AHQ rules questions

[b_0]

The idea of lunging seems relevant. It seems possible that someone diagonally out of reach could stumble forward and lose the bonus of their distance during a fumble. But it might seem less likely for a diagonal attacker to be endangered by a fumble than an orthogonal attacker. Perhaps a solution might be to roll a dice to see if the diagonal fumble results in a stumble within range of the free attack. Perhaps the free attack could be made by another adjacent enemy within reach?

[RECIVS]

If you want normal-reach hand-to-hand weapons to counterattack diagonally in your games for some powerful reason that justifies it in your opinion—such as the doorway bottleneck—then knock yourself out. Call it lunging or whatever; it's your game.

[Thanquol]

RECIVS, I've read your posts on the previous page. Let's clarify.

The issue is about how Fumble mechanics interact with weapon reach – not bottlenecks, not terrain, and certainly not flanking abstractions. You've now confirmed that the edge case is exploitable. That's the paradox. Whether it's common or not is irrelevant – it exists, and it breaks mechanical integrity.

You've tried to reframe the thread around bottlenecks and facing mechanics, but that's not the topic. The paradox arises when a normal-reach weapon, which can't normally strike diagonally, is allowed to counter-attack a diagonal Fumble – while a longer-reach weapon, which can strike diagonally, is not granted the same response. That's inconsistent. That's the point.

Homebrew flanking and death zone mechanics don't resolve this – they obscure it. Rebranding facing as tactical nuance doesn't address the rule break. It just adds fog.

I won't be repeating this. The paradox stands.

[RECIVS]

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say, mate.

I just happen to have a broader view of things that allows me to tell what the actual problem is in the situation you described. You think that what I say doesn't apply here, which is not helping the discussion at all. I hope you realize it someday. I would have killed for this info a decade ago, by the way.

Instead of justifying the necessity for the change you propose and addressing my questions about it—as someone genuinely looking for a solution would—you seem more focused on dismissing my points based on a misrepresentation of my position. I guess we're having troll brew again after all.

The paradox stands indeed: You're treating a game mechanic that works as it's supposed to as an issue; it's not. Normal-reach hand-to-hand weapons are not supposed to counterattack diagonally in any situation. I'm afraid your "edge" case is very rare and irrelevant to gameplay, and it doesn't justify the change in any way. Your "issue" only becomes a problem in the doorway bottleneck, but you don't want to even discuss the possibility, which I find quite weird, really.

As I said, if you want to implement your tweaks in your games, you can knock yourself out. Whether they're warranted or beneficial to gameplay is an entirely different discussion that you don't seem to care much about.

[Neuralstasis]

Once again the original rules do not specify clearly that a free attack from a fumble can reach diagonal targets without a "reach" weapon. We are left at the mercy of our own interpretation of the rules. To claim either way is definitely correct is impossible as the original authors are long out of the conversation and no official rulings will ever appear. So chill people, no one is forcing you to play this rule a particular way and those who choose to play it differently are free to do so. Remember that everything other than the Original AHQ rules, Terror in the Dark and the various White Dwarf articles is homebrew. We modern day Advanced Heroquesters swim in a sea of homebrew rules.

My thoughts on the subject:

Playing that they cannot attack does make reach weapons significantly better. A smart player will always move to a diagonal square to attack because they know that they are safe from their own fumbles. But remember, that according to the original AHQ rules, the only "reach" weapons are the spear and the halberd. The double-handed sword and axe are only "reach" weapons in the variants. So perhaps this was intended as a way of improving the two existing "reach" weapons (spear and halberd) to balance them against the more damaging double-handed sword and axe weapons? I can understand how you might play this way.

Playing this without a fix to the single-square doorway issue that plagues original AHQ, does makes fighting in doorway bottlenecks even more effective, which does in turn make the combat even more boring. If we want to strictly stick to the rules then that is the result.

Playing that they can attack is also understandable to me. It's no great logic jump to see how a clumsy lunge could result in an opponent getting an opportunity strike on the attacker. It does diminish the power of "reach" weapons somewhat, but this a probably a good thing if you are playing any of the variants that feature more "reach" weapons.

If I had to commit to answer based purely on reading the rules, then I think that non-"reach" weapons cannot attack diagonally, even against fumbles.

However, if I had to commit based on my play experience and how I like for my combat to go, then I would choose they can attack against fumbles.

[RECIVS]

Chill is my second name.

The rules do specify very clearly what weapons can reach diagonally in AHQ. We definitely know that, and we can tell in every case. It's not impossible, far from it. It's common sense even. I agree that the rules may be obscure in some spots but not about this.

The real question here is whether the proposed exception to the rule is justified or not—and whether the actual problem lies elsewhere. Is that off-topic? Is it too much to ask?

Playing this without a fix to the single-square doorway issue that plagues original AHQ, does makes fighting in doorway bottlenecks even more effective, which does in turn make the combat even more boring. If we want to strictly stick to the rules then that is the result.

Double-square doorways too, as they don't solve the problem. What you say is pretty obvious—and it has been for decades—but some people seem to have trouble coming to terms with it.

However, if I had to commit based on my play experience and how I like for my combat to go, then I would choose they can attack against fumbles.

Using the doorway bottleneck, right?

[RECIVS]

I don't expect or need a resolution, really. In the end, I believe the underlying fact here is that nostalgia is a hell of a drug that doesn't do AHQ any favor—quite the contrary, actually. It's a case of misplaced nostalgia anyway. As I've said in other threads, my approach is a call for objectivity.

[Thanquol]

Hey b_0, I liked your take on the diagonal fumble. You were already circling the right rhythm back in late 2023, and it's good to see that thread still humming. You wrote the following:

The idea of lunging seems relevant. It seems possible that someone diagonally out of reach could stumble forward and lose the bonus of their distance during a fumble. But it might seem less likely for a diagonal attacker to be endangered by a fumble than an orthogonal attacker. Perhaps a solution might be to roll a dice to see if the diagonal fumble results in a stumble within range of the free attack. Perhaps the free attack could be made by another adjacent enemy within reach?

I think you're right that the diagonal angle feels less exposed – but the paradox still holds. The danger of the fumble isn't just about spatial reach – it's about the moment of exposure. The stumble brings the attacker just close enough to be punished, even if the geometry feels off.

I offered a simple rhythm rule earlier to help clarify that:

"On a fumble, the opponent may make a Free Attack regardless of hand-to-hand weapon reach, as long as they are adjacent."

It's not a fix in the overhaul sense – just a minimal clean house rule to preserve clarity and rhythm.

Glad you're still exploring it. Divergence without collapse is always welcome.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, perfect plan! Diagonal squares are clearly enchanted – no danger, no reach, no stumble! The attacker lunges, but the geometry protects them, yes-yes! Perhaps we should all stand at polite angles and declare immunity! A triumph of positioning over peril! Warpstone for the clever ones! /Sarcasm

[Thanquol]

Neuralstasis, I appreciated your post – it's clear you've been thinking through both the written rules and the rhythm of play. You wrote in your post:

[...] Playing that they can attack is also understandable to me. It's no great logic jump to see how a clumsy lunge could result in an opponent getting an opportunity strike on the attacker. ...

That's the heart of it. The paradox lives in that moment – the stumble, the exposure, the rhythm shift. It's not about reach or bottlenecks – it's about vulnerability. The stumble brings the attacker just close enough to be punished, though the positioning might suggest safety.

I offered a simple rhythm rule earlier that helps keep this clean:

[...]
"On a fumble, the opponent may make a Free Attack regardless of hand-to-hand weapon reach, as long as they are adjacent."

[Source]

It's not a rewrite – just a minimal rhythm rule to preserve clarity and keep the thread clean.

Glad you're exploring it. The thread's stronger for it.

Sarcasm: Of course-of course! Doorways are sacred, yes! Let us queue in single file, swinging halberds with perfect reach-reach! No stumble, no paradox, just clean combat and orderly bottlenecks! And if anyone fumbles, we shall consult the ancient scrolls and wait for the moon to whisper clarity! /Sarcasm