I was wrong about cards limiting equipment in the original.?

[Kurgan]

Alas I don't have any of the vintage ADK materials to check the serial numbers to try to figure out exactly when they were released, I only go by photographs posted online for that info.

But 1-2 years after the original game is enough time for the designers to adjust to how fans were playing, or to just change their mind and revise, a bit like how Avalon Hill does with modern HeroQuest... slipping those adjustments into later releases.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

A good reason why the “cards limit supply” mechanism is beneficial in this type of game is around the concept of the player (and their heroes) co-operating and playing as a team, something which in my experience, and the experience of many others, happened far more often than even the designer of the game was anticipating.

For this to work you need a degree of hero specialisation, which is often criticised as lacking in HQ “but the Elf armed with the Battle Axe has the same attack strength as the Barbarian armed with the Battle Axe!” or at least it is present but in a limited way, such as the Wizard is specialised, the Dwarf’s Disarm ability, the Barbarian’s 8BP but that is because, for the most part, this specialisation is achieved in HQ through the Equipment cards.

As an example of why character specialisation is needed, we can consider the original inspiration for the Barbarian hero, the character of Conan. Conan is well known as a formidable hero, with an unmatched strength, stamina, ferocity and ability to sustain damage, making him unlikely to ever meet his match in battle, at least against human opponents (and whilst he does on one occasion meet his match in strength against one human opponent, his endurance and toughness allow him to triumph, and he does face others on occasion with better swordsmanship skills, but again his strength, ferocity and ability to take damage still allows him to get the better of them) but for those that have read the books, he is also quick witted, agile, stealthy, an expert in avoiding traps, in fact a better thief than fighter by his own admission, and for that matter a capable ruler, a polyglot and whilst not being a spell caster, and not trusting those who are, his iron will gives him a resistance to magic that is better than almost all other humans, he is in short an all-round superhero. For these reasons he doesn’t need companions and prefers to, and almost always, adventures alone (and in most of those cases where he does have a companion, he ends up having to save them) so he would be a terrible character to try and replicate in a cooperative game and where games including HQ do draw inspiration from this infamous character they do so in a piecemeal fashion, his Thief abilities going to a Rogue or Thief character, his appearance, physique and fighting style to the Barbarian character, and so on.

Consider for a moment The Holy Trinity of RPG Characters, “The Tank, The Healer and the Damage Dealer”. This is one mode of ensuring character or role specialisation between characters or in our case heroes, but one downside to this is its fixed nature, unless your entire party gets wiped out in a single adventure, unlikely in vanilla HQ, then you may not get the chance to change your character type so end up stuck in a particular “role” which may get boring for some players after a while.

In HQ the “upgrade through equipment cards” mechanism (as opposed to being a fixed upgrade path determined by a hero’s type) means that the role is, to a certain extent, determined by the cards rather than the character (not really true for the Wizard) so the Barbarian equipped with the Battle Axe and a Potion of Strength can fulfil the Damage dealer role with an impressive 6 attack dice, the Dwarf equipped with a Shield, Helmet and Plate Armour can fulfil the Tank role with an impressive 6 defend dice and the Elf with a 3 Healing Potions could fulfil the Healer role however because the cards can be swapped between players between Quests you can if you want to, swap the roles around by giving the Elf the Battle Axe and Potion of Strength, fulfilling the “Damage Dealer” role, the Dwarf gets the Potions of Healing as “The Healer” and the Barbarian the full suite of armour as “The Tank”. You can also mix the roles up by distributing the cards in any number of different ways (and the existence of the Crossbow card creates another “Archer” role and the Toolkit card a role of “Disarmer”)

All of this combined with “Cards Limit Supply” means that whilst the roles can flex between the Heroes to a certain extent, you still retain the specialist roles within the party needed to encourage co-operative play because there aren’t enough cards for every Hero to max out.

There is only one Plate Armour card (technically there is Borin’s Armour too but that is another topic!) so not every hero can have 6DD on armour, there is only 1 Battle Axe card so not every hero can have 4AD, only one Crossbow so only one Archer role can be fulfilled, only one Toolkit so only one Disarmer role (technically 2 because of the Dwarf’s ability) and so on. Without this restriction every Hero would eventually end up with 4AD, 6DD, a crossbow, a stack of healing potions, a weapon for killing undead, etc and each would become a one-man band with no need for a cooperative team!

[Kurgan]

Yeah forcing compromises down the road vs letting every character have the full experience is an interesting way to do it, I can see that.

If I'm controlling four heroes, I don't really care that much because my goal is the overall success of the quest (and I have "four lives" to get it done!). While if I'm controlling one hero, I tend to want to have the best stuff for my character because I want them to survive (though between quests if I have some spare gold or an extra potion, and my buddy needs it, I'm okay sharing most of the time).

[Bareheaded Warrior]

To my mind it is less about how individual players play or not letting every character have the full experience, it is is more about the range of options that the ruleset allows.

To use a simple example, if as a member of a new party starting our HQ experience, I might choose a particular character because I didn't want the full head-on hack 'n' slash experience of some of the character types and wanted instead to play a supporting role, so I might opt for a character that had the specialisms of missile combat, healing and disarming traps. However 20 quests in I might be bored with that experience and fancy a change. I could approach another member of my party explain my predicament and get a response like "fair enough, how about for the next few Quests you give me your Crossbow, spare Potions of Healing and the Toolkit, and I'll give you my Plate Armour, Helmet and Battle Axe and you can take the lead and I'll support you for a change.

It isn't so much a case as to how likely this is to happen that matters, but what is important is that the game supports it.

An alternate way through this would be go in the direction that the latest remake appears to be heading (although that is based only on my reading of posts on this forum so could be wrong) which is to have more specialist roles with more specialised equipment but to have more roles than players. This is harder to implement and balance, but even then problems still remain, a player with an experienced role-based hero might want to change role but feels trapped by the prospect of having to start again from scratch, or the party might choose only the roles representing the most combat-orientated end of spectrum or even go the opposite way, which makes things challenging for a Quest Creator who has to take into account the full range of possible hero types and abilities when creating his quest and ensure it is balanced whether the party is a bunch of heavily armed and armoured crazies or a motley crew armed only with lock picks, lutes and prayers...

My point is that the original game had a workable way through this, but the changes made later to abandon the "cards limit supply" principle (which I suspect was partly made in an attempt to move the Adventure Board Game concept more into the RPG-Lite space, and facilitate converting players to those more profitable hobbies, and partly to reduce production costs relating to card production) resulted in every hero buying every piece of equipment and then players complaining about the lack of differentiation between characters (again excluding the Wizard), the lack of equipment carrying limits and the lack of available storage space to store their vast collection of equipment and potions (how much does it cost per quest to hire a mule train to carry all my gear...)

[dragon5145]

In terms of how many copies of each equipment card should be available, I would suggest for the same of simplicity assuming for the moment only one copy of each card, and then we can “argue upwards” on a case-by-case basis.

For example, under the “polished second edition” rules, the Barbarian, Dwarf, Elf all have a shortsword as their starting weapon so…

Shortsword = Quantity 3

Many of our debates on this forum circle around encouraging the use of throwing weapons, for fun and as a gold sink, and rules around recovery so in the spirit of this I would suggest…

Throwing/Hand Axe = Quantity 2
Throwing Knife/Dagger = Quantity 3

Several pre-published Quests involved simultaneously giving out 2 Potions of Healing in close proximity and on occasion even in a single chest so…

Potion of Healing = Quantity 2

Armour obviously needs some thought and so on…more to follow as this post is long enough already!

The post this quote is taken from has several valid and compelling points in favor of the card limit supply idea, I won't call it an explicit rule of second edition yet since the rules do state to mark down benefits of using the equipment on the character sheet which could be confusing to some. Why write down if you have the card? While preferring not to limit supply except thru a players gold, I could play either way since both could be seen as implied, with limiting more so when you consider quest notes and other cards, so like many thing it should be decided by the particular group playing.

My question on the quote stems from this: first are the equipment cards shown on the Inn accurate, if not maybe time to remedy this. Second you postulate that the Barbarian, Dwarf, and Elf start with the short sword which is understandable if your weakening the Barbaian (character card scan shows 3 AD). My question here is if the equipment card scan is accurate, do you let those heroes also attack diagonally from the start so as to match the equipment card even though the character cards do not indicate this where it lists the attack? If not it probably better to say have some other unnamed weapon that has no other benefits, then there would only be one normal short sword in the game using cards limit supply. Either way is fine (diagonal attack or unnamed weapon), but should be mentioned for consistency on how individual weapons work. If not you then have 3 short swords that do not attack diagonally and one that does, again assuming the scanned card image is accurate.

Edit: As an aside it would more consistent with the concept of cards limit supply to leave starting weapons unnamed as other wise you would have already introduced a situation with more supply of an equipment than there are cards.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

It is a hard call to make, as usual, with the variance within the official editions. It appears both 1st and 2nd edition suggest marking down equipment card benefits on your character sheet (even though there is nowhere indicated on the character sheet in those editions to record this information) and it is indeed pointless as you have the card (and both editions also suggest that you record the value on your character sheet of "gold" treasure cards before discarding them, despite the fact that in neither edition is there anywhere indicated on the character sheet to record this information and neither is there any need to discard the "gold" treasure cards, you could just retain the card, which is how I play) but the reasons why I choose this interpretation (aside from the fact that I think it is the right one) are given in previous posts.

In terms of the equipment card "shortsword" and the starting equipment, my original position when I first made this change was to assume that the characters were armed with a generic 2AD adjacent attack weapon (perhaps a "longknife") and the Wizard armed with a generic 1AD adjacent attack weapon (perhaps a "dagger") that didn't have and didn't need an equipment card because it was included in their character board stats and could not be bought, sold, given or swapped and that the Shortsword remained as a buyable upgrade for the three heroes which grants 2AD attacks on adjacent and diagonal, as you suggest.

However a further review revealed to me that the 150gc shortsword (2AD, diagonal), the 150gc hand axe (2AD, throwing) and 150gc the spear (2AD, diagonal & throwing) are not balanced in terms of cost versus benefits as the spear gives you functionality of both 150gc shortsword and 150gc hand axe but for the same price. Around this time I was also informed that versions of the shortsword that didn't include the diagonal attack part were also in existence (although I haven't ever physically held one).

So I would say EITHER...

Adopt my original position (and the Spear could probably have its cost increased to 200gc) but this does leave a 2AD, adjacent attack weapon "gap" for the Wizard

OR

Downgrade the Shortsword to being 2AD adjacent attack only and reduce the cost to 100gc and remove the Wizard limitation (thus filling the 2AD adjacent attack weapon "gap" for the Wizard) and then you can declare that the generic 2AD adjacent attack weapon that the other three heroes start with is a "shortsword" which is then consistent (but makes no difference to actual gameplay)

So short answer is no I don't allow diagonal attacks from the start, but it is difficult to be definitive when introducing changes when it isn't 100% confirmed how the base game works due to the possibly varying card text!

That said I don't think that having 4 shortswords in existence, but only 1 card, technically breaches the cards limit supply principle as there is only one shortsword that can be supplied as the others are in play from the start, but I get your point around consistency. I'll update my Gear Up! document. Thank you.

[Kurgan]

A good point. Utilizing starting weapons would violate the "cards limit supply" rule with all four heroes in play (though it is amusing to imagine the Elf and Dwarf arguing over who gets to use the one sword between them), unless you're making an exception (basically you're treating the hero card like an equipment card that can only be used by that hero). So you could still let the Barbarian purchase a shortsword to gain diagonal striking power with the one available Equipment card. Maybe you could just say the rule is that any additional equipment you want to buy (over the entire campaign?) is limited by the cards. So to use that item, you need to be holding the card.

The Inn's section (under the UK flag, for "Game System") shows the 2nd Edition Equipment cards, but they are identical to the ones in the 1st edition with the exception that the 1st had two copies each of the Helmet & Shield (which EU replaced with the new Bracers and Cloak of Protection).

Since EU heroes don't have starting equipment at all (NA edition introduced this concept), only inherent base attack (and defense) abilities, just like monsters, then if you take away their equipment cards (such as when they are taken prisoner) they still have those abilities.

The EU 1st edition's Shortsword lacked diagonal ability, but later printings of the 1st edition (such as the one I own) and the 2nd edition upgraded it so it could strike diagonally. In theory you're granting this ability to the Elf and Dwarf if you say they start with this weapon, but in theory if their weapon is destroyed by Rust, they lose the diagonal ability but can still hit with 2 dice of innate (call it "base" if you like) attack power.

I just thought it was interesting that while rules as written the EU editions wanted you to limit supply of Equipment by cards, they had a system. That's why the character sheets have so little room to write down and cross off equipment because that's not what they expect you to do. Meanwhile they introduce the Adventure Design Kit with a new, much more spacious re-designed character sheet and invite you to adopt the same "rule" as the NA edition... unlimited available Equipment to buy!

It seems "Unrealistic" that throughout the entire kingdom so few of these pieces of gear are ever available, but in game terms it did create a kind of strategic system to try to arrange who will have what to maximize the strength of your party. The Japanese edition has a similar situation.

So it could still work... captured heroes lose their weapons (& armor, spells, potions, gold), but still retain their base attack, if we're going with the EU rules.

[dragon5145]

Thanks to both Kurgan and Bareheaded Warrior for your replies. At BH have you ever considered instead of a "longknife", which when put up alongside knife, dagger, or short sword the nuances of the differences can become blurred, maybe a "heavy cudgle" or something for your 2 AD start. The wizard could just as easily start out unarmed if you want, then it would match with the unarmed combat rules from the quest where they start with no weapons. Buying the dagger this way is an upgrade since it could be thrown.

@Kurgan yeah your right considering the character cards as base inherent attacks works well as long as the unarmed attack rules from the quest notes when taken prisoner is thrown out. I don't really see a problem with that since it would solve the issue of the Barbarian and Wizard having the same unarmed attack without any specialized rules being introduced. When it comes to losing the supposed starting weapon due to "Rust", that shouldn't be an issue for EU edition since it looks like the chaos spells were introduced in NA edition. There is no mention of spell cards for Morcar in the lists of what are included in either the 1st or 2nd editions rules of play, it was however introduced in WoM. Now I would need to go through the quest books and see if any of the monsters list having spells, they may but I would find it interesting that these early editions would require cards for nearly everything else but not spells for Morcar given the amount of text typically found on the cards. Spell effects don't seem like something that should be in quest notes, very often if at all, in case a hero player wants to read the effect for themself without getting a glimpse at the entire quest map.

Edit: As mentioned earlier in this post or maybe it was another, I believe BHW talked about the push/pull of ideas that most likely occurred between MB known for board games and GW known for TT RPG and wargames. This would definitely explain the confusing bits about writing things on the character sheets with no dedicated space or having to have the card. Unfortunately without some incontrovertible written developer's notes from the time or one of the developers having a phenomenal memory about the subject, which I would highly doubt after over 30 years and so much fan speculation, that we will never truly know for sure if the ADK was a change in direction to more closely match what was happening in the NA version or a clarification of the original intent.

[Kurgan]

Good point, I forgot that Rust isn't used in EU editions until WOM (and then only twice!).

Giving the EU heroes starting weapons would make their loss of gear in the captured quest seem more fearful, but you'd need go give them all weapons that are stronger or more useful than their starting gear (which works for everyone except for the Barbarian, unless you gave him the Battle Axe... the broadsword is the same as his starting base attack.. and the Longsword would be perfect but it doesn't exist in the EU edition). Maybe you could give the Barbarian a Spear, so he can attack with 3 dice adjacent and 2 dice diagonal? This puts all the heroes on equal footing when it comes to normal attacks because they'd all have a 2 diagonal strike. The Barbarian could throw his spear (and lose it). Give the Dwarf the hand axe (as modern AH suggests in First Light/Explorer dwarf in Jungles of Delthrak) and he doesn't have diagonal strike but he can throw it (and lose it.. which makes him I guess more like the NA Wizard... who has a dagger which he can throw away but it doesn't impact his attack otherwise).

And then with the "starting cards" in hand, those would not be available to buy in the shopping phase, except for any that had been lost... (the NA wizard can stockpile daggers as throwing ammo, but only two throwing weapons in the EU edition.. cheaper to just buy the crossbow, but only one hero gets it!).

[dragon5145]

With or without giving the heroes starting equipment, the loss of equipment in the 6th quest should still be fairly fearful for them. Most if not all should have been able to upgrade something by then, especially if they work more cooperatively and pool the money for purchases. I looked the 2nd ed quest book and with full exploration, there is between about 830 and 1380 gold available depending on whether all the players that return a chest get the prince's reward or they abscond with the gold. Mind this is without any gold for treasure searches. If a group forgoes defense initially they could kit out with their best weapons before quest six. Battle axe, broadsword, crossbow, and staff all together would be 1100 gold, so if the gold is from the higher end of the range they might also have the helmet, shield, or cloak. With lucky treasure draws they might have more, especially if treasure horde comes up in a quest or two. And if playing 1st ed and assuming good luck and team work as long as they don't steal the prince's gold, there is the potential for even more gold available if the same heroes are used for the quest as after 3 quest they would have become champions and received the, I believe, 500 gold onetime reward. Could potentially almost clean out the equipment deck that way.

Wow looking at those hypotheticals it almost seems, the early editions needed a method like rust to recycle some of the equipment, otherwise with luck and teamwork that resulted in no or few hero deaths, they would start to accumulate alot of gold with nothing to spend it on. Maybe that's why things like the spear and hand axe were lost when thrown, without hero death or the rust spell those are the only things that would get recycled back to the equipment deck for repurchasing. I also understand it is unlikely for all heroes to survive almost every quest, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.