Heroquest remake by Hasbro - The BIG discussion thread

[arntisdale]

I'm curious if the new rules will flesh out the line-of-sight rules. The only line-of-sight rules I ever came across in the original HeroQuest were not very specific. It almost came down to a 'well, whadda you think?' to decide if something/someone can be 'seen'

[lestodante]

Has anyone made a homebrew ruleset yet where the 4 hero's are minions of Zargon and Zargon sends them on a quest and the GM would be Mentor? Just asking because I think it would be interesting and now it seems the lines are being blurred between what's good and what's evil

Yes, I had in mind (but never realized) to do something with the 4 Wizards of Morcar so the player can have fun using their spells. A small quest where every player can use one of the evil wizards and have to face man-at-arms along the dungeon until they reach the Heroes as final bosses or just the Wizard Hero.
Each evil wizard will start from a different point of the board.
Also another idea was to plan some sort of competition beetween the 4 wizards where they are running to reach a common goal and the first one to reach it win the game. So at the end they have to fight each others.

[Kurgan]

I'm curious if the new rules will flesh out the line-of-sight rules. The only line-of-sight rules I ever came across in the original HeroQuest were not very specific. It almost came down to a 'well, whadda you think?' to decide if something/someone can be 'seen'

Not to revive that whole debate, but in the NA version it seemed pretty clear what "see" means. You trace a line from the character to the target, and if an object breaks that path (another figure, furniture, wall, block tile or a closed door), then you can't "see" it.

The only exceptions people really discussed where whether a "low table" (or a short Dwarf) "really" broke line of sight or not. I've played with people who insist that a Hero with a crossbow can harmlessly shoot through other Heroes to hit a monster on the other side and vice versa, but I think that's clearly breaking the intention of the rule (but makes sense in video games that have a "friendly fire off" option). Well and I guess there is the discussion about what Heroes inside pits can do, but it seems that the rules again were pretty clear, you could still do a lot of things, just at reduced capacity. The searching for secret doors inside a Pit thing seemed goofy (you will never find one, and any intentionally placed one there means it may never be found if the trap was disarmed). If you searched for Treasure, the Wandering Monster wasn't down in the pit with you, since they can't occupy the same square [Edit: I'm wrong, the NA Rules say this IS possible in a Pit], but was attacking from the surface with the modification because of your location, and a hazard pit would be a pit-within-a-pit!). Can you search for treasure in a corridor if an open pit breaks up your line of sight? (Answer: this won't come up because you could only search corridors for Treasure in the Premiere Edition, and the video game, though the video games had some wild exceptions to the standard rules). But I digress...

The Premiere and EU version talked about "visible" which could have been taken literally as "object is on the board" even if nobody is line of sight with it. So that version was more ambiguous. The intention of the NA rules were clarified to say that Spells (that aren't being used on the castor) can only be used Line of Sight, unless the card says otherwise. To me the debates seemed more around "what is the most fun/seems the most fair or realistic" as opposed to "what was the most probable intention of the game designers."

If all of a sudden they allowed us to cast, say, Ball of Flame on a monster that is on the complete other side of the board inside a different room behind a closed door, that would indeed be a radical change, and not one I'd be in favor of, as it would greatly overpower the Heroes (and some of the Monsters too). If they did that, I'd just ignore it and play the way it was in the Classic NA rules.

I know players can debate endlessly over such things, but if you read through the NA manual, cards (including Hero cards), etc. it seems that's the most logical interpretation. If you chose to play another way, that's cool, I don't object, but just admit you're using a house rule. You do what you want when it is your game session! I have at times played the part of a rules lawyer, but my general instinct is to just play the game as written, but I, like many others have introduced my own house rules. I won't refuse to play the game if another "Zargon" doesn't adopt my rules, however, and I'm not going to pout about it in-game either!

I suppose an "official pronouncement" clarification would be cool moving forward, but like many other questions over the years ("can we pass an object from one hero to another during a quest"? "do we only get to sell gear back to the Armory at half price?" "is Borin's Armor really just plate mail without a movement penalty?") even if we get an official answer, some people will still insist that it's not clear enough and that their personal interpretation is better and that's how they will play, regardless. I'm sure that would be the case even if Stephen Baker was the one saying it.

They said only minor revisions to quests and rules, I'm curious what those will be as well, in any case. Also curious about whether they will colorized the miniatures!

[Kurgan]

Has anyone made a homebrew ruleset yet where the 4 hero's are minions of Zargon and Zargon sends them on a quest and the GM would be Mentor? Just asking because I think it would be interesting and now it seems the lines are being blurred between what's good and what's evil

Yes, I had in mind (but never realized) to do something with the 4 Wizards of Morcar so the player can have fun using their spells. A small quest where every player can use one of the evil wizards and have to face man-at-arms along the dungeon until they reach the Heroes as final bosses or just the Wizard Hero.
Each evil wizard will start from a different point of the board.
Also another idea was to plan some sort of competition beetween the 4 wizards where they are running to reach a common goal and the first one to reach it win the game. So at the end they have to fight each others.

I was just thinking about how to creatively do "play as the bad guys" campaigns. You might even have two teams, the Heroes vs the Anti-Heroes (with Zargon taking a much more passive role as banker/board sweeper). I like your ideas, you two should start a thread on it!

[elvyler]

Has anyone made a homebrew ruleset yet where the 4 hero's are minions of Zargon and Zargon sends them on a quest and the GM would be Mentor? Just asking because I think it would be interesting and now it seems the lines are being blurred between what's good and what's evil

Yes, I had in mind (but never realized) to do something with the 4 Wizards of Morcar so the player can have fun using their spells. A small quest where every player can use one of the evil wizards and have to face man-at-arms along the dungeon until they reach the Heroes as final bosses or just the Wizard Hero.
Each evil wizard will start from a different point of the board.
Also another idea was to plan some sort of competition beetween the 4 wizards where they are running to reach a common goal and the first one to reach it win the game. So at the end they have to fight each others.

I was just thinking about how to creatively do "play as the bad guys" campaigns. You might even have two teams, the Heroes vs the Anti-Heroes (with Zargon taking a much more passive role as banker/board sweeper). I like your ideas, you two should start a thread on it!

Good idea! I don't want to be responsible for derailing this thread! Here's the new one if anyone is interested: http://forum.yeoldeinn.com/viewtopic.php?f=143&t=5450.

[lestodante]

I'm curious if the new rules will flesh out the line-of-sight rules. The only line-of-sight rules I ever came across in the original HeroQuest were not very specific. It almost came down to a 'well, whadda you think?' to decide if something/someone can be 'seen'

The original UK version clarify this very well. The US version changed something instead. I guess they will follow the US rules but I find the UK rule better.
In the UK (or European) version a miniature in the same room is ALWAYS visible.
In the US version they only specify that you have to follow the rule of tracing the line and miniatures can interrupt the line of sight for casting spells too.

[Cael Darkhollow]

That’s entirely a fair assessment. It’s going to be interesting to see where Hasbro/MB takes the lore. I’m personally not sold on the new models for either the warlock (her arms look like thin sticks and the face is oddly proportioned [edit: though that might have just been the initial render on the site]) and the Druid model looks out of place, I’d have expected something more “wood elf” or human ‘tribal shaman’ look.
The bard is definitely not as much swords and sorcery and Warlocks tended towards “evil”. It’s a solid shift towards a high-fantasy and away from the ‘grim darkness’ of the prior setting.

THIS.

And I spoke too soon again... an "updated" Druid was just posted (Mizebo beat me! ). Much more 60's than 90's, somewhat of an improvement I agree, but I'm still not sure if I want it...

I guess since these are fully digital and the production wouldn't start before next month anyway (when the fundraiser ends), they have time to update everything. Looks like they just added a few layers/textures in this case. Almost looks like something you'd create on HeroForge (and that's not a knock against them).

I see also the new card behind the figure clearly says "Druid Spells" so that means she'll have at least 2 (wonder how many) cards unique to that class. That means play-testing, hopefully...

See, for me I get distracted by the main kickstarter page that has been the only one updated for a long time, and I forget to check the main page or the blog thingy. Thanks for the alert!!

And the Druid stuff... figure updated, but card image still reflects the old sculpt.

Funds-wise, it's another $340K away from this Druid character. Maybe she'll play better than she looks? Time will tell...

THIS.

At 4 million they should add gender swaps for the 'new' Heroes too... But then again do we want a male druid in skinny jeans?

[Ok, I'm going to stop complaining that I don't like how the druid looks. Just had to get 1 more jab in.]

HAHA THIS.

I wasn't a particularly big fan of the Warlock sculpt. A little too weird with the crystal parts, but sure...
I actively dislike the druid. Just a straight up boring and stupid design. Those yoga pants... It really takes some talent to make a miniature this lame.
But I freakin' hate the orc bard...
Just why? Why why why?
Bard is already the most ridiculous class in RPGs, and to add insult to injury they are making it an orc.
We are in a dungeon slaughtering orcs, and now they expect me to want an orc in the party. Get real.
What a joke; but not a very good one. This is the kind of hero you make when you start to run out of ideas.
We aren't exactly drowning in new stuff, and this is what we got over the cleric or ranger from Sorasil...
...
Credit where credit is due though... I really like all the alternative monsters. They look great and add some variety to the dungeon.

THIS.

I sincerely hope that Hasbro is actively listening both here and on social media, the majority of fans don't care for the new sculpts based on the feedback. They all seem incongruous with the original HeroQuest to say the least. Needs to be changed ASAP

As far as my own opinion goes, halflings are fine but to me the term "Warlock" is a male witch, this demon possessed concept seems very out of line for HeroQuest especially since the original wizard player character is far less powerful offensively and required strategy to survive or at least timid caution on all combat. I would have preferred a thief class (unlock doors and chests, disarm traps, locate secret doors, climbing?) that would make more sense in HeroQuest board game play. There is little here to differentiate this warlock class from the wizard anyway, why not just make a witch or sorceress or female wizard character instead? This figure sculpt and character have design problems and game mechanics balance problems.

The bard Orc is just terrible. Not only do HeroQuest orcs not possess the kind of intelligence necessary to sing complex melodies, recite poetry, or remember folklore (You know, a bard) but the costume is a little too modern and anachronistic to mesh well with any other fantasy orcs; it looks 1800's period Caribbean pirate.
A good orc song would be about chewing something (cooked or uncooked) or hitting it really hard with a club, or poking repeatedly with something sharp, not regaling a tavern with tales of long ago and multi-part dramatic ballads conjuring complex spell casting. Having good aligned "evil" races might be ok as a rare difficult challenge to roleplay effectively in D&D or similar roleplaying games but in a board game it is ridiculous to expect a dungeoneering party to head on down to kill a lot of orcs while having their best orc buddy with them. Orcs need to stay evil and of low to middling intelligence to fit the fantasy world of HeroQuest. Orcs are a stock monster in HQ not a playable race. Huge probably insurmountable design problems. Even if somehow Mentor could be convinced of this fellows good intentions the Barbarian or Dwarf would split it's skull on sight.

The worst of the bunch is the Druid figure. While the concept of a druid fits well in this world (a nature class of spellcaster, heck the original spell cards are Classic Element themed), the painting on the cards and the figure based on it look like they are wearing Spanx gym spandex shorts and a sports bra. Totally unacceptable for a fantasy setting to have modern style clothing. This needs to be completely redesigned with practical clothing and gear to go into a dungeon to explore and fight, not lay out the yoga mat and do downward duck poses. Having female figures is fine. I would hope they add male druids too, we have each gender for elves, barbarians, etc. in the original game, and a gender choice of characters makes playing more accessible to families. Having a full figure not necessarily a "superhero" physique is fine too, just put some believable clothing on them to go adventuring in. A complete redesign is necessary.

I am in at Mythic tier and am very happy to get the reissued game, the redone expansion packs, the new questbook by Baker, and more monster figures but I could care less about these three figures and the character classes need serious redesign and playtesting.

I think that someone else has it right, to paraphrase: these figure designers have not actually played HeroQuest and have no feel for the world they are designing for.

Pastiche work is fine, someone else can design models or write like the original HeroQuest boardgame style but to introduce completely new directions that don't mesh well with the original HeroQuest they are trying to pay homage to are unwelcome.

Why in the world haven't we seen a genie figure? Elemental spell figures (earth, air, fire, water golems)? I have been using an ARCO Dragons N' Monsters toy genie that looks spot on for the figure on the Air Spell card art in my HeroQuest play for two decades now, that figure sculpt fits better with the HeroQuest game than any of these.

[arntisdale]

I'm curious if the new rules will flesh out the line-of-sight rules. The only line-of-sight rules I ever came across in the original HeroQuest were not very specific. It almost came down to a 'well, whadda you think?' to decide if something/someone can be 'seen'

The original UK version clarify this very well. The US version changed something instead. I guess they will follow the US rules but I find the UK rule better.
In the UK (or European) version a miniature in the same room is ALWAYS visible.
In the US version they only specify that you have to follow the rule of tracing the line and miniatures can interrupt the line of sight for casting spells too.

Okay, I never looked through the UK rules, as I started with the US version and just stuck with it.
I think the main thing that threw me off was that one graphic that showed the corner of a wall blocking LOS, but one LOS went right through the corner of a space with the wizard, but LOS wasn't blocked. This was the only thing I went off of, and it wasn't very clear to me. Following the rules that a figure blocks LOS, I would call that LOS as 'can't see it', but the rulebook said otherwise.

I don't mean to derail things too much, but I'm hoping Hasbro makes LOS rules perfectly clear in their re-release.

[Darkfox190]

As far as my own opinion goes, halflings are fine but to me the term "Warlock" is a male witch

Personally, I think in a setting with a male villain called the "Witch Lord", that the gender distinction argument for Warlock being a male witch loses all of it's ground. While in the real world those terms are gendered, in the HeroQuest world they don't seem to be, and that's fine. Many of the new customers finding HeroQuest are going to be familiar with D&D these days as well, where Warlock just means "Person that gets their magic from a powerful magical entity", and the term won't be out of place being used that way here for them.

Just my

[elvyler]

As far as my own opinion goes, halflings are fine but to me the term "Warlock" is a male witch

Personally, I think in a setting with a male villain called the "Witch Lord", that the gender distinction argument for Warlock being a male witch loses all of it's ground. While in the real world those terms are gendered, in the HeroQuest world they don't seem to be, and that's fine. Many of the new customers finding HeroQuest are going to be familiar with D&D these days as well, where Warlock just means "Person that gets their magic from a powerful magical entity", and the term won't be out of place being used that way here for them.

Just my

Witch Lord doesn't necessarily have to mean that he's a Witch. It could mean that he's the Lord of the Witches.