadrax said:

Large combats pitting the PCs against weak opponents is nothing new to Warhammer - it is already within the 'scope' of the game. The henchmen rules simply provide a faster, more enjoyable way of dealing with those combats so you don't spend an entire session hacking through a dozen goblins.

Oh I felt that one, biting sarcasm.

But the fact remain: a changing of rules will not neccesarily change the purpose of the game. will it? It was that me and Loswaith discussed. Everyone can take a sentence out the context, than make a witty remark, or write a clever question to appear smart, instead of trying to understand what we are really writting/arguing about. If you had done so you wouldn`t have asked such a silly question. I think Loswaith will agree with me here. its kinda low to do so.

just to sum it up in a few words: Loswaith is of the opinion that Henchmen rule will change the scope of the game or the purpose of it. Sending wrong signals to players.
But I don`t think it will. that is again change the purpose of the game. It will however change HOW we play the game. Loswaith raise many interesting points and views concerning the Henchmen rule.

You on the other hand don`t. you`re just trying to score some cheap semantic points, by deliberately misunderstanding what I say.

Mal Reynolds said:

If the purpse of the game is not changed, then those rule changes are pointless because there wole aim is the change the scope of the game.

The whole reason for making a new edition, is that it has a new scope more in line with the Warhammer Universe at large.

People who do not like that change in scope are right in the fact that they will not like the game, argusing that they should like the game because nothing has changed is disingenuous at best or insulting to the game designer at worst. There is nothing wrong with people not liking the game for what it is, and there is something wrong with trying to tell people the game is not what it is. The only outcome of telling people that nothing has changed will be to harm sales.

Honestly, it is not the same game and nor is it meant to be.

jadrax said:

*sigh* you`re so off-scope

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Yes the rules, game-design and artwork has changed. But not the world its still a dark, grim world of perilous adventure. At least that what FFG say. And the world of warhammer is the essence of what we are talking about. not the rules.

IT IS IF THE NEW RULES WILL CHANGE HOW WE VIEW OR INTERACT WITH THE WORLD OF WARHAMMER!!!!!!

Will the rules make the world less grim for people? or altering their view of  the world?  I think in the case of Henchmen rules it will not change the WORLD OF WARHAMMER.

Your allegations are blatant lies. I have NEVER said the game is unchanged, nor neither am I trying to convince people its so. You should be careful with placing words in others mouths based on poor assumptions. The tone in the rest of your post is also spiteful. You assume too much!

Discussions is not about winning, but to express its views and opinons, and maybe be influenced by the opponent.

Mal Reynolds said:

"The change in rules, i.e. the method of interacting with the World of Warhammer, will not change how we interact with the world of Warhammer..."

Well that makes sense...