Ye Olde Inn

I've been considering implementing facing rules in my HeroQuest game, haven't quite talked myself into it yet. I figured I'd throw this out, and see what folks here at the Inn think. So, what I'd like to know is everyone's thoughts on the following:

1. Do you think implementing facing rules in HeroQuest is a good/bad idea? Why do you think that?
2. Has anyone ever implemented facing rules in HeroQuest? If so, what were your rules, and how did it work out?

One thing that I thought it might bring to the table was a bit more tactical consideration in combat. I also thought it might be interesting to have different shields provide different defense dice values when being attacked from certain squares or directions. It could also make hallway combat more interesting, as you'd have to go back to back with a buddy to avoid disadvantage. A dual wielder would have to be quite strategic about their facing in order to maximize their strikes. On the other side of the coin, this will certainly add more onto the current ruleset, and if it doesn't increase gameplay enough, then the extra rules really aren't worth it.

One of my favorite games ever, Space Hulk, has facing rules, they add a lot to that game. But, HeroQuest is not Space Hulk.
Tell me what you think, folks.

arntisdale wrote:I've been considering implementing facing rules in my HeroQuest game, haven't quite talked myself into it yet. I figured I'd throw this out, and see what folks here at the Inn think. So, what I'd like to know is everyone's thoughts on the following:

1. Do you think implementing facing rules in HeroQuest is a good/bad idea? Why do you think that?
2. Has anyone ever implemented facing rules in HeroQuest? If so, what were your rules, and how did it work out?

One thing that I thought it might bring to the table was a bit more tactical consideration in combat. I also thought it might be interesting to have different shields provide different defense dice values when being attacked from certain squares or directions. It could also make hallway combat more interesting, as you'd have to go back to back with a buddy to avoid disadvantage. A dual wielder would have to be quite strategic about their facing in order to maximize their strikes. On the other side of the coin, this will certainly add more onto the current ruleset, and if it doesn't increase gameplay enough, then the extra rules really aren't worth it.

One of my favorite games ever, Space Hulk, has facing rules, they add a lot to that game. But, HeroQuest is not Space Hulk.
Tell me what you think, folks.

I do and don't like the idea personally. I do like it in that it seems to me that if you're attacked in front, you can defend. If you're then immediately attacked from behind, you don't have time to turn and should suffer a penalty.

And that's how I'd implement it, actually: On the EWP's turn, if a player is attacked from one direction, they could spin and defend (and I'd argue it's unnecessary left, right, center, or right, nor diagonals, but they may do it once only! If attacked from behind (rear or rear left/right flanks) and cannot or choose not to turn, they must suffer a defense penalty.

Unless they have a two-handed weapon with a slung shield on their back, of course. This would reduce the penalty—but if you implement this, I'd figure a weight system and determine that the only two handed weapon that isn't the equivalent of carrying "two weapons" weight-wise is the bow. And it still counts for one. I'd say a back attack you cannot turn and face defends with -2 CD for melee, -1 for ranged. The shield may mitigate 1 CD lost, if you have one on your back.

I still argue the only way you can switch weapons without it costing you a turn would be to drop the one you carry, though if you argued that should apply to cases where the hero is visible to monsters (as opposed to line of sight) … I'd say that's fair. Sheathing a sword and taking up your bow is something that need not take an extra turn if you're free to concentrate on doing it.

If you elect to just drop the thing … someone else might pick it up!

As cool as the idea sounds at first, I wouldn't do it. I figure if you can defend against one attack, you can defend against another. The Polar Warbears in BQP having two attacks and the hero only gets one defense in response is very controversial as it is! There are several instances of unblockable attacks from the Heroes against monsters and vice versa. Now in play what would the player do... just see Zargon starting to move a monster towards the back of his character and then grab his mini and turn it around in response? That would be a kind of funny mechanic. I can imagine some people not paying close attention or getting into fights (hey, you slapped my hand away!).

You can imagine the character is always turning to face his opponent like in those video games (once we were finally getting used to third person 3d games) where you always lock on to the character you're interacting with. And we all know about the famous "backstab" sword maneuver and the infamous "behind the back" block.

Then again, every RPG rule you can think of, somebody has implemented into Hero Quest, so if you can make it work and your gaming group appreciates it, more power to ya... I just like to keep it simple.

The only time I worry about "switching weapons" is when it's a case of a player wanting to have a shield AND a staff or battle axe in their character's inventory. How do you let them switch without feeling like they're cheating against this limitation that the game designers put in purposefully as a balancing measure? I let them use an action to switch on their turn. I suppose you could be super strict and force them to drop one weapon (or the shield). I hate to be that strict. Then again if they have the shield on their back, and you're using those "facing" rules, maybe the back attacker is going to hit the shield?

Kurgan wrote:The only time I worry about "switching weapons" is when it's a case of a player wanting to have a shield AND a staff or battle axe in their character's inventory. How do you let them switch without feeling like they're cheating against this limitation that the game designers put in purposefully as a balancing measure? I let them use an action to switch on their turn. I suppose you could be super strict and force them to drop one weapon (or the shield). I hate to be that strict. Then again if they have the shield on their back, and you're using those "facing" rules, maybe the back attacker is going to hit the shield?

Yeah, that's a good argument for keeping it simple and not doing it all right.

As for switching weapons, I think it's fair to take an action to switch two weapons you couldn't realistically have both of in your hands—but I'd still be inclined to say if there's nothing menacing nearby, call it a free action, if only to keep the game moving.

(That you sometimes have long corridors with someone rolling 2 is a reason people like to drop the roll-to-move. I'm of two minds on that—because so many mechanics of HQ are simplified, I like the roll to move rule, but it feels broken to me. I just don't know that I like the proposals to fix it much either, so I leave it be.

The only things I really like fixing are having wider corridors and doors. Otherwise I kinda like it fairly vanilla US quests, though with a mix of US and UK rules.

Kinda like Warhammer quest maybe? I haven't played it but people who have tell me there's a basic game and an advanced game that's more like an RPG, two sets of rules. Maybe something like that? HQ was designed as a board game, more complex than some, but much simpler than many of us end up making it with our house rules.

I hear what you're saying about the free action. I generally allow stuff if people make a plausible explanation on the spot, but there have to be limits or it becomes a free for all with no more stakes. I'll say "Yeah I know what we did last time but on this quest we're not doing that okay?" Zargon is still the ultimate authority! (which doesn't mean he gets to cheat either, but still he has the final say when there's a controversy, ambiguity or the heroes want to do something unusual).

Setting expectations early is a good thing, though you can't account for every possibility, the game would take forever to get going... "keeping the gameplay moving" is the key, I agree. Thumbs up.

Here's a few possibilities for facing rules, this is something I typed up a long time ago when I was playing with the idea.

Costs 1 MV to turn 90 degrees (up to 180 for elf/wizard?)
Facing is not required to ‘look’, you can look in any direction
Combat– facing is important, can only attack space that you are facing, or diagonal forward spaces if using a diagonal capable weapon, spells cannot be shot at any angle behind the caster (straight left, right, or anything in between so long as can ‘see’. Ranged and thrown attacks must be made within the forward cone
Any figure attacked from rear 3 spaces suffers -1 def die (or suffers a downgrade of their highest tier defense die)
doors can only be opened when facing directly

As far as shields go, bringing facing and different die color into the game would open up a multitude of possibilities. For example:

North is the faced direction, shield is in the left hand for this graphic, the numbers are how many additional def die would be rolled vs attacks from that square/direction. I just made this up as a real quick example. Certainly, a lot of thought could go into various shield designs with variations on which squares would get what bonus that uses what colored dice.

My ruling is such:
You may only adjust out of turn to face 1 enemy during the EWP turn. So while the EWP is moving an orc on your dude...I allow a facing adjust. However if a second dude shows up or even a third then they will be able to get behind you and gain an extra dice for attack. For more advanced player groups I rule the point/s you get for a shield will not count for your defend for attacks from behind, but for the basic players and newbs I cut them a break.

I wouldn't do it personally. There is absolutely tons of stuff you could add to HQ. I have added some house rules to mine, and it is now as complex as I want it. But each person can add as much or as little as they feel comfortable with.