Ye Olde Inn

lestodante wrote:Oh... and I remember that sad face on the GM when the greates of his creatures is killed without even beeing able to move...

As a long time EW player I have been there a few times.

Some good news, the Witch Lord isn't dead. He is wounded and escapes to his stronghold. Taking the players through that expansion should have some sweet revenge since it's kind of designed to be ridiculous. I think that's the one where the players effectively start on a pit trap that they are not allowed to search for. Followed by an immediate ambush of monsters on the order of 15 or so. It's a very passive aggressive design. It is a hallway with a monster on the end and a pit trap before the monster. This is because players tend to make the wizard go first, and the wizard is not going to waste spell on a weak monster on the first turn, so it's assumed he'll either walk right into the pit trap, or take up space forcing the next player to hit it. At this point the hallway is blocked (a roll of 2 won't let someone in) and anyone going through has to jump the trap. The dwarf can't disarm it because they can't end a turn on the trap either when a player is in it.

Anyway, I digress.

There are two attitudes that a GM can have to play any RPG or tabletop combat game. Either you are trying to kill your players at every turn, or you are an advocate for them. Most of the tropes associated with a bad GM are in that first category. It is possible to be challenging and engaging, but it is a hard skill to master. Most get better results from being invested in their party's success. This doesn't mean handing them a win, but it does mean not killing a character every time they fail a saving throw against a bee sting.

Modifying the rules to give the witch lord an advantage would have been bad GMing. I think that seeing them oneshot the witchlord is a great story. It should be fun, and the bad dice rolls should be entertaining, not frustrating. High five's all around.

As for what to change, although the first quest of the base game is difficult, it is a lesson for both players and Zargon. Most players I've ever played with find the boss pretty quick and oneshot him with genie. So in order to make the next boss interesting, you have to learn to hide them behind some other monsters. Sometimes they are good for surrounding a split party, but usually they should be insulated behind as many monsters as possible so they can use their (usually 4-5 dice attack) against a weakened elf or dwarf at the end of a fight. Using the summon undead spell first is usually par for the course. Block that entrance.

I'm an advocate for the players, so one of the reasons I like this strategy is that my house rules have experience points, and watching them slowly go up with kills before facing the boss adds to their enjoyment. Plus I get the boss out for longer than a round.

A quick note on spells. I believe other monsters block line of site for both the bosses and the players in the original rules. Most games I've ever played as a player, Zargon hand waves this. Specifically so that their boss can get off more spells. But it also opens up a genie attack on the boss early on in the fight. Thankfully the Witch Lord is immune to this. Not sure if you did original blocked sight, or any modified version, but it can change the dynamic of the game for sure.

I'm really happy you got a group through to the end. I hope you make custom quests for the group and share them. Half of the game is making new stuff!

DullandRusty wrote:We let bosses defend on white shields...makes things much harder

Ooooooh, I like that idea.
That or 1 black shield blocks all, like in Dark Company.

wallydubbs wrote:

DullandRusty wrote:We let bosses defend on white shields...makes things much harder

Ooooooh, I like that idea.
That or 1 black shield blocks all, like in Dark Company.

Aaaaghh! I hated that, and will never play that way again. For me it just ruins the whole working of the skull/shield combat system. White shields is a better way to go in my opinion. It maintains the combat system integrity while boosting a special monster/boss.

The Admiral wrote:

wallydubbs wrote:

DullandRusty wrote:We let bosses defend on white shields...makes things much harder

Ooooooh, I like that idea.
That or 1 black shield blocks all, like in Dark Company.

Aaaaghh! I hated that, and will never play that way again. For me it just ruins the whole working of the skull/shield combat system. White shields is a better way to go in my opinion. It maintains the combat system integrity while boosting a special monster/boss.

Oh, I most certainly concur, Admiral and realize how broken that system is. I've been playtesting through Dark Company, giving the Dark Warriors mercenary stats and the I'll tell you the Swordsman is incredibly difficult to kill. I've seen one last 5 turns surrounded by 3 heroes. I was just putting that option out there. I was disappointed how quickly the Frozen Horror fell and thought it suitable for his caliber... so either would be viable option depending on the boss.

wallydubbs wrote:I've been playtesting through Dark Company, giving the Dark Warriors mercenary stats.

Yes, that is definitely how I would play it now.

wallydubbs wrote:

DullandRusty wrote:We let bosses defend on white shields...makes things much harder

Ooooooh, I like that idea.
That or 1 black shield blocks all, like in Dark Company.

"One black shield to block all hits" is a very powerful defensive ability and should be used sparingly.
On the other hand, I'm fairly free about upgrading certain 'powerful' monsters, such as 'named' monsters or their bodyguards, to use white shields.
For end-of-Quest-Pack bosses I will even go as far as letting them defend on ALL shields, white AND black! Shout-out to cynthialee for this idea, haven't seen her around recently but her posts were always super insightful.

Count Mohawk wrote:

wallydubbs wrote:

DullandRusty wrote:We let bosses defend on white shields...makes things much harder

Ooooooh, I like that idea.
That or 1 black shield blocks all, like in Dark Company.

"One black shield to block all hits" is a very powerful defensive ability and should be used sparingly.
On the other hand, I'm fairly free about upgrading certain 'powerful' monsters, such as 'named' monsters or their bodyguards, to use white shields.
For end-of-Quest-Pack bosses I will even go as far as letting them defend on ALL shields, white AND black!

Although I have thought about that it seems way too powerful and very difficult to get a hit on.
But as you specified "End of Quest Pack bosses", it would make the victory much more significant.
I wouldn't really be able to pull the trigger on it unless the heroes are doing very well in regards to health and potions. But if they're all down to 2 body points I'll resort black to black shields only.

I've already given named monsters the ability to open doors (after they've been placed in the board, of course), which isn't always an availability to them, so the white shield thing should make them feel more like a boss. After all with the given stats Ulag doesn't seem any more powerful then a Chaos Warrior, which is one of his underlings.

I like these ideas. However I feel, at some point, the one black shield blocks all should be utilized at some point...

wallydubbs wrote:I've already given named monsters the ability to open doors

Remember... in the game, it's not that monsters can't open doors. It's simply the mechanic that represent the unfolding of the story. When the Heroes enter that room, that's when they meet them. I don't appose the idea but if it was a default rule I'd probably change it to "named monsters can move through closed doors" taking them out of current play. As a Quest specific, included in the design of the specific quest "named monsters can open doors activating the room". There may be a lot of Quests that could be broken if it was a default that they could open a door.

The ESCAPE token from advanced Heroquest, which I use as an alternative to the Evil Wizard deck, does allow for monsters to move through closed doors but, on the print out it (in my signature) it just reads "away from the Hero", which is the standard variation. I couldn't figure out away to write it all in. That part was still in play testing.

Jalapenotrellis wrote:

j_dean80 wrote:Ok 1 bad battle and apparently the game is entirely “flawed”?

Was a luck of the dice, can go either way. The original game system plays out pretty well overall.

You're right. It was one bad battle and frustrating it played out that way. The guy was supposed to be a legend and died from them using treasure attack potions they saved for this purpose.
They were also planning to pass the spirit blade around if needed.

So, in your opinion, no mods are needed, it was just the crappy dice?. . .

I'd vote no mod is needed; rather, play him like the legend he was supposed to be. The throne was made to be used by the Witch Lord, so place him on it! From that vantage point he can "see" over his bodyguard to cast at Heroes while.exploiting their protection and his immune-to-all-but-the-Spirit Blade defense.

While this particular battle is lost, the same tactic can be used at the end of RotWL. He may get singed by a fire spell or two in that encounter, but that won't be enough to stop him from casting at least a few satisfying spells.

Finally, there is a rules clarification in the Barbarian Quest Pack covering the passing of objects such as the Spirit Blade: Both Heroes must be adjacent to each other while not being adjacent to a monster.That should sort them out.