Chaos Dwarfs in AHQ

[Neuralstasis]

I have made a pre-release version of my Chaos Dwarfs for AHQ supplement. It’s been created so players can use Chaos Dwarfs and their Hobgoblin slaves as monsters in original AHQ and Enhanced AHQ 2nd Ed. It contains background, monster cards, special rules and Chaos Dwarf spells. Primarily based off the Warhammer Chaos Dwarfs army book released in 1994, it’s the “Big Hats” era all the way.

I would love any feedback that anyone wants to give. Specifically, I would like feedback on:

- The rules. Do they make sense? Are they too simple or complex? Do they seem fair?
- The monster cards. Are their characteristics fair? Do their Points Values seem about right?
- The Magic Spells. Are they too powerful or too weak? Do the rules make sense?
- Overall flavour and feel. Does it match the AHQ style and setting?
- Any typos or mistakes.
- Anything else you would like to see in a monsters supplement?

What I don’t really want feedback on, as they are not yet complete:

- The graphics and images.
- The document layout.

You can get the PDF from my website at:
https://www.stephenmonteith.com/advance ... fs-in-ahq/

***************Update******************
New version released!!
Chaos Dwarfs Monster Book v0.4
https://forum.yeoldeinn.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=7102&start=20#p137660

Edited to add new release info

[Thanquol]

Chaos Dwarf Supplement – Rule Feedback and Suggestions

Neuralstasis, I've been digging through your Chaos Chaos Dwarfs in Advanced Heroquest PDF and wanted to share a few thoughts. Overall, it's a solid piece of work – great flavour, strong structure, and some clever mechanics. I've jotted down a few suggestions below, mostly for clarity and flow. Hope they're helpful.

Backstab suggestions

This one's got great potential, but I think the logic could be tightened a bit. Rather than boosting the attacker's Weapon Skill, it might make more sense to penalise the defender – after all, they're being stabbed in the back, not out-skilled.

Backstab Some creatures – particularly sneaky or vicious ones like Hobgoblins – have learned to strike when their enemies are most vulnerable.

A model with Backstab gains +1 Damage Dice, and the target suffers −1 Weapon Skill penalty when attacked in hand-to-hand combat from directly behind. This applies only if the target's death zone is focused on the square opposite the attacker.

This bonus does not apply when using Two-handed weapons, which are too unwieldy for precise strikes.

Mechanically, it's a more consistent outcome – especially for Strength 4+ monsters wielding standard weapons like swords or axes. The +1 Damage Dice avoids edge-case inconsistencies (e.g. plain daggers, which don't scale with Strength until 6) and better reflects the intent of a precise, opportunistic strike. It also ensures that Backstab remains effective across typical melee profiles, without relying on weapon-specific quirks.

Example: If Sven the Hero is focused on Hobgoblin C, then Hobgoblin A – directly behind him – would gain the Backstab bonus. Hobgoblins B and C would not.

Spray – Suggested Clarification

Some weapons, spells, or abilities unleash a broad blast that spreads outward from a single point – like a blunderbuss's shrapnel or a dragon's breath.

Spray effects are mostly clear, but a quick note on directionality might help:

Spray effects target 11 squares in a fixed pattern extending orthogonally (up, down, left, or right) from the caster. Diagonal spray is not permitted. The narrow end of the pattern must be adjacent to the model using the effect.

Quickfire Rule Suggestions

Just a few small tweaks for clarity and flow:

• Move & Fire: Works well. Could benefit from a brief example, e.g. A model with a pistol may move and shoot in the same turn.
• Reload: Slightly wordy. Suggestion: "Reloading takes a full turn, during which no other actions may be taken. Reloading may be delayed until later."
• Spellcaster: "Lose the required spell component" could be rephrased to "expend" or "consume" for smoother tone. For example: "Each time a spell is cast, the caster must expend the corresponding component."
• Two-handed: Is clear. However, it might be worth noting that shields can't be wielded whilst attacking with a Two-handed weapon.
• Unreliable: Nicely chaotic. Could be formatted with bullet points for readability:
  • On a Fumble, the wielder suffers 1 Damage Dice.
  • If the weapon also has Reload, it must still be reloaded after a fumble.

Let me know if you'd like help refining any of these further. I'll be tackling the spell section separately, as there's a bit more nuance there.

Sarcasm: Chaos Dwarf-things? Pah! Stunties-of-metal, slave-lords-of-ash, rock-brains, furless-beard-bound brutes with delusions of grandeur! Their magic is all fire and stone and shouting at rocks – primitive, yes-yes! No elegance, no subtlety, no warpstone! And don't get me started on their "petrification curse" – they turn to stone just for casting a few spells? Amateur hour! Yes. Yes!

Meanwhile, I – Grey Seer Thanquol, chosen of the Horned Rat – wield powers that melt minds, bend reality, and summon verminous legions with a twitch of my glorious whiskers. But do I turn to stone? No-no! I glow with divine brilliance!

Let the Chaos Dwarf-things have their obsidian towers and brass-toy-relics. I'll be busy conquering the surface world. Again. /Sarcasm

[Neuralstasis]

Thanks for that. Lots of great feedback there.

I'll definitely change Backstab to +1 damage dice, I can see what you mean with low damage weapons and low strength. But I think I'll keep it at +1 WS bonus to the attacker rather than penalising the target. It's the same effect in the end, "+1 to hit", and I feel like a bonus to hit is easier to calculate than a penalty.

Spray - Yep, I'll note in there about no diagonals. Do you think the word "orthogonal" is too... wordy? I used it in my rule, but I don't really like it.

Reload - I'll try and reword for simplicity.

Spellcaster - Yes, I like that idea. "Consume" is good.

Two-handed - My rule says "A model with two hands may not use a shield or wield any other weapon" That should cover shield use?

Unreliable - Probably not enough separate point for bullets. But it could cut down the length. Once I format it into 2 columns like the original rule book, then bullets could work better.

Cheers.

[b_0]

Two-handed - My rule says "A model with two hands may not use a shield or wield any other weapon" That should cover shield use?

So it can use a shield if it has only one hand, or no hands. Got it.

[Neuralstasis]

So it can use a shield if it has only one hand, or no hands. Got it.

Hmmm you are right actually! I didn't specifically say that you need two hands to use a two-handed weapon!

Flagged it for a re-write, Thanks b_0.

[Thanquol]

Thanks for the reply, Neuralstasis, I'm glad the feedback was useful.

Just a few quick clarifications and thoughts:

Backstab: I see you've thinking of going with +1 WS to the attacker, which does result in the same mechanical outcome (+1 to hit), but just to clarify – I wasn't suggesting a global WS penalty to the target. It would only apply when attacked by a model using Backstab, simulating a moment of vulnerability.

NB: "If a model uses Backstab against a target, that target defends as if their WS is 1 point lower – but only for that attack." It's a subtle flavour difference, leaning more into the idea of the target being exposed rather than the attacker being enhanced.

Just to expand slightly: This keeps the Hero's WS static (e.g. WS 8), but the attacker consults the Hit Roll table as if the target were WS 7 – making it easier to land a hit without altering the attacker's stat block. It's cleaner for AHQ's lookup system and avoids confusion with other attackers. Other monster attackers wouldn't benefit.

I get why you went with +1 WS to the attacker – it's mechanically equivalent – but it's slightly clunkier in practice, especially with static Monster tables.

• Spray: "Orthogonal" is technically correct, but probably a bit too formal for AHQ. "Straight lines" or "non-diagonal" could be clearer and more in keeping with the tone of the rulebook.
• Two-handed: Your rule mostly covers it, though maybe a slight tweak for clarity: "A model must have two free hands to wield a two-handed weapon. While doing so, it may not wield a shield or carry another weapon. If one or both hands are injured, the weapon cannot be used."

I looking forward to seeing how the final version shapes up.

Sarcasm: Ah yes, the Skaven assassin – master of subtlety, silence, and slipping through cracks in the narrative. He doesn't need rules. He needs a dark corner, a glinting blade, and a target who's just a little too confident. Backstab? No, no – this is strategic repositioning with extreme prejudice. /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

Nice work! You seem to be adopting more ideas from Slev's approach.

I'll definitely change Backstab to +1 damage dice, I can see what you mean with low damage weapons and low strength. But I think I'll keep it at +1 WS bonus to the attacker rather than penalising the target. It's the same effect in the end, "+1 to hit", and I feel like a bonus to hit is easier to calculate than a penalty.

I've been using these flanking rules for years with very good results; they compensate for high WS scores in the game while making encounters more interesting in general. As posted there, I believe WS is the only stat that should be affected: The attacker is not supposed to get stronger or more skilled when flanking, only the target's ability to fend off attacks is compromised. Besides, flanking rules don't make much sense with the original monster-placing rules in room encounters, by the way. Are you tweaking those too?

On the other hand, I don't see how a penalty of -1 WS could be more difficult to calculate than a bonus of +1 WS. Aren't we supposed to preserve "thematic consistency"?

[Neuralstasis]

I've been using these flanking rules for years with very good results; they compensate for high WS scores in the game while making encounters more interesting in general. As posted there, I believe WS is the only stat that should be affected: The attacker is not supposed to get stronger or more skilled when flanking, only the target's ability to fend off attacks is compromised.

Couple of reason for my rules.
It's not specifically "flanking", that can be added separately for all combatants and would be compatible, if you want to use it.
It's more about the monster's knowledge and skill at sticking people in the back when they aren’t looking. A bonus WS because they know to dart in when their target is most distracted by another enemy and bonus Damage Dice because they know the vulnerable spots (kidneys, back of the skull, weak point in the armour etc...) that are exposed from the rear.

Yes you could argue about +1 ws or -1 ws, but, I'm going to stick with a bonus, it makes basically no difference. I would have preferred a +1 "to hit" but that opens up a bunch of problems with crits and fumbles. Stay away!

[RECIVS]

bonus Damage Dice because they know the vulnerable spots (kidneys, back of the skull, weak point in the armour etc...) that are exposed from the rear.

Vulnerable spots? What are your tweaks to critical hits for, then?

I would have preferred a +1 "to hit" but that opens up a bunch of problems with crits and fumbles.

Examples?

[Thanquol]

Neuralstasis, I just wanted to say I've enjoyed seeing this develop. The flavour and structure are coming together nicely. Looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, all is going according to my glorious grand scheme-plan. The Chaos Dwarfs, with their towering hats of power (clearly compensating for something, yes-yes), have finally received the attention they deserve. Any flaws in their lore-texts or spell-words are not mistakes, no-no, but cunning traps laid by lesser minds to test my brilliance. I alone see the truth-truth. The Hobgoblins obey. The hats grow taller. The forum trembles. Praise me, fear me, quote me. /Sarcasm