dual wielding

[SirRick]

It seems that rule of only defending once per creature only appears in the BQP as a rule clarification. I read the NA and UK rule books for the game system and its not mentioned anywhere.

So they decide to mention this after most people probably played roughly 30 quests or so to get to this point. I personally would consider defending agaisnt each attack to be the normal rule, and either ignore the "clarification" or only apply it to the Polar War Bear specifically, since its the only creature mentioned in the rule.

With that said, I now would likely allow dual wielding if someone really wanted to.

[j_dean80]

BQP:

5. Rule Clarifications

*Multiple Attacks: A Hero rolls defend dice once for each attacking monster. For example, a Hero attacked by 3 Zombies gets 3 separate defend rolls. A Hero attacked by a monster with multiple attacks (such as the Polar Warbear), however gets only 1 defend roll against that monster per turn, no matter how many of the monster's attacks are directed at the Hero.

[cornixt]

If we apply the "how realistic is it?" rule, dual wielding doesn't suddenly make you attack twice as much, and certainly not against additional opponents. It's really difficult, even for someone who is quite ambidextrous like me, so probably why it wasn't a particularly common technique with swords. It makes it harder for a single opponent to defend because there is more than one angle to defend against, and offers a little defense in return on a par with a buckler. So using that basis I would increase the combat dice a little and add one to the defend dice, but I wouldn't allow an additional attack.

[mitchiemasha]

BQP:

5. Rule Clarifications

*Multiple Attacks: A Hero rolls defend dice once for each attacking monster. For example, a Hero attacked by 3 Zombies gets 3 separate defend rolls. A Hero attacked by a monster with multiple attacks (such as the Polar Warbear), however gets only 1 defend roll against that monster per turn, no matter how many of the monster's attacks are directed at the Hero.

That's the one, thank you.

Isn't this the first time we meet multiple attack monsters???

If we look at the ruling... It specifically mentions 'A Hero rolls defence' nothing about it being the other way round, such as Heroic Brew and Orcs Bane. For those of us who don't like to mess the original too much, there's no reason to believe we are discarding this rule in the case for Dual Wield. For me this was introduced for the WARBEAR, a unique feature to it, and, any other multiple attack monster that might get introduced at a later date. Nothing to do with an attacking Hero.

My other question would be... Could the wording allow for the defence roll to work against both attacks, any left over shields from the first attack stand in the second?

Also, it was a US only expansion. They always did feel a little outside the HeroQuest, Warhammer kind of world. Us UK players can completely ignore the ruling either way it was intended.

[mitchiemasha]

If we apply the "how realistic is it?" rule, dual wielding doesn't suddenly make you attack twice as much, and certainly not against additional opponents. It's really difficult, even for someone who is quite ambidextrous like me, so probably why it wasn't a particularly common technique with swords. It makes it harder for a single opponent to defend because there is more than one angle to defend against, and offers a little defense in return on a par with a buckler. So using that basis I would increase the combat dice a little and add one to the defend dice, but I wouldn't allow an additional attack.

The problem there is... It plays exactly the same as holding a Broadsword and a Shield. If it doesn't introduce anything new or variety to the game, it's pointless introducing it as a mechanic. It's simply extra fluff for no reason. No change to advantage/disadvantage balance to the Hero. Having the 2 weak attacks instead of a powerful attack and a shield is a huge change to how one might quest.

As for realism... It's meant to represent a wild furious all swords swinging, storm into a room, slicing off a few limbs on the way... Split attack. Not a focused dual like normal, why it remains such a weak attack. If one wanted that realism, we could make it a choice 4Ad6 (OP for price) 3Ad6 on 1 or 2Ad6 split. However, I like to nerf the attack combined and it's getting complex, it's much simpler (very HQ) to write the rule as 2 attacks.

Defending with a sword in your other hand isn't comparable to the defence of holding a shield. We could make it a forced reroll of a monsters successful hit, which isn't as strong as an extra Dd6. But now we're getting way too complex for 1 item, this would be a much better mechanic for the Buckler.

[Maurice76]

Why would it be so difficult? It's much easier to just capture it in a few rules than to deal with all sorts of exceptions. How about this:

1). A Hero may dual wield, using an off-hand weapon of at least 1 attack die less than the main-hand weapon, but a Hero will not be able to equip a Shield when he does this;
2). A dual wielding Hero may opt to use his off-hand weapon to attack during his own turn, or use it defensively against melee attacks during the next turn of the EW, but not both;
2a). When using the off-hand weapon in an attack, the Hero may reroll any and rolled for the main-hand weapon, up to the number of dice of the off-hand weapon;
2b). When using the off-hand weapon in defense, the Monster attacking the Hero must reroll any number of , up to the number of the dice of the off-hand weapon;

You don't need anything else, right? Keep in mind that wielding an off-hand weapon means the Hero cannot wield a Shield at the same time and therefore his defense roll also has fewer to roll.

[mitchiemasha]

I just think this would be a lot simpler.

Short Sword

[Image]

Attack: 2Cd6
Cost: 150 gold
Body: 5+

Wield 2 Short Swords and you can attack twice
in your turn before and/or after movement

Weapon

With a nice dual wield symbol in the top corner, representing 2 takes up both hands (preventing the use of a shield).
Note: Body 5+ is my version of 'May not be used by the Wizard' due to my armoury having weapons that weaker weapon users can't use and other non wizard character types that can't use weapons.

An 'in your turn, opponents turn' choice could work "off-hand weapon to attack during his own turn, or use it defensively against melee attacks during the next turn" but how would you go about introducing the 2 weak attacks playstyle variable to the game? I'd prefer your quote as a different weapon. Having 2 weak attacks has it's obvious advantages, disadvantages balance, it would be a shame not to represent it. The horde slayer class, not very strong but super fast. The choice to Dual Wield in my opinion perfectly represents this option.

[mitchiemasha]

This 'off hand/on hand, attack or defence' choice would be a good idea as a completely new character trait. I'd need to think what it would fit. For a weapon, the mechanic needs to be 20 words or less. If it can't fit on the card or as a nice note/symbol next to the item in the armoury, it's too complex.

[Maurice76]

You are using it as a special feature of the weapon in question, in this case the Short Sword.

I was using it as a general rule, to be used in the rulebook, for any one-handed weapon.

It could also open the way for a special feature or perk for the Barbarian, in which he can wield two weapons of equal number of dice, due to his overall strength.

[Showdown35]

Might as well throw my dual wielding rules into the ring:

A Hero may equip any one-handed weapon in the dominant hand for a normal Attck, and any one-handed light weight weapon is the off-hand, for a BONUS Attack with a -1 CD penalty.

I gave all weapons a weight, so a Short Sword, Hand Axe, or Hammer are the only weapons that can be used off-hand. So dual wielding forfeits the use of a stronger two handed weapon or defense of a shield for a bonus attack of a single Combat Die, which can be directed at a different target (giving the potential to take out two Monsters in one turn.

I have had success with the rule like this as it's not too heavily favored one way or the other. Currently, only one of the 4 Heros chooses to dual wield.

I also have an experience system in which Heros can gain traits, and one of the highest level traits allow both hands to be dominant, which could be a little (ok, a lot) overpowered, but a hero has to survive many quests to get to that level.