Thoughts on the New Orc Bard Hero?

[cynthialee]

That has to be an oversight
No way they intend the rapier only usable diagonal

[Kurgan]

I agree, that seems to be a mistake (to say ONLY diagonal attacks are permitted with the Rapier). Also, are they implying the Wand can't be used to attack diagonally (only one square away?). What does this say about the Crossbow's intentions? (we know daggers can be thrown at any range or direction, although throwing a dagger at point blank range is only really an issue when you're using a magical throwing dagger).

The App SHOULD reflect the same rules as the physical game here, after all. Send the errata to Hasbro on instagram/twitter!

[knotschi]

I actually do like the idea that diagonal attack weapons can only attack diagonal, I think I will make this a house rule. (usually heroes anyway already have their starting weapon which they can use to attack adjacent squares)

Also, are they implying the Wand can't be used to attack diagonally

Not sure I can follow why you think that? To me the picture and description looks clearly like the wand can attack everything that is in line of sight, no matter what distance or direction. (which sounds a bit OP to me for a starting weapon... but that is an other topic/thread ^^)

[Kurgan]

That may have been their intention I was just thinking of the frequent controversy over the Crossbow (but forgot to elaborate in my post), the other ranged Armory weapon. It clearly can't attack adjacent squares (at range it can fire any direction) but the question is always whether they meant to allow the four diagonal close range squares to be hittable with the weapon.

Then again maybe the Wand works differently. No clarification was given for the crossbow in the 2021 remake rules or card.

I am content to say that both the Wand and the Crossbow (and any other projectile type weapons you could add, other than spells) OUGHT to need one square of distance (at least) between the attacker and the target, period. But others will disagree...

Maybe if there was a pistol weapon it could fire point blank or at range, but I mean in general. While I play the game with my homebrew rules the way I want to, at the same time I always want to know what the designers intended for their official ruleset(s).

[David McMurdo]

I love this new hero. I've seen a lot of fans refer to him as a joke hero at best and a betrayal of the traditional fantasy that HeroQuest was established in at worst. This is ironic for me because the very reason I love the orc bard is because he reminds me of old fantasy and role-play materials.

I was born in 1984 (just in time to play HeroQuest as a child), but I have an older sister who also loved role-playing games. I used to love reading the materials she had, even though I was too young to understand them at the time. I was mostly captivated by the illustrations. But it seems to me that the conventions and tropes that most take for granted now were nowhere near established in the eighties. I really think that the Dungeons and Dragons of the nineties and especially Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy really helped to solidify a standard for what different race types should be. For that reason, I understand if many people find the idea of an orc bard just absurd and assume it to be a joke. But you could find all kinds of weird things in the RPG materials of the eighties, and so contrary to seeing the orc bard as a betrayal of fantasy, I actually view him as a throwback to a time when designers could afford to be more inventive without risking alienating a large portion of the intended audience.

Please take this post for what it is: it's an explanation of why I personally love the orc bard based on my own experience with consuming fantasy gaming material; I'm not trying to make assertions about how fantasy gaming developed as though they're objective fact—this is just my own perception.

I can't wait to paint this guy.

[Kurgan]

I appreciate your thoughtful explanations for your pov. I think the Bard works better as a cleric or pirate, but each to their own. It's a wide enough community there can be all kinds of takes on things and that makes it so interesting and colorful to participate in. I see that several people who are painting the figures are basing them on the artwork. It sounds like you're going to be using drawing on the Conan movies for inspiration, so I'm sure it will be cool to see your creations! To me the female Barbarian would probably look something like Red Sonja (from the not-Conan-but-spiritual-cousin-according-to-fans movie of the same period), but making her look like Zula (from Conan the Destroyer) would be fun to see as well.

[banjo_oz]

Just got my Mythic Pledge...

Firstly, I agree with those who say he shouldn't start with the Rapier, in my opinion; let it be something to progress to.

Secondly, the mechanics of his "wear no armor and use no shield to get a bonus DEF die" seems clunky and ripe for confusion. I would think making his base DEF 3 (not 2) and then saying "Metal Armor has its DEF reduced by 1 when worn by a Bard" would be simpler, and just not allows shields (since carrying a shield gives +1 DEF and *not* carrying a shield gives.. +1 DEF). Otherwise, am I right in calculating that a Bard with a shield, helmet and armor will always trump the no armor bonus, so why bother?

Personally, I wish they'd gone with - instead of the armor bonus - having the bard be uniquely able to use a dagger instead of a shield to gain +1 ATK as something different for a change.

The spell cards are... okay, I guess. Just not very imaginative. I like the idea of them only buffing the other heroes, but I would have liked them to all be "songs" and give us six to choose 3 from (boost atk, boost def, boost move, reroll one roll, inflict fear, heal?). Maybe the bard starts with only *one* song of choice, but gains the rest *during* a quest using a variation on the "restores song" mechanic; witness a great defense, gain the def boost card; see a hero get hit for 3 or more BP, gain the heal song card, etc. That would be a huge mechanical difference from the way spells normally work (Elf/Wizard/Warlock).

As to the lore-friendliness... I love the concept of a Bard hero but making him an orc is really bizarre to me, especially in the HQ universe. In settings like Elder Scrolls or Warcraft, Orcs are a complex race with all sorts of personalities. In GW's world - which HeroQuest (and 40k too) is based on - Orcs/Orks are violent British soccer hooligans who love nothing but causing mayhem and harm! I really struggle to see a GW/HQ orc as a charismatic cap-wearing bard with a lute even if we can stretch to there being some "good" orc! A rowdy drunken pub singer? Maybe, but not a crooner of heroic deeds. I am fine with "good" orcs even if they don't really fit Warhammer/HQ, but the combination of heroic orc and *bard* seems like a joke character I'd make in D&D, not an official HQ hero. If they wanted a "heroic orc" just make an alternative mini for the Barbarian. If there was a worry about the lack of female heroes, I'd have loved to see a big badass female orc "Barbarian" cosmetic alternative hero mini, lore-friendly or not! But an Orc Bard...?!

[Kurgan]

Yeah I presume they were going for the "Isle of Misfit Toys" angle with the Orc Bard. He doesn't fit into his society and somehow escaped alive to aide the heroes. But you can invent whatever excuse you want. I personally go with changing him into something else, while retaining his stats exactly. I kind of like the idea of controlling a monster, but you could easily make him something else. I guess I'm not so excited about controlling a Bard in general, but many are so each to their own!

I guess my imagination thinks of a true Orc bard as like a war drummer or shaman/war priest type character, not a dandy (yet buff) minstrel who just happens to have tusks and green skin.

In any case he certainly is unique, but will he become iconic? Probably not except in terms of the controversy of introducing him in the first place.

[Daedalus]

. . . Secondly, the mechanics of his "wear no armor and use no shield to get a bonus DEF die" seems clunky and ripe for confusion. I would think making his base DEF 3 (not 2) and then saying "Metal Armor has its DEF reduced by 1 when worn by a Bard" would be simpler, and just not allows shields (since carrying a shield gives +1 DEF and *not* carrying a shield gives.. +1 DEF). Otherwise, am I right in calculating that a Bard with a shield, helmet and armor will always trump the no armor bonus, so why bother?. . .

Though it's easy to miss, a helmet shouldn't be part of the calculation because helmets are considered metal. See the Dread spell Rust for confirmation.

[Daedalus]

. . . Secondly, the mechanics of his "wear no armor and use no shield to get a bonus DEF die" seems clunky and ripe for confusion. I would think making his base DEF 3 (not 2) and then saying "Metal Armor has its DEF reduced by 1 when worn by a Bard" would be simpler, and just not allows shields (since carrying a shield gives +1 DEF and *not* carrying a shield gives.. +1 DEF). Otherwise, am I right in calculating that a Bard with a shield, helmet and armor will always trump the no armor bonus, so why bother?. . .

Though it's easy to miss, a helmet shouldn't be part of the calculation because helmets are considered metal. See the Dread spell Rust for confirmation.