• Advertisement

Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!

Donate via Paypal

Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.

Comparing the AHQ Variants

Topics related to Games Workshops Advanced HeroQuest.

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Stig » Saturday January 9th, 2021 12:42am

RECIVS wrote:
Stig wrote: I prefer the variant suggested in the second edition rulebook which was to use Gold instead of counting monster point values, which as you say must be a drag. When using Gold you just double the numbers in the table, so avoids pencil dragging during the quest.

There's still the issue of Fate Point accumulation though, which may affect game balance. That's easy to fix nevertheless.

Stig wrote:could version 1.76 maybe be an attempt at condensing it?

Sorry, I don't think I can make it more condensed than that. Keep in mind that it's meant for Reforged veterans looking for an upgrade.

Stig wrote:There’s something about the accessibility/writing style/many appendices that doesn’t do it for me in terms of presentation of Reforged.

Yes, it's not the easiest game to get into, but it's not that complicated either. You don't need to go through everything to start playing. It could be much harder if the reader is not familiar with AHQ though. You should have some experience with the original before starting with Slev's rules (I spent a little more than a year with the vanilla rules before starting with variants). It's not very different from 2nd Edition anyway; you just need to know where everything is. One of the best solo-play DC experiences lays past the learning curve.


Ah that makes sense. A year with the original rules - wow. Thanks |_P


Rewards:
Zealot Miniatures: Twisting Catacombs Kickstarter Backer Slain a measly Goblin! Destroyed a Zombie!
User avatar
Stig

Ogre Champion
Ogre Champion
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Wednesday December 23rd, 2015 5:12am
Location: London, United Kingdom
Forum Language: British English
Evil Sorcerer: Zargon
Hero:
Usergroups:
Champion Group Member

Advertisement

Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!

Donate via Paypal

Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Kurgan » Saturday January 9th, 2021 1:43am

Edit: I updated my previous post with links and images. Good luck!
User avatar
Kurgan

Crossbowman
Crossbowman
 
Posts: 1538
Images: 20
Joined: Saturday February 23rd, 2019 7:08pm
Forum Language: English (United States)
Evil Sorcerer: Zargon
Hero:

Re: Marvel Winter Special

Postby RECIVS » Saturday January 9th, 2021 12:49pm

Kurgan wrote:
RECIVS wrote:
Kurgan wrote:Is it just me or did many of the "bonus hazards" that appeared in the Marvel Winter Special come straight from the Advanced Hero Quest art?

I also see the same special promoted the use of various minis created for Advanced Hero Quest to be used in classic Hero Quest. I've only ever seen AHQ in pictures. Can anybody confirm?

Could you post a link or image?


Sure, here are some... there seem to be others as well. You can see the whole thing at ye inn page... (seventh item link down... see pages 2 the inside front cover and the page 35, the back inside cover of the pdf; the "free hazards pack") and a whole forum section dedicated to it as well. |_P

I couldn't open the PDF document, and I have no idea what a "Marvel Winter Comic Special" is. However, I can confirm that the portcullis image you posted comes from AHQ. You can check it out here.
User avatar
RECIVS

Orc
Orc
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tuesday July 18th, 2017 1:36am
Forum Language: English (United States)
Hero:
Usergroups:
Champion Group Member

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby j_dean80 » Saturday January 9th, 2021 1:38pm

I only recognize the portcullis and the trap door from AHQ.
Blood - Good to the last drop


Rewards:
Participated in four (4) Miniature Exchanges. Grin's Stone Map Destroyed a Zombie! Encountered a menacing Chaos Warlock!
User avatar
j_dean80

Crossbowman
Crossbowman
 
Posts: 1614
Images: 30
Joined: Tuesday December 6th, 2016 2:48pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Forum Language: English (United States)
Evil Sorcerer: Zargon
Hero:
Usergroups:
Adventurers' Guild Group Member Artists Group Member Champion Group Member

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby RECIVS » Saturday January 9th, 2021 4:01pm

Stig wrote:Ah that makes sense. A year with the original rules - wow. Thanks |_P

You don't need that time, as 1.75 makes it much easier for newcomers to start playing. If you already have a few AHQ games under your belt, simply print my GM Play Sheet example and combined tables along with the Hazards and Traps appendixes, grab your gear, and give it a try with what you know. Exploration and combat play essentially the same, observing (of course) the new tables. Forget about locked doors; they're all double and unlocked. Forget about furniture. A starting bestiary is already included in the GM Play Sheet, so you don't need to worry about that. You don't have to learn every single Ability (although it wouldn't hurt), just the ones your characters start with and the ones of the enemies you face. The system doesn't use monsters matrices, so you don't have to worry about that either. Slev's Core Rules are almost the same as the original, and mine are just ten additional pages (already familiar to 2nd Edition players) as daunting as they may seem. Read the Bestiary rules on how to create groups of enemies; it's just two or three pages already summarized in the combined tables. Dungeon Counter effects are described in the Play Sheets appendix (takes some time to find if you don't know that). So I think that's it, some pages of new rules; everything else works pretty much the same as in the original. The rest of the pencil-dragging stuff is used only between expeditions, which you could learn about after your first test run. Feel free to ask your questions.
User avatar
RECIVS

Orc
Orc
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tuesday July 18th, 2017 1:36am
Forum Language: English (United States)
Hero:
Usergroups:
Champion Group Member

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Davane » Saturday January 9th, 2021 7:07pm

RECIVS wrote:
Davane wrote: Plus, card manipulation and deck building is easier done done with cards.

I'm not quite sure what you meant to say there.

Davane wrote:So, there's definitely a sweet spot where cards make more sense than tables, based on number of unique permutations and what you are looking to do with the deck.

Perhaps cards make more sense to people who already prefer them? It's relatively easy to be biased by one's own preferences and experiences. Could there be an objective measure?

Dice are sturdier than cards, and they're easier to handle and store. Tables are much easier to design and modify during playtesting, and they definitely provide more varied and unpredictable results than cards with less effort (as you implied). With that in mind, I don't see how the process of designing, printing, cutting, laminating, storing, shuffling and handling several decks of playing cards (as enjoyable as it may be) could "make more sense" than rolling a few dice and retaining (for a few seconds) simple information like "two sections-wandering monsters-right turn" or "lair-two doors-one table". I believe the mind-sharpening effect alone should be enough to tip the scale. I can see, though, how drawing cards could be easier than looking up information in tables.


Could have sworn that I replied to this post... Oh well!

A key principle to understand is that card decks and die rolls are two completely different methods of random generation. Die rolls are discrete events, and without modifiers, the odds of rolling specific results NEVER change. A 1 in 12 chance is a 1 in 12th chance on the 1st roll, the 101st roll, or the 1,000,001st roll. Whilst it's a statistical improbability, it's not a statistical impossibility to roll the same result 10, 100, or 1000 times in a row.

Card draws are not discrete events if you are not returning cards to the deck between draws. You can never draw more than 2 Ace of Spades from a deck of playing cards without returning cards to the deck, nor can you draw more than four Kings, or more than 13 Hearts, from a deck of playing cards without returning cards to the deck. Each individual card is unique and can only be drawn once, and each card drawn changes the odds of drawing another specific card from the deck before returning the cards to the deck.

A deck of cards is like having a predetermined list of die rolls, that are then shuffled and put together. Because you are working with a list of results, rather than individual die rolls, you can manipulate the results in various ways, and this is what I mean by card manipulation and deck building.

A key feature is that IF you don't return cards to a deck, you will eventually run out of cards with every card having been drawn. As such, you can determine beforehand that specific cards, and thus specific results, will appear eventually, and depending upon how you build the deck, you can also determine when roughly this will be, if desired.

The WHQ dungeon generation system sees an Objective Room chosen at random (1 in 5 for the base game), shuffled in with a mini deck of six dungeon cards, and then six MORE dungeon cards placed on the top of the deck. Thus, you can guarantee that the Objective Room will be found within the bottom 7 to 13 cards of the dungeon deck. This is what I mean by deck building. You can build longer or shorter dungeons, by adding more or less dungeon cards. You can add in more or less Objective Rooms, make sure more or less T-Junctions are in the deck, and so on. I recall one Quest in White Dwarf where the party was looking for a specific Objective, and by not seeing what Objective Room was to be used for the quest, you couldn't be sure that the quest you were in actually HAD the objective room you are looking for.

Because you are dealing with a list of pre-determined results as a deck of cards, card and deck manipulation becomes a possibility too. For ease, I refer to this is card manipulation. The easiest form of this is adding or subtracting cards to the deck DURING PLAY. Adding cards lengthens the dungeon, and is often used to represent the party getting lost, whilst removing cards shortens the dungeon and can represent the party finding a guide or taking a shortcut. Card manipulation can be much more complex though - you might, for example, IGNORE or CHANGE the result of the next card, perhaps turning the next Room (which typically always have Events in them) to a Corridor.

Both die rolled tables and card decks are able to use features which make them more like the alternative form of random generation. AHQ saw this in the TitD expansion and the revisions, where you use different tables for Room generation based on how many rooms you had already entered, thus changing the odds of finding the Quest Room. Different tables means that the odds of finding the Quest Room are changed, and the chances of other "less interesting" rooms can be reduced, but you still aren't necessarily guaranteed to find the Quest Room or not as long at it appears on the table. So it's still possible to get that marathon dungeon where you slog through 24+ rooms and still aren't lucky enough to roll the 1 in 3 needed to find the Quest Room in the next generated room.

For card decks, the use of a "shuffle" card helps increase the variety of the decks, as you can never be sure how long between each "shuffle" you are going to get, with each shuffle essentially resetting the odds for each card in your deck. This helps mitigate card counting, and removes the possibility that you are going to draw every single card in the deck before shuffling, but this typically comes at the cost of deck building and card manipulation, which are also reset when cards are shuffled.

The fact that both die rolling and card drawing have their own pros and cons, and both feature options to make one form of generation feature the other, leads me to believe that there is a middle a ground to be found between the two. However, where individual players may lie on this middle ground can vary quite a bit, based on their preferences and priorities.

Going back to your key statement, RECIVS:
With that in mind, I don't see how the process of designing, printing, cutting, laminating, storing, shuffling and handling several decks of playing cards (as enjoyable as it may be) could "make more sense" than rolling a few dice and retaining (for a few seconds) simple information like "two sections-wandering monsters-right turn" or "lair-two doors-one table".


This could make more sense if you desire the key principles that drawing cards provide - which is that card decks feature changing odds based on previous draws and how the deck is built. That is, drawing that "Lair" now means the odds of drawing that "Quest Room" for the next room (before the Shuffle card) are increased. Or that you are unlikely to find excessively long sequences of passages before finding that first door in the dungeon. Even if you just want more balance or variety - a deck of 12 cards mirroring the Passage Length Table (3 "1 length" section cards, 5 "2 length" section cards, and 4 "3 length" section cards) - will see these initial odds shift as you draw more cards, and also mean that you will never see more than 3 "1 length" section cards between shuffles.

It's also worth noting that simple information like "two-sections-wandering monsters-right turn" could be equally presented as a single card in a deck, or as the combination of a card from two or three decks, and this in turn would also factor into whether the use of cards over tables "makes sense." The use of multiple decks for this information might be as absurd as having this information being a single, complete entry on one table. Note that a table for every combination of passage in the same odds as AHQ would be 12 x 23 x 23 entries, or 6,348 unique entries.

Even if it seems like having a 6,348 card deck might be obsessive, some people might STILL prefer this if it means that their chances of drawing a single section of passage goes from being 1,587 in 6,348 to 1,586 in 6,347 as single section length cards are drawn, slowly decreasing the odds of FUTURE single sections of passage whilst slowly increasing the odds of FUTURE passages being two or more sections in length. Although, such people would more likely prefer that the odds of a single length of passage being 3 in 12 (1 in 4 or 25%) to being 2 in 11 ( or ~18%) when a single length of passage is drawn.
"The HeroQuest World is loosely based on the Warhammer World which is the copyright of Games Workshop and is used by their permission."
Davane

Ogre Warrior
Ogre Warrior
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wednesday January 8th, 2020 8:05am
Forum Language: British English
Evil Sorcerer: Morcar
Hero:

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Davane » Saturday January 9th, 2021 7:22pm

j_dean80 wrote:I only recognize the portcullis and the trap door from AHQ.


Checking now, but I can confirm that the Portcullis comes from AHQ. The Treasure Chest posted does not, but DOES seem to have been done in the same artistic style of AHQ.

In fact, I believe that upon seeing the MWS (not that I ever knew it existed before Ye Olde Inn) my first impression of the Hazards were how they were mostly all done in the artistic style of AHQ. I think the Wooden Treasure Chest may actually BE from AHQ. The Closed Zombie Tomb seems more like the Tombs from RotWL, but the Open Zombie Lair is more like the Pit from AHQ.

The listed Trap Door seems to be the Grate from AHQ. if I recall correctly, there was also an actual Trap Door tile in AHQ.

Finally, and somewhat ironically, the Death Reapers are NOT from AHQ. AHQ included Skull tokens for tracking monster wounds, but they were a lot less cartoonish than the Death Reapers provided.
"The HeroQuest World is loosely based on the Warhammer World which is the copyright of Games Workshop and is used by their permission."
Davane

Ogre Warrior
Ogre Warrior
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wednesday January 8th, 2020 8:05am
Forum Language: British English
Evil Sorcerer: Morcar
Hero:

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby RECIVS » Saturday January 9th, 2021 7:36pm

Wow! That's a reply.

Davane wrote:A key principle to understand is that card decks and die rolls are two completely different methods of random generation. Die rolls are discrete events, and without modifiers, the odds of rolling specific results NEVER change. A 1 in 12 chance is a 1 in 12th chance on the 1st roll, the 101st roll, or the 1,000,001st roll. Whilst it's a statistical improbability, it's not a statistical impossibility to roll the same result 10, 100, or 1000 times in a row.

My tables use modifiers for the same reason. Results usually depend on more than one roll. The possibilities are much more than 12, and I don't need more than a couple of dice and a piece of paper to implement, test, and modify them.

Davane wrote:some people might STILL prefer this

That's my point exactly. I honestly think it has to do more with preference (even without actually "knowing" it) than with everything else you said.
User avatar
RECIVS

Orc
Orc
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tuesday July 18th, 2017 1:36am
Forum Language: English (United States)
Hero:
Usergroups:
Champion Group Member

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Davane » Saturday January 9th, 2021 7:53pm

Kurgan wrote:Is it just me or did many of the "bonus hazards" that appeared in the Marvel Winter Special come straight from the Advanced Hero Quest art?

I also see the same special promoted the use of various minis created for Advanced Hero Quest to be used in classic Hero Quest. I've only ever seen AHQ in pictures. Can anybody confirm?


See previous post for my response regarding the MWS' bonus hazards and AHQ.

Just wanted to note that the New Monsters included do NOT feature the models from AHQ. It seems like this entire section has been ripped wholesale from a WD article which featured these creatures. I believe it's WD 134: The Halls of Durrag-Dol.

The Painting Article actually features the models from AHQ, despite being misleadingly subtitled "A brief guide to painting your HeroQuest models." The complete model set from AHQ is shown in the picture above the title.

Seems to me that whomever wrote the MWS considered HQ and AHQ somewhat interchangeable, which would imply that permission came from GW rather than MB to release it. Probably because AHQ was solely produced by GW, unlike HQ which was a GW and MB collab. It also means that Hasbro doesn't currently have their mitts on anything AHQ related, and probably doesn't have access to the WD and MWS content for HQ either... and as such, look likely to be abandoned as part of the canon pretty sharpish in 2021...

I should point out that Skaven were created by GW at the time of AHQ to justify and cement AHQ's place in the Warhammer World. Although Skaven were featured as the monsters in AHQ, technically they were taken from the basic Skaven army line. The character tokens in AHQ featured painted models from both the Skaven army line, and various other enemy army lines (Chaos, Orcs, and Undead). Thus it's fairer to suggest that the MWS, like AHQ itself, was encouraging the use of GW's own citadel miniatures Warhammer lines with both HQ and AHQ.

WHQ took a similar approach, in taking modes from the Orc and Goblin army line at the time. The models in WHQ could serve as the core of a sizable Orc and Goblin army. if I recall correctly, the Minotaurs were also taken from their existing model line (I recognise it as the minotaur from Talisman 3rd ed.) but with a premoulded base. Not sure about the snotlings. The four heroes WERE unique though. The rats, bats, and spiders were also unique, but would later be repackaged as "swarms" for WFB shortly after the WHQ release made them popular.

As a final note, you might find it interesting to note that the Empire was created more as a result of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and it was details included in early editions of this came to define what the Empire would be in the Old World. This content was later used to redefine the Empire in Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and provide background for HQ, AHQ, and WHQ. It has often been remarked that the backgrounds of WFB, HQ, AHQ, and WHQ read more like propaganda releases for what the Empire aspires to be, which is a lot more heroic and glorious than the Warhammer World actually is (which is more accurately portrayed in the Warhammer fiction than most of the sourcebooks).
Last edited by Davane on Sunday January 10th, 2021 7:16pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The HeroQuest World is loosely based on the Warhammer World which is the copyright of Games Workshop and is used by their permission."
Davane

Ogre Warrior
Ogre Warrior
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wednesday January 8th, 2020 8:05am
Forum Language: British English
Evil Sorcerer: Morcar
Hero:

Re: Comparing the AHQ Variants

Postby Davane » Saturday January 9th, 2021 9:15pm

RECIVS wrote:Wow! That's a reply.

Davane wrote:A key principle to understand is that card decks and die rolls are two completely different methods of random generation. Die rolls are discrete events, and without modifiers, the odds of rolling specific results NEVER change. A 1 in 12 chance is a 1 in 12th chance on the 1st roll, the 101st roll, or the 1,000,001st roll. Whilst it's a statistical improbability, it's not a statistical impossibility to roll the same result 10, 100, or 1000 times in a row.

My tables use modifiers for the same reason. Results usually depend on more than one roll. The possibilities are much more than 12, and I don't need more than a couple of dice and a piece of paper to implement, test, and modify them.

Davane wrote:some people might STILL prefer this

That's my point exactly. I honestly think it has to do more with preference (even without actually "knowing" it) than with everything else you said.


You're welcome. I certainly agree that preference will have a significant part in the debate over cards vs. dice. Most people don't know enough about probably and/or game design to make an accurately informed decision over which is best.

There's two other factors that should be considered if we are looking at preferences:

Firstly, there's perception - cards often feel more "board-game like" than dice, because of the tactile sensations they bring, and they are often perceived as simpler. Dice are more associated with roleplaying games, typically D&D, and the decision to use dice over cards can often be influenced by this perceptions.

WHQ, for example, being a primarily card-based system for dungeon generation, included the Roleplay Book full of advanced rules that ended up being more reliant on dice than cards. In fact, many fansites for WHQ have created cards for the tables in the Roleplay Book. The final section, which was dedicated to a more D&D like experience using the WHQ rules stopped using cards as anything other than reference materials.

The second factor is the associated rulesets themselves. Comparing AHQ and WHQ, the rules system for WHQ can be taken as somewhat superior, if only because of the scope of advancement and the time and effort put in to developing WHQ and integrating it into the Warhammer world and Warhammer Product Line. WHQ was truly the "Warhammer dungeon crawler."

AHQ was never properly designed this way, seemingly more like a dungeon crawler that had all the things HQ lacked, going for more of a HQ+ vibe, even though in the end, there was actually very little to link HQ and AHQ in the rules set. If AHQ was aiming to be the "Warhammer dungeon crawler," it missed the mark.

I think the issue here is that AHQ went all in to dungeon generation, and the rest of the system seemed out of sync with that somewhat. However, in WHQ, because dungeon generation was pushed to the background thanks to cards, more time was spent with making the system itself a robust experience, adopting many of the insights gained from developing AHQ. As such, to players, WHQ is seen more as the superior system between the two, and thus a bias towards cards can be included along with that.

I want to note two OTHER important dungeon generation systems that I have had significant experience with. The first of these is the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game System, which is largely card driven. The dungeon itself is generated using dungeon tiles, which are created in a pile as if they were a deck of cards. These tiles have the same pros and cons as cards, but since they are tiles, they can contain a lot more information than can be conveyed in the "single section-wandering monsters-no doors" format of AHQ tables. There's rarely a table in sight.

The other is Dungeoneer, which is a dungeon crawling card game. In this case, there's no boards, because the Dungeon Cards are laid out on the table like a board, and as such, whilst also having the pros and cons of cards, they can also contain more information than the standard "single section-wandering monsters-no doors" format of AHQ tables.

These two examples show the direct interchange between cards and boards/tiles that is possible using card-driven generation, that exists alongside the card -> board representation. These also knuckle down on the individuality of cards/boards that die-roll table-generated dungeons just don't have.

With card generation, each card can be unique, and can represent a single specific location. It's not just A passage, it's THIS passage. The closest AHQ comes with that is the Quest Room Table introduced in TitD, and even then, they still don't strictly represent a unique location. You COULD roll two Skull Rooms in a dungeon with multiple Quest Rooms, for example.

I believe that this is a factor that should be considered between table and deck based generation systems. Tables allow for variety, expansion, and generalism that cards simply cannot achieve, and therefore, by definition, the dungeons themselves are unique, and often without limits because the system itself is limitless.

Cards allow for individuality and uniqueness, but because the cards themselves are finite without shuffling, the dungeons themselves are also finite, as are the various combinations and layouts of dungeons.

I think this is probably the key defining feature of a spectrum of dungeon generation methods that a person's preference is defined upon. The dichotomy of endless generic possibilities from dice roll tables compared to the individual uniqueness yet finite possibilities of card decks. It's a case of what you want to be unique - the dungeon itself, or the individual parts of the dungeon. This pretty much defines the focus of your game, and thus what sort of generation might be best.

In both cases, the merits depend on how well you are exploiting the unique benefits of each system - be it limitless dungeons or individual locations. However, likewise in both cases, they get boring very quickly if you aren't creating new tables/cards to use with the system.

As for ease of creation - cards can be cribbed easily enough with a piece of paper and some card sleeves. Like tables, you can put as much or as little information on them as you want.

Also, to truly compare deck based and die based generation in AHQ, you could take a deck or two of playing cards, take out the Kings (13s) and then use them to generate your dungeons, using the card values in place of dice. Or you could use the King to represent the Quest Room, and add a number of cards from 1 to 12 and use the "Rooms previously entered (0-2)" table to determine the other rooms. You'd get a dungeon that works out like a finite version of the "Rooms Previously Entered (3 - 5)" table, and would be identical to WHQ dungeon generation if you used WHQ deck building.

Likewise, you could replace WHQ deck generation by simply creating a table based on how many cards are in the deck. if I recall correctly, the base WHQ set contains the following:
Boxed Set Dungeon Cards:

Corridor Cards:
1x Corner
1x Stairway
3x T-Junction
7x Passageway

Dungeon Room Cards:
Circle of Power
Dungeon Cell
Guard Room
Monster's Lair
Torture Chamber
Well of Doom

Objective Room Cards:
Fighting Pit
Firechasm
Fountain of Light
Idol Chamber
Tomb Chamber


That means there's 12 Corridor Cards, and 6 Room cards, so you are looking at a 1 in 3 chance that you generate a room. Of the corridors, just over half will be Passageways. Of the remaining, over half will be T-Junctions, the rest either Stairs or Corners.

As such, a D12 table might look like this:
D12 Dungeon Section
--- ---------------
1-3 Dungeon Room
4-7 Passageway
8 Stairway
9-10 T-Junction
11 Corner
12 Objective Room


I know it's not EXACTLY the same odds, but it's certainly doable, and you can compare dungeon variety to WHQ reasonably well...
"The HeroQuest World is loosely based on the Warhammer World which is the copyright of Games Workshop and is used by their permission."
Davane

Ogre Warrior
Ogre Warrior
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wednesday January 8th, 2020 8:05am
Forum Language: British English
Evil Sorcerer: Morcar
Hero:

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced HeroQuest Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Trendiction [Bot] and 0 guests