EAHQ 2nd Edition rulebook release.

[Thanquol]

Great minds think alike, Dieter. I was logging on to point The Admiral to that exact EAHQ page 84 optional rule. However, you post-ninja'ed me.

It is a very solid addition to the EAHQ ruleset. The official Games Workshop Advanced Heroquest rules easily allowed an experienced party to hoard large stacks of Fate Points, reducing the threat of death by the time they reached the final Quest room "boss" showdown. Having this systemic check keeps the tension completely intact for group campaign play.

I likely capped Fate Points to either 12 or 24 per Hero model as one of my house rules, but that was last century aged 13, and I made sure I didn't abuse the system by self-regulating my choices.

I certainly applied a similar "try not to ever use more than 1 Fate Point per Hero turn" restriction in the 1990s. Thus, Dieter's optional rule is sensible systems thinking in terms of self-restraint and gets my seal of approval.

Like the official AHQ rules outline, Fate Points are regularly spent entirely outside Combat turns. For example, negating a trap's lethal damage, avoiding instant deletion on a failed Heroic Leap over a Chasm tile, or neutralising "Deadly Poison" encountered during Exploration turns – where the rulebook explicitly dictates a Hero must spend a Fate Point or "die horribly" upon a failed roll inside a Mould or Mushroom Hazard Room.

Regarding Punked20's question on diagonal movement: the answer is a straightforward no. Page 24 of the EAHQ rulebook explicitly dictates that "models may not move through another model." When two Heroes stand side-by-side, their physical bases touch along the straight edge, leaving zero open space between them. Squeezing diagonally through that intersecting corner point would require a monster to physically clip through the profiles of both models simultaneously, which the movement rules entirely forbid. Tabletop common sense treats that front line as fully blocked.

Sarcasm: All come to hear, just to hear the wise-smart squeak-say words of the Grey Seer Thanquol, the most majestic Seer-Lord, yes-yes! The only words that count, straight from the Horned Rat's very own Unholy Prophet and mouthpiece! Thanquol needs not Fate Points, no-no! Thanquol has loaded D13 dice made from carved man-thing bones, yes-yes! All fear Thanquol's dice rolls... Thanquol never false-speaks! Blast-blast and bludgeon all heretics and non-believer mouse-brains! Only Thanquol's rules matter, yes-yes – the most eminent power in the Under-Empire! /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

Let me get this straight: the Heroes gaining FPs too easily in AHQ is a clear sign that something isn't working as it should to begin with, but rather than addressing the actual source of the problem—which obviously is that the Heroes are allowed (and forced by the circumstances) to exploit doorways at will to reduce the rate at which they take damage—we limit FPs instead because we want to keep the original rules out of nostalgia? Even though they weren't well playtested and don’t do the game justice? Interesting; that’s the paradigm I’ve been challenging all these years.

In the end, limiting FPs means limiting everything else as well: monster matrices, dungeon size, exploration tables, potential character-development systems, etc.

[Punked20]

Great minds think alike, Dieter. I was logging on to point The Admiral to that exact EAHQ page 84 optional rule. However, you post-ninja'ed me.

It is a very solid addition to the EAHQ ruleset. The official Games Workshop Advanced Heroquest rules easily allowed an experienced party to hoard large stacks of Fate Points, reducing the threat of death by the time they reached the final Quest room "boss" showdown. Having this systemic check keeps the tension completely intact for group campaign play.

I likely capped Fate Points to either 12 or 24 per Hero model as one of my house rules, but that was last century aged 13, and I made sure I didn't abuse the system by self-regulating my choices.

I certainly applied a similar "try not to ever use more than 1 Fate Point per Hero turn" restriction in the 1990s. Thus, Dieter's optional rule is sensible systems thinking in terms of self-restraint and gets my seal of approval.

Like the official AHQ rules outline, Fate Points are regularly spent entirely outside Combat turns. For example, negating a trap's lethal damage, avoiding instant deletion on a failed Heroic Leap over a Chasm tile, or neutralising "Deadly Poison" encountered during Exploration turns – where the rulebook explicitly dictates a Hero must spend a Fate Point or "die horribly" upon a failed roll inside a Mould or Mushroom Hazard Room.

Regarding Punked20's question on diagonal movement: the answer is a straightforward no. Page 24 of the EAHQ rulebook explicitly dictates that "models may not move through another model." When two Heroes stand side-by-side, their physical bases touch along the straight edge, leaving zero open space between them. Squeezing diagonally through that intersecting corner point would require a monster to physically clip through the profiles of both models simultaneously, which the movement rules entirely forbid. Tabletop common sense treats that front line as fully blocked.

Sarcasm: All come to hear, just to hear the wise-smart squeak-say words of the Grey Seer Thanquol, the most majestic Seer-Lord, yes-yes! The only words that count, straight from the Horned Rat's very own Unholy Prophet and mouthpiece! Thanquol needs not Fate Points, no-no! Thanquol has loaded D13 dice made from carved man-thing bones, yes-yes! All fear Thanquol's dice rolls... Thanquol never false-speaks! Blast-blast and bludgeon all heretics and non-believer mouse-brains! Only Thanquol's rules matter, yes-yes – the most eminent power in the Under-Empire! /Sarcasm

Thank you so much!!

[RECIVS]

Let me get this straight: the Heroes gaining FPs too easily in AHQ is a clear sign that something isn't working as it should to begin with, but rather than addressing the actual source of the problem—which obviously is that the Heroes are allowed (and forced by the circumstances) to exploit doorways at will to reduce the rate at which they take damage—we limit FPs instead because we want to keep the original rules out of nostalgia? Even though they weren't well playtested and don’t do the game justice? Interesting; that’s the paradigm I’ve been challenging all these years.

For example, given Jervis Johnson's contributions to the hobby, his background, and his trajectory as a game designer, I don't think he would go along with this approach if he had the opportunity and will to redesign AHQ, for the reasons I've already posted in my other threads. In fact, it could even be disrespectful and demeaning to suggest that he (a wargamer at heart working for a wargaming company at the time) wanted to make AHQ more repetitive and less tactical in any way on purpose; it sounds more like he was still somewhat inexperienced back then and also had little time to work on the project.

What I believe happened is that he started with a concept in which the Heroes were supposed to be fragile (à la AD&D), but by the time he realized the implications and what it does to the game in the end (assuming he did), the deadline he was given was already due. We now know for a fact that AHQ wasn’t well playtested because of this and other company practices.

Seemingly, what “saved” AHQ in the end was its superb, ahead-of-its-time dungeon-generation system and sandbox, solo-friendly nature. All that made the end product such a novelty that it kept pre-internet (and pre-SNES) kids dazzled enough not to notice the game's actual flaws—to the point that some of those kids still defend those fundamental flaws today as if they were game-enhancing features!

Here’s a thought exercise: let’s imagine that AHQ wasn't released back in 1989 but today—the same game—would you have the same opinion about its mechanics? I’d bet some people who defend the game nowadays would be its fiercest critics in that scenario. I insist: nostalgia is a hell of a drug that doesn't do AHQ any favor.

I recently went through this interview with Jervis Johnson again, the whole text this time (as I originally skipped the parts where he talks about other games), and I noticed some interesting details I had missed. For example, he refers to that period of his career as “formative”, in which the deadlines were “incredibly tight”, and he even admits “without hesitation” having implemented “foolish” and “misguided” ideas in other games that came years after AHQ.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

[legion13]

Dieterdg84 do you have any plans to integrate the unpublished Terror in the dark stuff into Enhance Heroquest 2nd edition?