Advanced HeroQuest Update Project

[RECIVS]

is there a way to get more feats and how do you get the master feats?

Feats may be acquired through training between expeditions. See table on page 5 of Appendix V.

I am assuming you cannot take the same paths twice.

That's correct, and it’s expressly indicated on page 2 of Appendix VII.

When you create a character, which gives you the option to select 3 equipment allowances- is it possible to tick the same weapon 3 times to get more brutal damage (as a form of specialisation)?

The equipment allowances are either for one specific type of equipment or for a certain number of different types of equipment. So, no, you may not tick the same weapon more than once unless an additional allowance or path allows it. If that happens, your character may get one of the Equipment Bonus Abilities on page 3 of Appendix VII.

i was playing the game a little bit and found another error in the bestiary. APPENDIX VI: BESTIARY page 2 has an example that refers to dice tables on the next page with 2 d12, while the table on the next site are clearly only for rolling on 1 d12! I was looking up the same info in an older printed version of the rules and there the tables still use 2 d12! i also checked if my file of the new version was fixed but the same info is still on the updated version of the game!

I see that the tables on page 3 of Appendix VI use 2D12, so the typo you mention seems to have been corrected in the current version. However, I'm afraid the new tables are flawed, so I'd suggest sticking to the previous version of those, which work very well by the way. I still don't see why they had to change.

While playing the game and looking up rules i also encountered the problem that a certain text passage might refer to another passage in the rules but it doesnt state where this passage is (i.e. a random spell is created).
Furthermore it would have been very helpful if the alphabetic rule section would list any pages and appendices, which would refer to the rule. Some rules can only be found under very specific sections (i.e. how many boons does a hero get? this is only correct in a very specific part of the rules) and it just takes too much time look through all the material constantly!

I know! As I said here, the new layout of the core rules may be cumbersome (to say the least). The previous version was much more convenient in my opinion. I don't see why it had to change either.

In a combat phase: can characters move twice or do they need to move normally once and then run as 2nd action?

Yes, according to Slev's rules, in combat turns the adventurers can manoeuvre twice, or they can manoeuvre and run as you say (see table on page 39 of Apendix IX which should be in the core rules by the way). However, I believe manoeuvre should be considered a vigorous action in order to preserve the original feel of the game. I just realized I haven't yet made that change in my revision. It's now on my to-do list. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

[RECIVS]

Relative “Scale” of Bestiaries & Heroes

I kept the Skaven Warrior/Clanrat the same, using it as a starting point, and used the algorithm I published to convert from WFB 8th edition. This meant that ALL the Warhammer enemies could be ported over, and they wouldn’t need game-breaking special rules to fit inside AHQ’s 1-12 scale. WFB changed it’s statlines as of 6th edition with this same goal in mind.

So now the highest WS in the game is WS12 for the Exhaled Bloodthirster, the lowest is a Snotling. The highest T in the game is an Exhaled Great Unclean One, the lowest is a Snotling, and so on. Everything else falls appropriately in a scale between these points.

I was thinking about the “scale” issue in Reforged and how this particular conception of yours may be the core of it. For context, we can consider this post to be a second (and final) part of this other one. Let’s see if we can settle the discussion once and for all.

I may be wrong, but I’m afraid your approach may not be compatible with how the scale in AHQ is supposed to work. In the original game, the toughness of a model doesn’t depend entirely on its TH score. For example, a model with TH9, 6 wounds, and Invulnerable will be tougher (and harder to kill) than another one with TH10 and 3 wounds. Therefore, having TH12 doesn’t seem to mean being the toughest of them all, only the toughest the model can be without any other stat (such as wounds), ability (Invulnerable, Regeneration, etc.), or special rule.

The toughest model, then, is not necessarily the one with the highest TH score. A snotling and the Exalted Great Unclean One, for example, could both have the same TH score (even 12) and the latter would still be harder to kill.

Besides, if a snotling is going to be the weakest and the Exalted Great Unclean One the toughest in your system, then everything else doesn’t seem to fall “appropriately” in a scale between those two points as you say. The difference of four ranks between a snotling (w/TH1) and your clanrat warrior (w/TH3+2) doesn’t seem to be proportional to the difference of seven ranks that exists between a clanrat warrior and the Exalted Great Unclean One. Armor seems to be far too effective in your system if it can increase TH in such a proportion. If the Exalted Great Unclean One is going to be a 12, then I think a snotling should be like a -10 if we’re to keep proportion and consistency. How many times tougher than a snotling the Exalted Great Unclean One is supposed to be? 20? 30? More than that? It doesn’t seem to be 12 in any case.

It’s quite clear how your revision works, but the fact is, though, that the game is still a D12 system. The average roll is still a 7, and we can’t change mathematical facts (we build upon them instead). That seems to be the main premise the original bestiary was designed around, and the one that should be preserved in my opinion.

In the original system, a roll of 7+ (50% probability of success) is considered average. A skaven warrior with WS6, ST5, TH7, W3, and a sword will have 50% probability of hitting, wounding, and/or causing at least two wounds with one blow to an opponent of the same (average) stat scores. With that in mind, I can't think of a more average monster under such a scale than the good ol' skaven warrior. By the way, as mentioned in the post linked above, it’s clear that the original skaven warrior and your clanrat warrior are not the same in terms of stats, and I still fail to see why you say otherwise.

I may be missing something, but all the above makes me think that the original scale is not about TH1 being the weakest and TH12 the toughest as you say. It seems to be more about TH being only a part of the equation. The results I see with the original system is that models end up being either average, below average, or above average in relation to the skaven warrior (considering other stats and abilities as mentioned above, not only TH). I believe that such a simple way of conceptualizing the PV scale of adventurers and monsters in the game goes more in tune with how a D12 system actually works, and it may also allow for a much broader (and more granular) spectrum than one with only twelve ranks.

Yes, below-average models may have some trouble hitting and wounding above-average ones, and above-average models may have it easy against below-average ones (to a certain extent). In the end that's how it's supposed to be, isn’t it?

We should not forget to factor in that unlike the monsters, the adventures gain FPs and treasure, and that they get to train, trade, and hire henchmen after each expedition. Another of the premises the original game seems to have been designed around is that skaven warriors (average monsters) will become easier to defeat as the adventurers gain experience and increase their stats but only to a certain extent in order to keep the game engaging even for the most developed characters (hence the training limitations and the 50-50 chance of causing damage to an average model), which makes sense if you ask me. Below-average monsters are not a suitable match for above-average adventurers with their FPs (unless the monsters come in great numbers), which seems to be the reason why there are so few of them in the canonical bestiary (and also why Reforged adventurers have to be weaker). By the way, no monster in the original system has a TH rating higher than 10; they don’t need to. So, what’s the problem with the original scale again?

In contrast, we can see that your clanrat warrior is below average in your scale (at least in terms of TH), and monsters such as the Ogre Bull Crusher Champion are now average (though with ST5 and 10 wounds). In fact, I haven’t been able to find a monster such as the skaven warrior (with WS6, ST5, TH7, and 3W) in your bestiary. Obviously, then, the adventurers in your revision have to be adapted to such a scale, start weaker, and limit their training opportunities (WS in particular), or they may run out of suitable opponents relatively soon in the campaign (as damage rolls are more likely to succeed in Reforged). We may see that your adventurers and monsters exist and interact between them within a rather limited range of the spectrum offered by the original system, and thus they’re in no way equivalent to their counterparts in AHQ.

On the other hand, it’s my understanding that you prefer to alter the scale in the game instead of implementing some “game-breaking special rules to fit inside AHQ’s 1-12” (as you call them) for the biggest enemies. May I ask what’s wrong with some special rules for particularly big and powerful monsters?

As I’ve said in other threads, the original system is very versatile, allowing us to model (within its constraints) almost any character or creature one can come up with, and this is where special rules and abilities come into play as customization tools. That's pretty much how most (if not all) of the RPG and DC systems I know deal with unusually big or powerful models anyhow (including AHQ, WFB, and WFRP), and I think it encourages the development of creativity and of the system itself, which can't be a bad thing.

Those unusually big and powerful monsters are rarely encountered anyway, so I think it shouldn't be a problem to implement some special rules to deal with them occasionally instead of altering the whole scale permanently (as done in Reforged), with all the complications that such an approach may entail. High ST may potentially break the game even more than what TH could, but that’s for another discussion.

Now, as I’ve said over the years, your approach of lowering the stats of adventures and monsters may create more problems than it solves:

*Your revision needs its own bestiary of weaker monsters as a result of your changes. The classic monsters in the AHQ universe end up being incompatible with your system and vice versa. To me at least, this is one of its main downsides, and it should have been enough to abandon such an approach since the beginning.

*Reforged adventurers become more likely to suffer damage, so they need more starting wounds, easier healing mechanics, and other damage-preventing abilities (such as Block) to compensate. Some of your stronger characters may even start with up to 11 wounds! Tests become harder to pass, and abilities such as Fearsome become more effective. One then needs to implement more abilities and bonuses to compensate for that effect too and so on (you even had to tweak the to-hit table once!). This may create a spaghetti-like situation in which modifying a part of the rules may have unwanted side effects on a different part. It seems to be too much of a deformation of the original system to me.

*As mentioned above, training has to be (more) limited in your system, particularly WS, or the adventurers would break the game in the long run (as damage rolls are more likely to succeed in Reforged). Your adventurers start weaker than their original counterparts, so they can’t reach the higher part of the spectrum, which doesn't mean being the most powerful of them all as we established above. Having limited options of development is not precisely the formula for an entertaining dungeon crawler if you ask me.

*The original system (“arguably one of the easiest games ever made to mod and create content for") becomes more complicated and harder to customize after implementing your above-mentioned changes.*

You know I have more arguments against your system (see my redesign notes). These are just the ones related to the "scale" issue that concern us here.

Honestly, I don’t see any significant benefit or advantage over the original system that could justify all the trouble one needs to go through to follow your approach. As I’ve said in other threads, better results may be obtained with less complications and without sacrificing compatibility with the old classic.

I’ve been following the development of Reforged very closely over the years, and it seems you’re finally realizing all this. Your revision seems to be moving in the right direction now (meaning it's now more in tune with how a D12 system actually works), but there’s still way to go in my opinion. I’m afraid you’ll have to tweak your bestiary back to the original scale at some point to get there.