Polar Warbear double attack

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Yes Markus, whilst we are phrasing our interpretation of that rule differently I think that the end result is the same in both our systems, and prevents yet another area where Zargon has to rule on the fly and then remember how they ruled last time to try and keep it a consistent experience

There is also a desire by many players to have a single unified ruleset that applies to all HeroQuest campaigns, when in reality these were written at different times and with different rules in mind, so if we are going by "designer intention" that would vary by the pack being played.

I am one of those players who is trying to work towards a single unified ruleset, but it isn't because I am a consistency junkie (or at least not just that), for me it depends on your perspective. If you see HeroQuest primarily as a board game with official expansions that you play through in sequence then the rules being different across the expansions, whilst inconsistent and introducing a little extra complication, isn't unmanageable. If however like me you see the strength of HeroQuest (one of them anyway) is that it is a Game System and much of the fun and long term replayability comes from making your own Quests (and sharing them here at the Inn of course) and using the official ones as examples, then a consistent unified ruleset becomes far more important, having designed a quest against a particular ruleset, you then have to consider, play test and add a volume of disclaimers and explanatory notes against all the possible variations and interpretations that are out there, to ensure that it works as you intended (or just take the risk that someone might pick up and run with your Quest as written but have a negative experience due to rule variations with a set of players that understandable won't want to replay it, which isn't great either!)

[Kurgan]

It really hit me when I realized that in the EU when Wizards of Morcar and Against the Ogre Horde were released, they were explicitly tied together... one takes place before the other (ATOH then WOM) and yet neither one forces you to use the rules of the 1st or 2nd edition of the EU (original) HeroQuest. For all they knew people were using the 1st edition rules, rather than 2nd (which can make a big difference in some areas!).

Yes, there's a desire by many to have those unified rules, and the remake crew have their work cut out for them with that. Ultimately though the Zargon players will still have to make some decisions. Will you use the double attack rules retroactively in the game system when the heroes use double attacks vs. monsters? Will you retroactively apply the "shock" rules to both Kellar's Keep and Return of the Witch Lord (both of which use different rules for zero mind point heroes)? Yes, Phoenix tried to smooth over some of those differences, just as BastianBux did (when he released his attempt to convert the Japanese game system to NA rules), and yes Sjeng (and probably others) have released attempts to convert the NA exclusive chaos spells, artifacts and monsters to a more "EU friendly" format on the Ye Olde Inn main pages, but still, it's not everything all the time. Zargon will still need to do some work. So I get that, I get the desire to do that research and plan ahead so you're not scrambling to remember or whatever. I have no problem applying a new set of rules for a new pack since I'm playing them sequentially (not necessarily in "canonical order" of packs though as twitter zargon/avalon hill has been saying lately). But when I was jumping back with SirDeath & Co. to play some of the original GS quests, I wasn't applying Frozen Horror rules there (if they had come up).

But I understand in latter packs they have you using assets from earlier packs as well, and we were talking in Discord about when we finally get to the EQP will we keep the BQP treasure cards in the deck still? Etc. (I think we will, just for the sake of variety even though the Potions of Warmth are less useful out of the cold themed quests).

The Companion App is able to keep things compartmentalized like this, though because a lot of it relies on the honor system, there may be some wiggle room even there for the Zargon who prefers a different ruleset.

I think it's just common courtesy when you release your own original quest to the public, you put a note somewhere indicating what ruleset you intended it for (and whether you need any assets from other expansions to make it work properly) then people know what they're getting into (hope I remembered to do that with my Dwarf solo trilogy!). If people want to try adapting it, they will... in fact that's usually how it goes with homebrew stuff anyway. Everybody uses a slight remix of someone else's... but yeah if that person's mod breaks your mod, that's not the fault of the original author.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I've replied to this topic already on the "sister" topic Defending against the Orc's Bane
so I won't repeat the whole response here, just recycle the relevant bits.

Firstly this is listed as a "rule clarification" which I find a little odd for several reasons

1) There are many, many, many places in the HQ rules where clarification is needed, how to defend isn't one of them, the existing rules are perfectly clearly and I don't think even in the extensive coverage across this forum, that anyone had any serious issues around how to defend until this rule clarification was published

2) The "rule clarification" itself isn't clear, do you defend against the first attack, the second attack, do you get to choose, what happens if you choose to defend against the second attack and that is directed elsewhere, are you supposed to "carry over" excess shields from the first attack to the second?

So as a rule clarification is definitely gets a 10 from me!

3) It never felt like a "rule clarification" to me, not only because the existing rules were already clear, and the "clarification" itself wasn't clear but also because it always felt much more like a special exception relating to the Polar Warbear specifically (and as has been mentioned above, to avoid the tactic of using lesser allies as cannon fodder, although that screening tactic is perfectly valid across the rest of the quest packs to date)

It certainly fails spectacularly as a rule clarification but how does it fare if we assume that it isn't what it says on the tin but is actually intended as a special exception specific to the Warbear.

When we played frozen Horror we Houseruled that the PWB could either make one 8 dice attack or two 4 dice attacks on separate targets.

That has exactly the same effect, but neatly avoids any unintended consequences involved in retrospectively applying a rule change, where one is isn't needed.

My advice, treat this as a special rule for the PWB, if no PWBs are involved then carry on as usual, if a PWB is involved then use The Admiral's rule.