Ye Olde Inn

whitebeard wrote:Not a fan of importing a D&D constructs terminology and all. Like I'm supposed to know what a "Warlock" is and be excited about it...

Nowhere else does "Warlock" explicitly mean I bargained my soul to demons or whatever.

This character seems VERY specific where every other hero is a blank slate archetype from more classic literature. Barabarian, Dwarf, Elf, and Wizard are effectively Conan + LOTR. We are getting a Druid, good. Where is the Rouge/Assassin, Halfling Thief, Knight/Paladin, Ranger/Archer/Woodsman... We really should have these first.

It would seem that once your female halfling warlock dies, you shoudl not be able to play them again. I mean is there a school that pumps these things out? We just go to the next town and find another one? Barbarian warrior tribes, Dwarven cities, Elf realms, Wizard schools, and Druid Orders all seem "common" enough in a fantasy world.

Also not a fan of putting the character art on the back of the spell cards. The spell cards should represent another school of magic.

For me this character is really just a cool new spell school for the Elf or wizard plus a cool wand item only a wizard can use. And you don't find any of it until an expansion pack.

Perfect. Couldn't have said it better. Needs generic class art not specific character art on the bard, warlock, and druid cards. Warlock is not a classic fantasy archetype and the term is most strongly associated with male witches in other media. The warlock concept could be redesigned as a shapeshifter with the same abilities, otherwise why not make a witch class with differing spells? What fantasy race is this warlock supposed to be? Human, Elf, halfling?
I don't like any of the new three player types or their designs but this one is the most passable i suppose. I really do not like the druid sculpt or the orc bard.

whitebeard wrote:Also not a fan of putting the character art on the back of the spell cards. The spell cards should represent another school of magic.

In Wizards of Morcar they also did. But yes, in his way you can't assign the cards to other heroes without something looking weird.

Cael Darkhollow wrote:I don't like any of the new three player types or their designs but this one is the most passable i suppose. I really do not like the druid sculpt or the orc bard.

I think this is passable because we've read its skills already. I was very disappointed before reading the topic about it. Now a little less.
I want to see the other new heroes stuff to realize what they are going to do with them.
I can make my own cards and use the following figures to represent the male Druid and the Warlock (here in both human and demon form)

lestodante wrote:

Oftkilted wrote:The wand gives 2 combat dice (melee and ranged), and demon form gives an additional combat die. So attacking with a wand in demon form is 3 Combat dice?

I had the same doubt. But I guess you CAN'T use the wand as a demon but only in Warlock form.
Also... can I cast a spell when in Demonform? For example I could use Demon Wings to avoid to transform back to my original form when wounded.

What makes you doubt whether you can use the wand/spells in Demon Form?
RAW you definitely can use the wand AND get +1 . It's no different than Stone Skin.
And yes, I'd say you could use Demon Wings to avoid transforming back. You can only do this once though, as you can only regain the Demon Form spell.

Actually I would have liked these spells to be a little less powerful, but for the warlock to be able to regain all of them by reducing monsters to zero BP.

whitebeard wrote:Not a fan of importing a D&D constructs terminology and all. Like I'm supposed to know what a "Warlock" is and be excited about it...
Nowhere else does "Warlock" explicitly mean I bargained my soul to demons or whatever.

The card literally explains you have bonded with a sinister creature. So in HQ that's what being a warlock means

whitebeard wrote:Also not a fan of putting the character art on the back of the spell cards. The spell cards should represent another school of magic.
For me this character is really just a cool new spell school for the Elf or wizard plus a cool wand item only a wizard can use. And you don't find any of it until an expansion pack.

Absolutely agree about not putting characters on the card backs. Especially when it's baked into this new version that heroes have alternative sculpts.

Goblin-King wrote:What makes you doubt whether you can use the wand/spells in Demon Form?
RAW you definitely can use the wand AND get +1 . It's no different than Stone Skin.
And yes, I'd say you could use Demon Wings to avoid transforming back. You can only do this once though, as you can only regain the Demon Form spell.
Actually I would have liked these spells to be a little less powerful, but for the warlock to be able to regain all of them by reducing monsters to zero BP.

t is supposed in Demon Form I change my shape or in some way I become some kind of monster, or the monster I have inside comes outside. It is like Dr. Banner typing on a smartphone while in Hulk form.
This is why I have doubt about using artifacts, items, performing searches or casting spells (Demon wings) while in Demon form.

Okay, I can follow the logic, but mechanically it's just a simple buff.

And I could be wrong here, but I don't think she literally turns into a full fledged demon.
I think her artwork represents her Demon Form, with her hand and face turned to crystal.
That would certainly still allow her to cast spells and use equipment.

whitebeard wrote:Not a fan of importing a D&D constructs terminology and all. Like I'm supposed to know what a "Warlock" is and be excited about it...
Nowhere else does "Warlock" explicitly mean I bargained my soul to demons or whatever.

The card literally explains you have bonded with a sinister creature. So in HQ that's what being a warlock means

Yes. And it is 100% elusively from the D&D rulebook. Barbarian, Dwarf, Elf, Wizard, Druid, Bard, Knight, Thief, Monster Hunter, these things all refer to the same fundamental thing everywhere. Merlin is a Warlock. Harry Potter is a Warlock. Are these sources now jarringly wrong? Why not apply some creativity and give this very narrow idea called a warlock a new name for HQ?

In my head all fantasy games roughly belong in the same world so I would like things to be generally consistent. For example with dwarf or elf races you know exactly what your are going to get built upon established fantasy lore, a dragon is a dragon and a skeleton is a skeleton; generally consistent regardless if you are playing D&D, Gauntlet, Warhammer, HeroQuest, Zelda, Dragon Warrior or whatever. These recognizable tropes are important for game world immersion.

"Warlock" in general is taken to mean a male witch or spellcaster, usually of evil intent, so for them to reinvent the term for this new character class seems stupid. (I have not played 5th edition D&D, perhaps the "new" warlock definition stems from there?) Suddenly we aren't really consistent with the established fantasy folklore.
Reaper can sell miniatures for nearly any fantasy game because they understand this principle fantasy gamers want a generic consistent fantasy world as a basis. New stuff can be introduced as long as it doesn't trample established lore. If someone starts calling their new 8 armed bat winged snake headed monstrosities "dyrads" or "Goblins" in a new game, they will immediately raise eyebrows, scoffs, ire and derisive comments from veteran fantasy gamers, "that isn't a dyrad you fool." They should have just come up with a new name.


To me a demon possessed character wouldn't be a welcome addition to the adventuring party, rather they would be tied up waiting for the arrival of the priest or attacked outright if the host could not be saved. Villagers would be tying them to the stake, not having a pint with them at the tavern.

Having a warlock in the party isn’t that far off from having a necromancer in the party. And I’ve seen a number of implementations of bringing a necromancer into the game. The concept of a magic user having a pact with an “otherworldly creature” is in alignment with magic users in classic sword and sorcery.

If we look at classic Conan the Barbarian and magic users, it’s very much a pact with beings to gain power. Should they be trusted. Probably not, there’s a fine line between good and evil in Sword and Sorcery... and lots of grey in between.

HQ (for the most part) doesn’t bring town/city interactions into the game. It’s purely a dungeon delve (or adventure).

If the modeling was closer to the old GW Mandrake models it would more closely align with a pact based power, perhaps. But using that power in town? Not a chance that would go well, for the most part.

So ran the trial with Warlock subbing in for the wizard and here are my thoughts.
- Range attack is good.
- Demonform does feelt like a way to draw aggro. The second it gets cast all enemies focus on the Warlock. (Stone skin from the Elf helped ALOT)
- Constant 3 dice range attack for smart players is really strong in the trial. It made the 2 chaos warrior room much less deadly.
- overall the Warlock seems a little strong but has zero advancement potential...

Orc26 wrote:- overall the Warlock seems a little strong but has zero advancement potential...

This aligns pretty well, with my theory crafting.
This is exactly why I'd prefer if she didn't start with the wand, but had to buy it once she could afford it.

But who knows what kind of new equipment and artifacts will be available in this version?