Some Redesign Notes on Combat, Damage, Healing, and Wounds

[RECIVS]

Isn't it pretty much the same problem classic heroquest has?

It is indeed a problem—a pretty obvious one, actually—but some nostalgic players may treat that assertion as a sacrilege and say the doorway exploit is "realistic" and how AHQ is supposed to play; others will say it's fixed simply by using double doors. You may want to check out this post.

This is what the meme addresses, by the way.

[Evil Frog Wizard]

Never actually played AHQ

Really? And I assume you haven't gone through my other posts here either, have you?

No, I did read it. I actually have a few things to say about it, it's a bit complicated. Mostly because all my comments are in relation to the similarities to procedures to early Dungeons and Dragons. And while I have never actually played AHQ, I always found the game extremely interesting because of said similarities. I didn't really want to write up multiple paragraphs in response to yours. I'm not saying it's bad you wrote up multiple paragraphs, I just don't really think it's a good Idea for me to go point by point on it. How do I put this... It's alright when your the one doing the original post, but if your me, that is the person coming in after to comment. It's probably better to focus on just one point. There's just too much to try to address everything all at once. So, I picked the doors. Seemed easy enough a place to start.

Isn't it pretty much the same problem classic heroquest has?

It is indeed a problem—a pretty obvious one, actually—but some nostalgic players may treat that assertion as a sacrilege and say the doorway exploit is "realistic" and how AHQ is supposed to play; others will say it's fixed simply by using double doors. You may want to check out this post.

Yeah, but look at that as an example. It's a problem in HQ but not everyone sees it that way. Some people fix it, some people leave it alone. How people who feel the need to fix actually apply the fix is different, etc. So, it's not that surprising this game has a similar thing happening. If anything. Just from a passing glance, AHQ has less of this problem, since the dice roll to give tokens give time some pressure.

Couldn't you just apply a fix from that? The common ones that come to mind immediately are: Archers, split-move on some enemies, spell casters, diagonal attacks on some enemies.

See this post. I've been opposing the said nostalgic paradigm for more than a decade now.

Nerds who love stuff are always gonna fight over what's good about the thing they love.

The game master could also just dig in and wait. If I remember correctly, they have a 2in12(1in6) chance of getting a token each turn. So, why not just play the waiting game?

Every time? Wouldn't that be just changing one repetitive mechanic for another? On the other hand, what if I'm a solo player or want to play cooperatively?

That brings up an interesting question. Maybe I just missed it in your posts, but, I can't really figure out who your making these changes for, or what the goal of the changes are. Lemme clarify a bit. Are you trying to alter the rules for personal use? I e, for yourself. Are you trying to come up with a variant of the rules? Because giving input varies drastically depending on what your end goal is. Or rather who your making / changing the rules for. You can totally ignore other people, for example, if your just making it for yourself.


Also, If I come off as rude. I don't mean to. It's a bit late for me, and typing on a touch screen isn't very fun. The subject is interesting so I just figured I'd post on it.

[Evil Frog Wizard]

Also, It's late and I have work tomorrow. So, I need to hit the hay. Happy crawling.

[RECIVS]

No, I did read it. I actually have a few things to say about it, it's a bit complicated. Mostly because all my comments are in relation to the similarities to procedures to early Dungeons and Dragons. And while I have never actually played AHQ, I always found the game extremely interesting because of said similarities. I didn't really want to write up multiple paragraphs in response to yours. I'm not saying it's bad you wrote up multiple paragraphs, I just don't really think it's a good Idea for me to go point by point on it. How do I put this... It's alright when your the one doing the original post, but if your me, that is the person coming in after to comment. It's probably better to focus on just one point. There's just too much to try to address everything all at once. So, I picked the doors. Seemed easy enough a place to start.

I made my points in a way that you only need to read this thread, actually. In the end, it all comes down to whether "realism" gets in the way of playability and tactical variety in AHQ; that's pretty much it. I guess you need to have played vanilla AHQ to really know, haven't you?

I think I had misunderstood what you're saying here. At first I thought you were saying my fix is complicated, but you seem to be saying that it's replying to my points in detail that is complicated. I got it.

Yeah, but look at that as an example. It's a problem in HQ but not everyone sees it that way. Some people fix it, some people leave it alone. How people who feel the need to fix actually apply the fix is different, etc. So, it's not that surprising this game has a similar thing happening. If anything. Just from a passing glance, AHQ has less of this problem, since the dice roll to give tokens give time some pressure.

The problem is even worse in AHQ because it dwarfs the tactical variety the game is supposed to offer as one of its main features. To me, it's clearly a flaw resulting from a rushed-to-market design, not a game feature that does justice to the spirit of the game. I'd suggest reading at least this thread and the AHQ rulebook so we can discuss the actual issues at hand rather than passing glances if possible.

Nerds who love stuff are always gonna fight over what's good about the thing they love.

Yes, but I believe some degree of objectivity is attainable here, as posted in this and other threads.

That brings up an interesting question. Maybe I just missed it in your posts, but, I can't really figure out who your making these changes for, or what the goal of the changes are. Lemme clarify a bit. Are you trying to alter the rules for personal use? I e, for yourself. Are you trying to come up with a variant of the rules? Because giving input varies drastically depending on what your end goal is. Or rather who your making / changing the rules for. You can totally ignore other people, for example, if your just making it for yourself.

Also, If I come off as rude. I don't mean to. It's a bit late for me, and typing on a touch screen isn't very fun. The subject is interesting so I just figured I'd post on it.

I'm making them to do justice to AHQ! Again, I'd suggest reading the thread.

I don't sense rudeness in your writing at all. I thought I was the one coming goff rude. It's just that I take AHQ discussions quite seriously as you cans see.

Also, It's late and I have work tomorrow. So, I need to hit the hay. Happy crawling.

Good night. Are you in Australia?

[Evil Frog Wizard]

From experience (a mathematical model may be needed otherwise), it seems that such fragility or vulnerability of the Heroes results mainly from the interaction of the following gameplay elements: combat formation, damage mechanics, healing options, and number of starting wounds. I know there are other factors at play, such as Fate Points, but I think they’re secondary, and, in most cases, its use is determined by the said variables. I mean, FPs can make the game easier by negating damage in combat, yes, but they have nothing to do with how that damage is caused. Other elements (such as dungeon size, number and value of enemies, hazards, henchmen, spells, traps, treasure, weapon skill, etc.) play their part as well, of course, but they also do it indirectly I believe. Anyway, only the ones mentioned in the title of this thread are taken into account in this post; the others are considered constant variables for our purposes here. As usual, my methods and conclusions are open to criticism:

As we all know, every Hero in AHQ may start with 2-5 wounds and a Toughness (T) rating of 5-8 depending on race. In some instances, T may be increased to 12 relatively easily through training and armor. TH12 models require damage rolls of 12 (or 1/12 chance) to be wounded, which may be a game breaker for most people, me included, but that's another story.

I dunno if this is helpful at all but..

I think I figured out about what wounds conceptually translate too. This might be a bit much, so gonna kinda skim over some stuff. In chainmail, most enemies health is are measured in 'pips'. Each 'pip' then represents a slain man. Od&d originally used a similar system but this wasn't really good for the smaller scale, skirmish level fighting that happened in dungeons. Thus the 'hit die' was born. Originally this was a d6, but soon became a d8. This is important in relationship as to how hardy a player character is, but also how likely one can 'slay a man' with a certain weapon. Ie, if you are using a long sword in early d&d,it does d8 damage, meaning it has a 50/50 chance to 'slay a man'. A 2 hand sword with it's d10 damage has a higher chance to 'slay a man'. A dagger has 25% chance to 'slay a man' etc.

Health, thus is measured in 'men', or the amount of survivability compared to a rank and file solider. A level 3 character who is a cleric for example, has 3d8 hit points, thus can survive dangers up to that which would kill 3 lesser men (not necessarily damage, as weather you getting 'hit' actually translates to real damage is debatable).

Trying to put AHQ in the same conceptional space. It seems a single solider would translate to '2 wounds'. Double of warhammer units, which tend to be measured in '1pip = 1man'. So, 2 wounds per man. It's not exact, but it's close.

Looking at it like that. Orcs and goblins are as easy to slay as a man.
Skaven, zombies and skeletons about a man and a half. (I was under the impression Skaven were weak.. but under this they are almost like gnolls which had 2hd, ie 2 men)
Champions tend to be about 2 men.
Ogres about 4 and a half men (4hd in dnd)

And players to start have between a man (2 wounds) and 2 and a half men (5 wounds) worth of 'health'. Which again, is more the ability to fend of a death blow.

Unless I’m missing something, it seems to me that the core of the issue is the way in-combat healing works in AHQ considering the scarce number of wounds allocated to the adventurers. I see that only spells and healing potions may be used to heal in combat according to the rules, but potions produce their effects at the beginning of the next turn in which they're taken. The rules don’t specify if adventurers in an enemy death zone may take healing potions, though, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Healing spells, on the other hand, are allowed only if no other figure is in the healer's death zone.

I know it was hard to heal in combat with clerics in older d&d, but I don't believe it was the same with potions.

Again, not sure if any of this stuff is interesting/ helpful.

[Evil Frog Wizard]

Also, It's late and I have work tomorrow. So, I need to hit the hay. Happy crawling.

Good night. Are you in Australia?

No, I work nights.