Bows & Crossbows question

[burglekutt]

sorry to break it to you, but there was no reloading mechanic or rules in the original nor the rerelease.

Son of a...I've gotten so used to playing new ppl every couple years that I honestly haven't seen the Crossbow used in probably 10yrs! Lol oh man.

Good lord though that makes the Crossbow WAY more awesome/ devastating than I thought & no wonder we're all in agreement it can't attack any of the 8 squares around it & needs to suffer an "exchange time" penalty for switching to close combat.

The crossbow is not problematic for me until I start adding things like a short bow longbow or light crossbow, that's when the numbers get scary.

Personally I don't see the need to introduce a "reload" mechanism but if I did I would probably do it in an abstract fashion like "You may not move and shoot with the crossbow in the same turn."

Dude, I'm dropping my reload time immediately! I never liked it and it confused the hell out of me.

Now I just got to rethink how I'll implement these other weapons so they don't bump heads with the crossbow.

I also like this "repeator crossbow " you and others have mentioned. It's basically the crossbow from "Lady Hawk" if I'm correct.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

But for some reason, people love to put new limitations on the crossbow. No offense if you do, I just find it a bit amusing.

The only change I make is getting rid of the diagonal ability. To me those 8 squares that surround you can't be hit (I think the Japanese edition did it best). Is that more realistic? Not in the slightest, but neither is saying it can't hit adjacent squares.

I suspect that the "some reason" is game balance, the same reason that I imagine the original designers placed the "not against orthogonally adjacent targets" limitation, and the same reason that I think you put a new limitation on the crossbow yourself "not against diagonally adjacent targets" - which incidentally I agree with - without these limitations the crossbow would become, pretty much the 'ultimate' weapon and render all the others pointless (with the possible exception of the battle axe).

My remaining question on the crossbow is, having extended the existing "not against orthogonally adjacent targets" limitation to include "not against diagonally adjacent targets", is that sufficient to make the Crossbow balanced?

The piece outstanding in my mind for debate is around introducing or not introducing a "cannot use with a shield" limitation particularly when you consider introducing short bows / bows / longbows could/would/should these have the same limit or lack of around shields as the crossbow (but no need to debate that here there is a crossbow shield thread already)?

2) Can hit just about anything. In the EU edition you don't even have to really AIM. Any monster in the same room with you is visible to be hit. In a corridor you have to trace an invisible line, yes. In the NA edition you are always tracing invisible lines but it doesn't have to follow the rules of Chess to hit!

Minor point on this one but there is a distinction at least in the EU edition (and possibly NA), implied but not stated as usual, between what you can see and what you can target with a missile weapon so this statement may not be entirely accurate.

6) Can hit stuff you didn't even think of. Yes, it is explicitly limited in that you can't hit an "adjacent" square. But as many have pointed out over the years (and Avalon Hill even accepted when asked about it on twitter) it "doesn't say" you can't hit the four close ("orthogonally adjacent") squares. So many interpret that to mean you CAN making it even more useful. The Japanese version excludes this however but most don't seem to care what the Japanese edition says.

To be clear I think the original restriction DOES say that you can't hit the four close ("orthogonally adjacent") squares, I think you may be thinking of the four diagonally adjacent squares.

And yes, if you get a strength bonus from a potion or spell, that applies to your ranged weaponry as well. Why wouldn't it?

Interesting, I never played it that way, although that is more based on other similar games whether strength plays a part in hand-to-hand weapon use, NOT missile weapon use (which is based on the strength of the weapon) and on logic, in that it doesn't matter how hard you pull on a crossbow string, the power in the shot remains the same. However I do see your point in that the game states 'next time you attack' and attack could be read to include hand-to-hand and missile attacks, but it is difficult to work out the correct interpretation as sometimes the rules use the term 'attack' to cover both missile and hand-to-hand but sometimes to refer to only one or the other and NOT both...more thought required.

[Kurgan]

Perhaps a bigger question is "what is balance" when it comes to HeroQuest? Balance between Zargon vs. the Heroes team? Individual heroes vs. individual monsters?

Individual monsters tend to be pretty weak. They could be boosted by letting them have the same odds for defense as heroes and an equivalent amount of body points. Or you could reduce the heroes to 1-3 BP and make them defend on black shields. That would increase the difficulty! Or give every monster the ability to open a door (and activate the room). Watch the fireworks! If the goal is to make Total Party Kills more likely than not...

Or is "balance" more the sense that the four heroes working together have a reasonable chance (but not guaranteed chance, like say if they get terrible dice rolls or make stupid reckless decisions) to win a given quest.

To me simply nerfing the Crossbow isn't going to bring that. Depending upon someone's goal, it involves re-tooling a large part of the armory, if not the combat system itself. To me though playing the Crossbow the way Avalon Hill "intends" makes the Longsword not worth much. Does there have to be "balance" between weapons? No. I have no problem with the fact that the Shortsword in the NA rules is objectively weaker than the broadsword... in compensation its cheaper (and really not needed to buy unless that's all you can afford since two heroes start with it). But if the Crossbow is going to be that useful it should cost more or the Longsword cost less, at the very least.

I've always treated potions as being magical. They magically increase your attack strength/defense or health I suppose but it's across the board. In other words, they don't just increase your bicep strength. You could imagine they give extra punch to your projectiles or make them guided to more likely vital areas, doing more damage. The final result is a generic buff. So no, I'm not saying you "pull the bowstring tighter" with the potion and that's why it makes your crossbow stronger. All it takes is a little imagination to make your predetermined result make "logical" sense.

We can all go back and say "well they should have done X or Y" or "I prefer the game with A or B rather than C" but the cards don't say it doesn't apply to ranged attacks, so I don't NOT apply it. I don't feel obligated to make HeroQuest like another game, unless I prefer how that game does it. But the uniqueness of HeroQuest draws people to it because it's not the same as all other games too, let's not forget that. The point was to give you an introduction to tabletop fantasy games (not necessarily provide a full RPG experience) and give you the theme and fun of putting you into your favorite fantasy epic, whether it be Lord of the Rings, Warhammer Fantasy, Warcraft or something similar, in a simple setup that's easy for 9 & 10 year olds to grasp.

Another thing people could do is just make it so that only the Wizard can use the Crossbow. Imagine how that would change the dynamics. But instead for some reason it's always nerf the crossbow...

That said, when introducing new homebrew weapons, like a shortbow, long bow, horse bow, war bow or whatever you want, and wanting to make it a two handed weapon that prevents use of the Shield (that assumes you're keeping the limitations on the shield to begin with), has limited arrows, bowstring randomly breaks, go for it. Though to me this makes it seem like you (not you personally, the one implementing such a rule) just don't want heroes to use them often. To me a weapon that is prone to failure or whatever should have some other concession like a low price. Otherwise who is going to want to spend their gold on it when they can get something more reliable? So I'm not against tweaking the entire system to make the new thing fit, far from it. Just something to consider. Maybe when it comes to "weapon balance" that is more what we're talking about, whether something will sound like a tool that no player will want to buy vs. other stuff that is available. Even so you can make those things available as freebies in a quest to try to get them to like something, I suppose. Give it a test run...

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Or is "balance" more the sense that the four heroes working together have a reasonable chance (but not guaranteed chance, like say if they get terrible dice rolls or make stupid reckless decisions) to win a given quest.

In general, probably something like the above, but in the context of this discussion, it was around balancing "Bows" be they short, long, crossed, repeater or any other variants.

The official game includes Short bows (#From Against the Ogre Horde: The Carrion Halls - "These two Goblins are both armed with short bows. They may each make ranged attacks with 2 attack dice") and Crossbows, but as no Equipment Card is provided for the Short Bow, we have limited information and are missing the cost and other details such as whether it could be combined with a shield and/or could target adjacent and/or diagonal squares and discussions around filling in those blanks naturally lead to comparisons with the Crossbow, the only missile weapon that we have complete information for in the game. The question of balance in this context was a reference to balancing the "properties" and cost of the Short bow with the Crossbow (and other missile weapons).

We can all go back and say "well they should have done X or Y" or "I prefer the game with A or B rather than C" but the cards don't say it doesn't apply to ranged attacks, so I don't.

The Crossbow card doesn't say that you cannot attack diagonally adjacent squares, but you don't.

[burglekutt]

Could you please list what missile weapons you've invented and the penalties for switching them with other weapons?

Here's what I've found on the Forum so far:
1# minus -1d6 to movement.
2# minus -1Attack your next turn.
3# minus -2Attack your next turn.
4# minus -1Defense your next turn.
5# minus -2Defense your next turn.
#6 minus -1Attack & Defense next turn.
7# or a combination of such.

Have any of you settled on a penalty to these missile weapons uses that we can agree on when it comes to switching to melee weapons? Or switching out any weapon for that matter.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I haven't felt the need to introduce such penalties but the following may help feed the conversation.

#34 No explicit rule around Switching Weapons

Discussion link: Carrying and changing equipment during a quest

Additional material:

switching between bow and sword

Proposed solution:

You select your weapon as an integral part of your attack action, that is you attack a specific character with a specific weapon which includes equipping yourself with that weapon. You cannot change weapons outside of that.

Needs to be reworded

[HispaZargon]

About the use of Crossbow to target inmmediate diagonal squares or not, I invite you reading my thoughts in this new post.

Maybe this could give another idea of how to nerf the Crossbow in comparison to the Longsword, without violating the rules but allowing the inmediate diagonal attacks (but only in some circumstances I explain there).

[Kurgan]

I like the "whatever weapon/shield you choose to use, you are still holding that next turn" idea from HispaZargon (and at least one other person, Karningul?). On your next turn (before attacking) you decide to switch to something else. Always a free action. So if you weren't holding the shield and you get attacked before your next turn, then you're not defending with it, simple.

Basically my other projectile weapons are the sling (very cheap, wizard can use) which I treat as a weaker version of the crossbow, but I did decide to make the shortbow (cheaper/weaker than crossbow) and longbow (stronger, more expensive) "two handed" (can't combine with shield).

I guess I have introduced firearms into my HeroQuest, but they're just proxies for some of the magic spells in my De-Magicified mod. Very powerful but limited use.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I like the "whatever weapon/shield you choose to use, you are still holding that next turn" idea from HispaZargon (and at least one other person, Karningul?). On your next turn (before attacking) you decide to switch to something else. Always a free action. So if you weren't holding the shield and you get attacked before your next turn, then you're not defending with it, simple.

Basically my other projectile weapons are the sling (very cheap, wizard can use) which I treat as a weaker version of the crossbow, but I did decide to make the shortbow (cheaper/weaker than crossbow) and longbow (stronger, more expensive) "two handed" (can't combine with shield).

I guess I have introduced firearms into my HeroQuest, but they're just proxies for some of the magic spells in my De-Magicified mod. Very powerful but limited use.

Whilst I appreciate that it is difficult to keep track of a conversation across various different threads but i think that we may have been reaching some form of consensus with:

You select your weapon as an integral part of your attack action, that is you attack a specific character with a specific weapon which includes equipping yourself with that weapon. You cannot change weapons outside of that.

So no "switching weapons is a free action" because "free actions" like looking and opening doors can be done any number of times on your turn. You switch your weapon as part of your attack action, and keep that selection until the next time you switch your weapon as part of your attack action.

[Kurgan]

How about we only care about keeping track of switching if they're switching to/from the Shield/Battleaxe/Staff, and if there are ice gremlins in the quest... ?