Plate Armour

[Tott]

Would a simple thing such as a maximum movement equal to your starting amout of body points work?

No, because then the dwarf would be faster than the elf and that doesn't seem right.

Dwarfs are natural sprinters, very fast over short distances!

[Goblin-King]

A strong dwarf in heavy armor is faster than an elf in heavy armor? Seems right to me!?
The elf is not even supposed to wear heavy armor in the first place anyway (in my opinion)

[Ethica]

Ah, I was thinking about stating movement not movement with armour. So infact yes, that does seem to work.

Sorry Templar

[cynthialee]

one of the problems with fixed movement is that the players would never be able to catch up to a pack of goblins, even with diced movement for hereos against the fast fixed movement rate of the goblin they can be difficult to catch (goblin archers anyone?)

[Goblin-King]

one of the problems with fixed movement is that the players would never be able to catch up to a pack of goblins, even with diced movement for hereos against the fast fixed movement rate of the goblin they can be difficult to catch (goblin archers anyone?)

Well, in plate mail as described in the actual game you wouldn't be able to catch goblins anyway!

Funk!-      <---x    <---x     <---x     pew pew 

[cynthialee]

true that
I have never had anyone actually use the plate armor. The movement penalty was not worth it to the players.
Maybe 2D6 -2 for the Barbarian, -3 for the Elf, and -4 for the Dwarf. Minimum of 2 points of movement.

[torilen]

I just love the sound effects goblin. That's great.

[Fullork345]

We also never had problems with this, our homebrew (don't think we knew we made it up) is if you attacked with it you defend with it.

I always thought that was how it was? If you had a battleaxe, a longsword, and a shield, and you attacked with the longsword, you could take the extra armor bonus for the shield when you were attacked. If you used the battleaxe, you then can't take advantage of the shield when your next attacked.

[Daedalus]

You are right. Switching between weapons isn't permitted between player turns--it must be done on a Hero's next turn. Anyone doing so is cheezing the rules. The Armory descriptions of the Battle Axe states, "You may not use a shield when using this weapon." The Shield description similarly states, "May not be used with the Battle Axe or the Staff." Combine these restrictions with the rules under Action 1--Attack which state, "Important: You may only attack with one weapon at a time." Attempting to switch between a Battle Axe attack on the Hero's turn and a Broadsword and Shield defense on the following Zargon's turn is contradictory to the nature of these rules.

Though it isn't stated in the rules specifically, Hero Quest treats Hero turns and the Zargon turn as joined together in respect to combat effects, such as using a particular weapon. This principle is evidenced elswhere when a spell is broken on a future turn, as stated on certain spell cards such as Sleep. The chance to break the spell on a future turn must only be rolled for on the spellcaster's future turn, not each future turn of every Hero (and Zargon). Otherwise, if the combat effect of breaking a spell is allowed on these other four turns, then it is likely all spells will be broken by the time the spellcaster's turn comes up again. Giving four additional chances to break a spell pretty much obviates the need for the future turn wording.

[Fullork345]

You are right. Switching between weapons isn't permitted between player turns--it must be done on a Hero's next turn. Anyone doing so is cheezing the rules. The Armory descriptions of the Battle Axe states, "You may not use a shield when using this weapon." The Shield description similarly states, "May not be used with the Battle Axe or the Staff." Combine these restrictions with the rules under Action 1--Attack which state, "Important: You may only attack with one weapon at a time." Attempting to switch between a Battle Axe attack on the Hero's turn and a Broadsword and Shield defense on the following Zargon's turn is contradictory to the nature of these rules.

Though it isn't stated in the rules specifically, Hero Quest treats Hero turns and the Zargon turn as joined together in respect to combat effects, such as using a particular weapon. This principle is evidenced elswhere when a spell is broken on a future turn, as stated on certain spell cards such as Sleep. The chance to break the spell on a future turn must only be rolled for on the spellcaster's future turn, not each future turn of every Hero (and Zargon). Otherwise, if the combat effect of breaking a spell is allowed on these other four turns, then it is likely all spells will be broken by the time the spellcaster's turn comes up again. Giving four additional chances to break a spell pretty much obviates the need for the future turn wording.

We always played it as zargons turn the break was attempted.