Henry Wan
Aspiring Actor

Asset. Ally

Ally. Criminal.

Cost: 3.
Test Icons:
Health: 1. Sanity: 2.

Exhaust Henry Wan: One at a time, reveal random tokens from the chaos bag until you choose to stop, or until you reveal a , , , , or symbol.

- If you chose to stop, for each token revealed via this effect, you may either draw 1 card or gain 1 resource.

- If you revealed a , , , , or symbol, do nothing.

Tiziano Baracchi
The Wages of Sin #155.
Henry Wan

This card is usually terrible, and needs support to be worthwhile. See the argument below to help understand why this is true. Support would be: campaigns/games with less of the negative tokens AND cards that can cheaply and repeatedly alter the outcome of a token draw (such as Wendy Adams).

The cumulative odds of continuing to draw favorable tokens, using the standard difficulty Night of the Zealot chaos token pool is:

  1. 0.6875
  2. 0.458333333
  3. 0.294642857
  4. 0.181318681
  5. 0.105769231
  6. 0.057692308
  7. 0.028846154
  8. 0.012820513

This suggests that on average, you will get slightly less than 2 tokens before failing. Assuming you pass each draw, the chance of not drawing a negative symbol on each token draw is:

  1. 0.6875
  2. 0.666666667
  3. 0.642857143
  4. 0.615384615
  5. 0.583333333
  6. 0.545454545
  7. 0.5
  8. 0.444444444
  9. 0.375
  10. 0.285714286

Strategies and outcomes:

A. If you always stop drawing after 1 token, you will succeed 69% of the time, which is terrible because you get less than one resource or card per action.

B. If you always stop drawing after 2 tokens, here is the likely distribution:

  1. Around half the time, you will pass 2 tests in a row
  2. Around 1/3 of the time, you will draw a fail token right away and get nothing.
  3. Around 1/6 of the time, you will pass the first test and fail the second and get nothing This averages to little less than 1 resource per action, which is still awful.

C. If you always stop drawing after 3 tokens, here is the distribution:

  1. Around 70% of the time, you get nothing because you fail either 1, 2 or 3, and the other 30% of the time you get 3 resources, a little less than 1 resource per action (terrible).
jmmeye3 · 115
Poor Henry. He's just not good enough to catch a break. This basically confirmed my instinct about this card. He might be worth a gamble if it was gain resources and draw, or maybe if it was a free trigger instead, but an action is just too much to spend on that level of risk - even with, say, Wendy it's not worth it to use her ability since you would need to pitch a card, trading a -1 successful draw for a <1 average gain. As it is, he only has some stupidly near-broken potential if you could somehow manipulate most (or all?) of the bad tokens out of the bag. — pneuma08 · 21
I think the one thing you could say about Henry is his ability gives you the option to gain a bunch of resources now, which if you really meed that many resources you probably built the deck wrong anyway. His soak isnt bad for the price also, but that’s a terrible reason to run any ally. Rogue allies are not particularly strong anyway, so it says a lot that Wan is probably the worst one. — StyxTBeuford · 158
Sorry, I made a typo. Instead of “This suggests that on average...” it should read “This suggests that half the time...” The website did not allow me to edit the review. — jmmeye3 · 115
Good review for a terrible card. I think the only reason to take Henry is to troll your friends. — cb42 · 16