[Quest Pack] [6 Quests] - Mound of the Beastmen

[Stoner81]

The download link in the first post for this doesn't seem to work any more.



Stoner81.

[StratosVX]

Both links in the first post should take you to other sites. Both of them worked for me when I just tried them.

[Stoner81]

The Google site says I do not have permission to access.



Stoner81.

[StratosVX]

There may be an issue with cookies or it may be blocked by a VPN if you are on one. The sites linked in the first post are not hosted by The Inn so we wouldn't be able to do anything to fix the issue.

[lestodante]

it works fine for me: https://sites.google.com/site/thedarkstonetrilogy/
direct links to the following languages:
French: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Italian: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Spanish: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
English: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

[Stoner81]

Ah ha! Turns out I had to log out of my own Google account in order to be able to view it all. Once I logged out there was no issue.



Stoner81.

[HispaZargon]

Hi everyone!

After many years, I am revisiting this beloved fanmade expansion again (Thanks Pan!!!), trying to think how it should be better adapted to the classic NA game system rules (and also the remake's one), and after doing some Ye-Olde-Inn-Necromancy, here are my thoughts about some hot topics already discussed in this thread:

Henchmen are encountered in quests 1, 3, 5 and 6. The Notes make it clear that in quests 1 and 3 henchmen will join the party, and that in quest 6 they will not. In quest 5 there is no note as to the Scout and Halberdier that are encountered. Can they join the party?

Yes, following the rules of page 12 in the manual.

Due to lack of space, I guess a note was not added in Q5 to say the men-at-arms are hired by the first Hero who enters the room, but yes, for coherency I think it should have added to fit with Q1 & Q3. Nevertheless, the general rules of the questbook already explains how those mercs could be hired, so maybe all their related hiring explanations written in Q1, Q3 and Q5 should be in fact deleted to avoid any posible confusion like this one.

Doh! Sorry Pan, I must be blind. Perhaps I read it in the Halls of the Blind! I missed the Star Rune as well in the same quest! I am not doing well in spotting things, which is what makes me nervous about pointing something else out in that quest. I was looking through the quests last night in anticipation of starting them today.

In 'The Halls of Evil' the whole narrative is set up to suggest that to obtain the Star Rune and finally defeat Vivigor you must pass through a series of trials i.e the Hall of the Forgotten and The Halls of the Blind, not to mention the Hall of Storms! However, it looks to me that the Heroes can just turn right at door A, kill the Beastman, find the secret door, kill the Shamen and get the Star Rune. Thus missing out on all the really interesting stuff that this quest contains?

The secret door when your turn right to A is not supposed to work this way. This secret door should be found when searching a secret door in room D (where you find the Star Rune), just to avoid to step back to door A through the trials previously done.

I am not 100% sure I have put the secret door icon in the right direction... I thought that the stone tile drawing was where you exit, and the small dots where you enter. Am I wrong ?

I too have always played that a secret door can be found from either side irrespective of which way it opens. It has never occurred to me to question that until now?

If this is the true rule, so I have to mention in the manual a special rule that secret doors can only be used in one specific way.

It's the vanilla rule indeed.
I agree about the manual entry.
"In Mound of the Beastmen, secret doors work differently from what is known from other quests. The positioning of a secret door symbol in the map is crucial because secret doors can only be opened from the room that is adjacent to a secret door, not from the room the symbol is in. Once a secret door has been opened, it can be freely moved through from both sides."
A graphic would also be very helpful here.
Sorry I didn't find that because it was natural thinking for me to use secret doors the original way... Should have seen it during translation.

It's the vanilla rule indeed.
I agree about the manual entry.
"In Mound of the Beastmen, secret doors work differently from what is known from other quests. The positioning of a secret door symbol in the map is crucial because secret doors can only be opened from the room that is adjacent to a secret door, not from the room the symbol is in. Once a secret door has been opened, it can be freely moved through from both sides."
A graphic would also be very helpful here.
Sorry I didn't find that because it was natural thinking for me to use secret doors the original way... Should have seen it during translation.

Thanks, I should add this in the manual. I have also thought about a graphic representation of that :

An arrow indicates the only way the secret door could be used.
If there is no restrictions (both sides could be used), the icon indicates a double arrow, or maybe no arrow at all (normal icon like the vanilla rule).

I would use the double arrow when it works either way. If some have an arrow and one does not...people may get confused.

This is a breaking point... so I guess the quest maps of the last released version are designed considering that all the secret doors can only be found and opened from the "pushing" side of the wall, and not from the "pulling" side.

Then, definetively at least a general rule with a good scketch to clarify it must be added in the questbook to play it correctly. If this concept apply to all the secret doors, in my opinion it is not necessary to show any arrows in the maps, they would only add more noise to those already crowded maps.

Nevertheless, does exist any updated version of the questbook??

1) Heroes roll defence dice equal to their Mind Points when defending against the Chain Lightning Spell, and the Halls of the Forgotten's Ghosts. Is it to be inferred that any undefended hits cause the loss of Mind Points, or do they still lose Body Points?

2) In the Hall of Storms, when a Hero is hit by the lightning (Black Shield Rolled), what happen if there is a Hero directly behind you?
a) You stay in place.
b) You move back and occupy the same space as the Hero (as you would down a pit trap).
c) You move back and knock the Hero back one as well.

1) You lose body points.
2) The correct answer is B !

1) To avoid this kind of confusions, maybe a clarification about Body Points are lost as usually should be added in th Spell card and in The Halls of the Forgotten general rules.
2) ... or maybe it should be placed in the other square with the same mark number if it is free. This explanation could be also written in the Hall of Storms rules.

I finally got round to finishing this quest. The Halls are very interesting and were a real delay to my Heroes, which is bad for them as I use Evil Wizard Cards, and the longer they take the more EW cards are drawn. In terms of BP's it wasn't a huge drain. It seemed I triggered a ghost every turn, but with the four Heroes having MP's of 7/4/4/3, it only resulted in a couple of lost BP's. The three henchmen that were picked up previously (2 Scouts and a Crossbowman) had little to no chance of getting through this quest alive. With only 2BP/MP's they all died. At least I will get a couple more in the next quest. The Halls of the Blind will be alot more interesting when I play this with my brother. They lost a little bit of the atmosphere playing solo.

Vivigor is very powerful, but he has no bodyguard, although I spawned an Elite Skeleton to help him, and Chaos Energy gave him a BP back during the battle. He got to play his Summon 2 Chaos Hounds, Chain Lightning and Shield of Thorns (it inficted 1BP) before he succumbed. My Wizard hit him with a Ball of Flame, which wasn't defended with the 2d6. Should I have allowed him an extra 2d6 for the Shield of Thorns?

I am glad you liked this quest. I had a lot of fun making it, and I tried to create some original room to surprise the players. Well... It is not designed for US rules, so special monsters could seem a little bit weaker than intended. I think you have to adjust their BP to make them be a challenge. I am not a pro player of US rules, so, sadly, I cannot help you.

Also, since the designer is participating in the discussion, might I ask for an 'official' American stat version of the monsters?
The Beast Lord has 3 BP, and all others have 1 BP, which is fine for the Euro, but maybe not so much for the American version.

I can make that. I have to find first a US card template (I will surely find one here somewhere). But I have never played to the US version of the game, so I am not very comfortable with the multiple body point. If someone could help me on that. As an equivalence, the beastman is supposed to be as strong as a fimir. The chaoshound = a skeleton. The shaman = something between chaos warrior and fimir. Beastlord = gargoyle or better.

I would just change the Body points to accomodate for North American rules.
Beastman 2BP, Beastlord 3BP (or 4; Gargoyle has 3), Chaoshound 1BP (or 2; Skeleton has 1), Shaman 5BP (like all 4 Wizards of Morcar)

Thanks for the references. The shaman will be overpowered than intended with 5BP (I speak for generics shamans, not Vivigor). His spells are supposed to balance his physical weakness, so 2 BP seems legit. He is not supposed to be stronger than a Beastlord.

So :
Beastman : 2 BP
Beastlord : 4 BP
Chaoshound : 1 BP
Shaman : 2 BP

Does that sound good to you ?

To me it does, yeah.

Yes, I also think the Monster stats should be fixed a bit to be played under NA rules.

I have analyzed the stats and I agree about BP values should be changed for NA game system rules, but just a few comments to the values proposed above:

I mostly try to consider classic HeroQuest based in the Old World of Warhammer, and at the time the board game was being designed (late 80s), the Warhammer Fantasy Battles contemporary edition was the 3rd one. I think the monster stats from the basic Game System mostly fits with their equivalent in Warhammer, so I think is a good idea trying to take it into account once another new monster from Warhammer lore is designed for HQ use, like beastmen. Then, here are the Warhammer stats of Orcs, Beatsmen and Fimirs (Fimm class since they are the ones represented by the HQ miniature and the Shearl class ones are just slaves, not warriors):

Beastmen_Stats_Discussion.jpg

Beastman:
According to author words above, he said Beastmen should be as strong as Fimirs, so it seems that giving them 2 Body Points is a good idea, and I agree, but only partially. Comparing the Warhammer stats of Fimirs and Beastmen above, it is true that both ones have 2 Wounds (W), which fits with the idea of giving 2 Body Points to both HeroQuest monsters instead of 1 BP like Orcs which have only one Wound (W) in Warhammer, however, the Fimir has stronger stats in terms of Strength and Toughness (S & T) than the Beastmen, which actually have the same as an Orc, so I think we should represent it in the game in some way. Then, considering that the beastmen of this expansion do not wear any special armour nor wields any shield according to their card ilustration, I think they should not defend as a Fimir, so Ok to give them 2 BPs as a Fimir, BUT in balance I would reduce their Defense to 2 Defend Dice, like an Orc. Additionally, I think the regular beastmen Movement of 5 squares is correct. I see the beastmen good fighters, slightly better than Orcs, but not as good fighters as the Fimirs since they can make 2 Attacks (A) per turn in Warhammer, so I agree that Fimirs should move a bit more (6 squares) than Beastmen, even if both have the same Initiative (I) in Warhammer. All these minor changes I think fit better with the Warhammer Old World, but more important, give to the Beastmen more personality in the game, being them different than Fimirs, which should be clear stronger monsters, but making better something between Orcs and Fimirs.

Beastlord:
I would keep Beastlord movement as 6 squares, no problem since it seems to be a really big guy, close to what I understand a kind of Minotaur should be ( ), but less fast than his small minions (the Beastmen).

Shaman:
About Shamans I would give them another body point up to 3 BP since they are spellcaster characters, I don't like seeing them as stronger as regular beastmen.

Chaoshound:
Finally, I have doubts about the Chaoshound stats. I like these creatures and they are supposed to be big animals since they occup 2 squares on the board, however their stats look to be too similar to a Skeleton. It is very dissapointing to me seeing them with just 1 BP, so I think 3 BPs would fit much better in NA rules (Mage of the MIrror's Giant Wolves have 5 BPs !!). Moreover, I also think they should have some more power, so I propose giving them the ability of attacking to diagonal squares due to their big size, like the Giant Wolfs from The Mage of the Mirror or the Frozen Horror. In fact this is an already existing rule in those NA expansions for creatures occuping 2 squares, so I would also add it here in the general rules of the questbook. I think this would make these hounds a bit more challenging to the Heroes than other monsters with similar stats.


Then, in my opinion these are the stats I would give to the monsters if playing this expansion under NA rules (stats changed from last EU version marked in bold for better traceability):

- Beastmen: M5, AD3, DD2, BP2, MP3
- Shaman: M6, AD2, DD4, BP3, MP5
- Beastlord: M6, AD2*, DD2*+DD1, BP4, MP4 - *Special Combat Dice
- Chaoshound: M8, AD2, DD2, BP3, MP2, Special Ability: May attack diagonally

Warning: Beware of the EU original files of this expansion since I think there are some typing errors. English version's Beastlord card only says it only defend with 2 Special Combat Dice, however the English & French questbooks and French card also adds a regular Combat Die in defense to the 2 special dice, which I think is the correct. In the other hand, I think the French version of the Shaman card has also a mistake since it says that it attacks with just 1 Combat Die, however the French & English questbooks and the English cards say that it attacks with 2 Combat Dice, which I think is the correct value.

The adventure continues…
The Mound of the Beastmen is a new non-official quest pack for the famous boardgame Heroquest, extending the epic adventure of the Champions of the Empire....

When should your Quest Pack be played? (I imagine after the original 14 Quests.)

No, you can play my questpack with brand new heroes. You don't need to have ever complete one single quest before you can start my pack. The questpack is designed for heroes who start "nude" in the first quest, as they lost all of their equippement in the embush.

According to the current questbook prologue I think it should be played just after playing Wizards of Morcar/Zargon expansion, but it unfortunately it is not clearly written in the book, so I think it should be a good addon. About the equipment loss at the beggining, it should be also be clarified in the questbook, I think.

...Are there other rules that I have to change to make the US version working ?

I'd say you're in the clear. Searching takes a bit longer (no problem), but traps such as a Chaos Hound trap aren't automatically removed when discovered. That's okay, because the North American rules don't lay a tile when a pit trap is discovered. Instead, Zargon indicates the square and the Heroes must remember the location. Should a Hero forget and blunder into a trap, TOO BAD! Bottom line--it's not your problem.

I think they are according to how I read it. They are not really traps in a heroquest sense as they are intended for non intelligent beasts. If a Hero finds one by searing around it is easily 'disarmed' by just jabbing it with a sword. There is no intricate removal of a triggering mechanism. And once it is sprung it is just a harmless hunk of metal lying on the ground.

Yes, you read correctly. What I meant was in response to the trap syncing up with the NA rules for traps--something Pan asked about in general. As he wrote them, they work like EU spear traps. I was unsuccessfully trying to indicate a Chaos Hound trap must be disarmed from atop its square with an action, per the NA rules for any trap. The attempt could still automatically succeed, per Pan's intent, as long as the action was taken to disarm it by jabbing with a sword. Of course, Pan's trap can stand as is in an NA game as a special non-disarm exception, as well

Ah yes I see what you mean.

The Admiral's explanation about why these traps can be automatically disarmed has convinced me, I agree. In this case the trap is not intended to be hidden for the Heroes nor being undisarmable, and otherwise it would work just as a regular Spear trap, so creating a new trap would not make too much sense. Maybe explaining a bit such justification in th questbook would be a good idea. Nevertheless, Daedalus I think is right too about pointing that a Hero should move to the trap square and make a disarming action to disarm it, event if no die roll is needed for it. Then, some wording fixes I think should be added to the trap rules as written now to make it more clear if we want to play the expansion according to NA rules.

By the way, can a tomb trap be disarmed (perhaps sealed)?

Yes, but not with the usual way. You can "disarm" it by rolling both shield with a combat dice.

in my opinion I see these as hazards. They are not traditional traps that have been set, but just dormant undead that noisy Heroes could awaken. So there is no mechanism to disarm in order to render them inert, and any fiddling with the tomb is just going to risk waking its evil inhabitant

You have very well resumed my use of " " for "disarm"

Mmm... I like the Daedalus' idea of giving the opportunity of disarming the traps (=sealing the tombs) with the risk of activating them if the check fails (=awaking the undead!) as The Admiral suggested. I think I would introduce the combination of both ideas...

Also, I noticed that Quest 2 calls for 8 Coffin Tiles (tombs), but the tile download sheet only contains 4. That means a relatively expensive second printing of a color page will be needed. With some rearranging, it should be possible to fit the other 4 Coffin Tiles on pages 1 and 3. Of course, most will already have spare Coffin Tiles from RotWL.

Yes, I should have put more of that in the print sheet. But as you said, you can find some tombs in the Witch lord expansion. I have no doubt most of the people here get it .

Daedalus is right, four tomb tiles are not enough according to the quest maps. However, I think it can be easily fixed without printing more tiles. I would add a note to the Tomb Trap rules explaining that once the undead monster is revived, the tomb tile must be removed from the board. This would probably solve any problem about running out of tomb tiles and at the same time it will help to track which tombs are already inactive on the board.

Looking at this thread as I am hoping to resume my solo play of this tomorrow. And on the subject of traps, what happens when a Hero fails to disarm a Rune Trap? It seems a bit odd that they then get a 1 in 3 chance of disarming it again.

Personally, I would either have the Trap as not capable of being discovered e.g.Wandering Monster Trap, It is magic after all, or, if the trap disarming attempt fails, them 1-3 = blowback and 4-6 = explosion.

That actually raises a couple of questions on Rune traps:
1) I presume the Hero is blown back in the direction from which he entered the trap space?
2) Is the 2 square distance counted diagonally or as you would move i.e. in the picture in my previous post would the Beastman nearest to the bookcase be caught in the blast?

1) Yes, absolutly
2) Yes, diagonals are counted.

Just to be clear on this trap :
- it works like a pit trap : it is not visible unless it is discovered. When it is discovered or when a player trigger it, you can put the rune trap tile on the board.
- it can not be disarmed the normal way
- the only way to disarm it is to roll a 3 or 4 with a die
- when triggered, you have to roll a die and refer to the manual to see the effect on you.

Ok, points 1) and 2) are clear, but I think a brief clarification should be added about those topics in the trap rules.

However, for me probably the weakest point of this expansion are the disarming rules defined for these Rune Traps. I like a lot the concept of imagining the Beastmen Shamans using their dark magic to create these traps, but sorry it is difficult for me to imagine that any regular Hero can disarm them by using a toolkit, like if they were any other standard trap... I think these Rune Traps should be treated more as magical traps than physical ones, like the Fireburst traps from Wizards of Morcar expansion, which could only be 'disarmed' y casting a Tempest spell for example. It is true that Runes are always graved in physical items like stone or metal, and races like Dwarves are supposed to be experts in Runes graving and so on, so Ok, I would allow that these traps can be detected by just a regular searching action since the runes could be probably been 'seen' by anyone written somewhere, but I think a any disarming mechanic for these traps should be linked with magic, at least in a partial way, and avoid making any regular disarming actions.

I don't know how to solve it yet, any idea?

I have some feedback and questions about your Quests:

Quest 2: Does the evil Wisp, which can't be attacked and lacks a figure, prevent searches as a monster? (I guess yes.)
E) The Compendium states: "This door is obviously bolted and will not budge...." while Note E states: "...the door remains closed and no interaction through the door is possible..." However, spell casting Heroes often save Genie and Pass Through Rock spells for emergencies. It seems either spell, which are meant to work around impassable doors, could thwart this barrier and gain the Heroes access, even before the sentry is dispatched. I'd say more is needed, such as: "Any spell or artifact used to gain access to the room fails due to the magics within."
Quest 3: Published expansions include useful, in-game information about room tiles in the pertaining Quest Notes. As you've done a lot to emulate their formatting, I'd say the location with the Runic Room Tile could use is own note rather than needing a check of the introductory pages. It is possible to carve out enough page space with some reduction of text (let me know if you want my suggestions), but this is primarily my advice/opinion for any future Quest Packs.
E) While this entry works fine in conjunction with the Compendium, it fails to mention Vivigor's escape. If only the Quests are played (without the Compendium) the shaman is simply killed. The Parchment Text of the following Quest, "The vile Vivigor has managed to escape!..." would then match poorly. A fix could be to add to this note: "When defeated, he escapes by a hidden exit and can't be followed." This wouldn't help with making space for a Runic Room note, unfortunately. This is again guidance for future Quest Packs.
Quest 4: E) This note should mention the first Hero to search for treasure finds the Black Stone on Vivigor's body. Without the Compendium, there is no other way to make this crucial objective known.
Quest 5: As with Quest 3, I feel the Notes would benefit from entries for the Pit and Runic Rooms. You'd probably need 5 lines or more to pull it off. To do it, I'd number the doors and locks 1-3 and combine notes B-D as one entry. Entry F could also be shortened.
H) I'd change "Any Hero..." > The first Hero... because "Any" could be understood as more than one.
Quest 6: A) Without the Compendium, either the Parchment Text or this entry needs to explain how Sir Vardion takes possession of the Black Stone.
G) Sir Vardion is encountered both here and in room A, but with different stats. The Compendium makes it clear he is separated and then corrupted, but some kind of explanation is needed here if only the Quests are played. (Notes D and E could be combined to make the space.)

A lot of the comments are only relevant if the Compendium isn't used, but who would want to do that? Those story interludes make your Quests more immersive, unique, and in interesting. Rather than adding in all of the fixes, I'd say it would probably be best to make the Compendium necessary for play simpler to leave things as they are. Excellent work!

Quest 2:
- I agree, the Evil Wisp should be like a Monster for searching mechanics, after all I always understood that the absence of Monsters for searching is needed to allow the apropriate concentration to search, so for the same reason I think the Evil Wisp should not be in the same area (corridor section in this case) as the Hero who want to search. Then, adding some kind of clarification in Note B I think is required.
- About the door marked E, yes, I also think its rules are quite vague in order to avoid using breaking spells like Pass Through Rock and Genie, so a sentence in Note E explaining that magic cannot be used to access the central room is also something required. Additionally, I would say that I missed the Evil Wisp tile description in the first pages of the questbook, with the rest of tiles.

Quest 3:
- Yes, I agree. Those rooms with special rules I think should be also marked at least to just indicating that they have special rules which should be checked in the first pages of the book.
- About Note E comment, I would go one extra mile further... in my humble opinion this questpack should be always played by using the Compendium and all those kind of problems will be solved. HeroQuest is a fantasy game where imagination and narrative I think are one of the best things of the game and probably the best thing of this expansion, so I would definitively write somewhere in the questbook that this adventure must be always be played by using the Compendium texts.

Quest 4:
- About Note E comment I would say the same as my last comment: The Compendium should always be used.

Quest 5:
- About Pit and Runic Rooms comments, yes, I already told above that those special rooms need an entry in the map.
- Agree about Note H correction.

Quest 6:
- About Notes A and G comments I would say the same as in previous comments: The Compendium should always be used.

Pan
I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but there is a problem with the Compendium notes for Quest 5. On the quest map I note the following:
1) Bubble 3 should be in the room to the left, with bubble 2.
2) Bubble 4 should be in room C (where bubble 3 currently is).
3) Bubble 5 should be in room D (where bubble 4 currently is).
On the Compendium notes I note the following:
1) The final paragraph of the 1st page needs a bubble 4.
2) The paragraph on the 2nd page should be bubble 5, not 4.

Yes, I agree about there is there a clear errata. However, I think the errata is just in the Compendium book since it can be easily fixed there with just one change: deleting bubble 3 symbol on page 12 and placing a new bubble symbol 3 on the same page at the beggining of the last paragraph. I think this change solves any posible confusion without introducing any change in the quest book.

I found Garghol the Bloody an odd situation. He attacks whether you buy something or not. Obviously he expects to survive and slay all the Heroes (the deluded fool!) and he could therefore take all their money anyway. All he is doing is allowing them to get more powerful before he fights them. I think if the Heroes buy something off him he should take his money and go. If not he fights them to get all their money?

I agree...I honestly don't understand the role of Garghol character. Maybe a new bubble note in the Compendium should be added giving some context about him? For me it makes no sense.

A posible solution to fix this (in my humble opinion) vague character role could be the following, adding a new bubble note in the Compendium explaining it if needed: once the Heroes find Garghol, he tells them that he will allow them passing through the corridor if they gave him 2 Runes of Blood. If not, Garghol will block the corridor and only defeating him could allow the heroes to advance. AND I would add a note in room marked D saying that the heroes will find in the Weapons Rack placed in such room one weapon and one armour which they can freely choose from the Armory. I think it could be a balanced solution (they will only find one weapon and one armor, but their cost will be free)

I'm on the final quest and my luck in the previous pit room has run out. The is the first to jump and has fallen in. After he is attacked by the Beastman is his turn ended or may he now perform an attack?

"...a Beastman immediately appears and attacks" tells me your turn is over.
Common sense dictates that another figure's action can't be in between your turn unless otherwise stated,
which the Pit Room entry doesn't.
I can't remember if I deliberately left out "Your turn ends immediately" because of this.
I think I did as it seemed unnecessary, specifically because of the Beastman's "immediately".

You could also treat "Pit" as a keyword (like Slev and myself do systematically) where the "falling into" part
is described for the original pit trap and can be applied here.
The Pit Room entry is supposed to hearken back to the pit trap description.

I ask because it has similarities to a pit trap, which would end your turn, and a Wandering Monster trap, which wouldn't.

I played it the first time that it ended the player's turn. This didn't matter because the Dwarf went first and the Elf and Princess were able to successfully jump over and kill it. This time the Elf has fallen in and only the Princess is left to go, so there is a good possibility that the Beastman will get to make a 2nd attack without reply. For my own preservation it got me wondering if the Elf is allowed to get an attack in?

In my opinion, if you fail the die roll, it should be be treated as falling in a regular pit trap or being attacked by a Wandering Monster: Then, the Hero turn finishes there.

But, I think the overall rules about this trap could be better defined. I think this pit trap should be as deep as a regular pit trap, so I think the Hero first should lose 1 BP if falling into the pit and after that being attacked by the beastman. AND if playing under NA game system rules I think the jumping rules for this pit room should be the same as the ones defined to jump the long way of a Large Pit in Mage of the Mirro expansion, since it is also a 2 squares jump, which means the Hero mus roll a Black Shield to make a succesfull jump. Of course these changes make this pit room much more challenging for the Heroes, but...

The Bonemangler card only mentions that it is +1 orange dice in attack, but it's unclear what the base attack that it's adding onto is supposed to be. If I wield the Bonemangler and I attack with it, what do I roll? How would that translate to the US version?

Same question for Ashgor's Valor, which only reads that it's +1 dice in defence.

I'd assume that was added onto the basic combat dice of each Hero found on the EU character cards: Wizard 1AD, Elf and Dwarf 2 AD, Barbarian 3AD.
AD=attack dice/combat dice to attack

I played with NA rules. I treated the Bonemangler as a Battleaxe i.e. 4 dice + bonus. I considered Ashgors valour to be the same as chainmail, with the BP bonus.

I'd say an NA Bonemangler is a battle axe that gives you the attack strength of 3 white and 1 orange combat dice. And the insta-kill with 4.skulls. Like The Admiral, I'd also treat Ashgor's Valor as chain mail with a +1 BP bonus.

Bonemangler:
Considering an average AD value from EU Heroes of 2 AD, like using a shortsword in NA system, I think this magical weapon should be in NA system better like a kind of a special Broadsword, since its combination with a Shield is allowed, which allows you attacking with 2 regular dice + 1 special dice. If we give it 1 more regular die as Daedalus suggests (3 regular + 1 special) I think it would be too overpowered since rolling 4 Skulls would be quite easy (remember the special die has 2 faces with a Double Skull !!). My proposal always forces to obtain a Double Skull in the special die to get the bonus, which I think is cool. Additionally I think that the card sentence "... but only if it is a monster" means that the only regular monsters, and not characters, can be killed by the bonus, so I suggests fixing a bit the text in that way to make it more clear.

Ashgor's Valor:
Fully agree with Daedalus and The Admiral: in NA rules it should be as a Chain Mail +1 basic BP bonus.

That’s one of the three variations of orange dice I found but not the one Pan had in mind when creating this quest book. I PM’d him and he confirmed this is the correct orange dice for Mound of the Beastmen:

- one face with skull x1
- two faces with double skulls
- one face with black shield
- one face with double black shields
- one face with double white shields

Yes, Nlinindoll is right.

That was the special orange dice faces distribution before May/2016, the original ones considered by Pan when he designed the questpack.

I think the special dice faces original distribution should be clearly described in the questbook for future tracking. (I remember that the very old version of the questbook described them, but unfortunately not the last one published in the author's website)

Additionally when I translated into English (for my stat cards) I translated the title as "Barrow of the Beastmen." Maybe I shoulda waited.

Yeah we had this discussion with Knightkrawler. I decided to keep Mound for several reasons. But well, both works pretty well.

Ok, better "Barrow".


Well, I will include in later posts more comments I have to this expansion, for discussion.

[HispaZargon]

Any comments?

Do you agree with the changes I propose above to adapt this great expansion to the NA system?

Has anybody found more breaking points or rules in the original files?

[therealshrek]

I have the original version of this in digital format. Has there been any progress in updating it, and likewise
is there any intention to have this available as a print on demand type of thing.

[HispaZargon]

Adaptation intention, yes, however I am still looking for other flaws in the original. So much work, believe me.