Ye Olde Inn

I added a new ability choice to the poll: N) No ability--good enough as is

No ability finally occurred to me, as the new stat line ahead in the poll could be considered to already offer sufficient differentiation. I think sometimes emulating the HQ basic monster model (KISS) can provide for a cleaner, more cohesive whole. Since a Chaos Dwarf can also alternatively be given a shield in Quest Notes to offer a harder option, I'm currently content to simplify the base monster.

Maybe I'm just reacting to Chaos Dwarfs that can exceed Chaos Warriors. I don't sit so well with Chaos Warriors sharing or losing their elite status. A Questimation of expected damage for four 3BP Chaos Dwarfs with and without Phalanx against a Wizard and three 5AD/5DD Heroes would be insightful and perhaps reassuring. Including a comparison to Four Chaos Warriors would be even more useful. I hope the on--off Phalanx ability can work alongside the Chaos Warrior and leave him his place.

I see no issue with the occasional CD out classing a CW. Chaos Warriors are tough stuff but they are not the be all end all of bad guys. I kind of see them as thugs in armor. Without a suit of armor and a weapon, the type of man who would be a chaos warrior is a coward and a sycophant. He doesn't stand for his own kingdom or powerbase, he suckles at the teat of Zargon, a lackey who is ever the servant, never the master.
Not exactly the height of power.
In fact a CW doesn't stand much chance against the Barbarian in a toe to toe fight, even when the Barbarian is at basic issue. Not a real fear inducer.

Daedalus wrote:Maybe I'm just reacting to Chaos Dwarfs that can exceed Chaos Warriors. I don't sit so well with
Chaos Warriors sharing or losing their elite status. A Questimation of expected damage for four 3BP Chaos Dwarfs with and without Phalanx against a Wizard and three 5AD/5DD Heroes would be insightful and perhaps reassuring. Including a comparison to Four Chaos Warriors would be even more useful. I hope the on--off Phalanx ability can work alongside the Chaos Warrior and leave him his place.

I ran this Questimation, statting the Wizard at 2A / 4D; even if the Chaos Dwarves have Phalanx for 5 Defense, the four Chaos Warriors are easily the scarier foe. This makes sense, as one extra Attack die has a much higher effect than one extra Defend die (three relevant faces vs one). The exact figures are (Heroes as above vs 4 of each monster):
Chaos Warriors: 3.9
Chaos Dwarves (w/Phalanx): 2.6 (actually slightly less due to the last monster losing Phalanx's buff)
Chaos Dwarves (no Phalanx): 2.3
Chaos Dwarves (Phalanx, but 2 BP): 1.8
Hypothetical 4A / 5D / 2B Monster: 3.0

Feel free to interpret these results as necessary. My vote remains for options "f" and "A" (for now).

Daedalus wrote:The front-runners are:

• f) Mv:6 At:3 De:4 BP:3 MP:2
• A) Phalanx: When adjacent to another monster with Phalanx this monster rolls +1 DD

The stats and ability lead me to believe four Chaos Dwarves would work well as a gray monster.

This may be slightly relevant to this conversation, so I'll share it.

We did a quest pack with Chaos Dwarves. The stats used were:

M: 5; A: 3; D: 3; B:3; M:3

They had an identical ability. For the life of me I can't remember if I stole that from earlier versions of this discussion or came up with it independently. There was some variation in this, some groups of CD had a model with a Shield so that figure had 4DD instead - but that was not for the whole group.

When used in small groups of 3 or so CDs, the Heroes were able to succeed, it was a nice change of pace, but not overwhelming. The ability did not blow them out of the water on power level but actually made for nice strategic moves on both Zargon and the Heroes parts. Heroes generally were 4-5 AD for the fighters and 2 for the wizard. Due to attrition and effects of Rust spells and what not a few Heroes were reduced to weaker weapons, that added more challenge to the CD encounters.

With the polls stats (1 extra DD), I don't think it would overly skew the results from what we saw on our table, unless the Heroes in the HQ25 pack will be encountering them as weak starting Heroes or regularly in rooms. In that case, perhaps dialing back the DD by 1 would be merited. While a group of CDs may not be as powerful as an equal group of CWs, if they are being used more frequently in rooms throughout the quest attrition will begin to take its toll on the Heroes group after multiple encounters. How often do you encounter 4 CW in a single room together - 1 every few quests? How often will the Heroes encounter 4 CDs in a single room together - 1 or 2 times per quest? It will make a big difference.

I'm glad to hear beefier Chaos Dwarfs with Phalanx should be fun to play and fit below Chaos Warriors. Sounds like a winning combination to me. The Chaos Warrior bosses will stand out all the more for the ending of the cycle. Some of the Chaos Dwarf weapon options mentioned earlier for the Notes section should keep things interesting in the later Quests.

I found a dwarf image with free noncommercial reuse.
The only condition is that I set a link to the site and the author. The Author is unknown, so:

Link to the site


Done.

Here's the card I could make with the pictures for the chaos dwarf. Please, as always, never hesitate to give comments in case you see anything that's not perfect.





I know how to make the symbols, I don't know how to convince HeroScribe to accept them...
If someone wants to convert them into EPS graphics or wants to tinker with the card and the graphic themselves, please find here the link to a zip archive with all the pictures and cards in high-resolution.

Anderas wrote:I found a dwarf image with free noncommercial reuse.
The only condition is that I set a link to the site and the author. The Author is unknown, so:

Link to the site


Done.

Here's the card I could make with the pictures for the chaos dwarf. Please, as always, never hesitate to give comments in case you see anything that's not perfect.





I know how to make the symbols, I don't know how to convince HeroScribe to accept them...
If someone wants to convert them into EPS graphics or wants to tinker with the card and the graphic themselves, please find here the link to a zip archive with all the pictures and cards in high-resolution.

I just copy them over an existing icon in HeroScribe that I'll never use. Just give it the same file name then drop it in the same folder. Copy and paste the old file somewhere in case you decide you eventually want to use it.

I like the background--good idea. The Dwarf itself looks like a more finely detailed style than published HQ monsters. He does look impressive and is proportioned correctly, I'll say that. Here's a few alternatives. They're a bit photo-shoppy, but like the published Monster Cards they have a cartoonish look.

I was using the Halberdier card, as it was not so heavily fraggled up like some other playcard pictures.



From that, I half extracted, half repainted the background.



Then I put a couple of dwarfs without copyright into the front and chose the one that had the color scheme more or less in line with that helbardier.

There is one dwarf which is just adorable, perfectly in line with all the Heroquest art. I contacted the artist, but he didn't answer as of yet, sadly.


I just tried to contact him again, five minutes ago. This time on facebook, maybe I have more luck there.

Another possibility is to brutally enhance the comic aspects of that existing dwarf, like so:


Or to adapt his color palette to the background, to emulate lighting, like so:


But nothing that I could do, would change the base failure of that picture:
It shows a dwarf in action. Heroquest monster pictures are normally: Medium long shot / complete view;
a pose that is calm and presenting instead of threatening and sporty.

So this dwarf just doesn't behave correctly. My first try was a dwarf that behaves correctly, but yet that one has a too-friendly-smile.

We gotta use that Christopher Saghy Dwarf! I totally agree it's perfect for Hero Quest--even the background is perfect. Keep on with the requests; contacting him is the right thing to do. But . . . if he doesn't respond after a number of weeks or months, I'd be in favor of putting it into use anyway. Posting it publicly without mentioning sharing restriction or adding a watermark signifies a weak ip expectation, in my opinion. Neglecting to respond to a sharing request confirms that.