Quest 6 - all gold stolen

[drathe]

We don't allow a crossbow to target any of the 8 squares surrounding a hero.

[Goblin-King]

The mercenary argument is actually very convincing.

We have played that you can't target the 4 squares. The logic being that those are the ones you are in melee distance in.

[Sjeng]

The mercenary argument is actually very convincing.

We have played that you can't target the 4 squares. The logic being that those are the ones you are in melee distance in.

Yes, but with a halberd or longsword you can attack diagonally, and those are also melee weapons. So to me the 8 spots around you are all melee, but the diagonal ones require a longer weapon.
If there's a square between you and the monsters, then it's ranged, either hor/vert/diag.

[Fullork345]

Yes, but with a halberd or longsword you can attack diagonally, and those are also melee weapons. So to me the 8 spots around you are all melee, but the diagonal ones require a longer weapon.
If there's a square between you and the monsters, then it's ranged, either hor/vert/diag.

That's how I feel, if there's a space between then sure take the shot, but if they are next to you you need a longsword or staff (or in the uk a spear or staff). If you had it that the crossbow can hit guys digonally that are next to them, you literally not only make the longsword not needed but you make the halbrider unhireable because the crossbowmen can do all that he can do and shoot from a distance and he's the same cost! BUt it's all preference anyway. I personally would rule against it for reasons I just stated.

[Goblin-King]

About the crossbow replacing the longsword, doesn't being diaongal count as being adjacent? I would think it does.

In my book, adjacent is the four non-diagonal squares. north, south, east, west.

While looking for something else I noticed in the US rulebook pg 13, it specifically states that adjacent means the four squares.
But I'm inclined to house rule the other way due to earlier convincing arguments.

[Fullork345]

I think it's an oversight personally, but your right, read as written it's just the 4. But I think the intention of the not adjacent is all 8. Unless your not supposed to shoot diagonally! But I doubt that's the case.

I'm going to houserule it too, it just seems dumb that the halbrider would be useless.

[Blackthorn]

The EU versions of the mercenaries that appear in The Wizards of Morcar and the Advanced Quest edition have different stats than their NA counterparts. Among the differences are that the crossbowman attacks with only two combat dice, event though the crossbow on the equipment card states three. This give the Halberder the advantage of an additional attack die. Unlike the mercenaries in the Barbarian Quest Pack, it does not reference what the Crossbowman does when facing an adjacent foe. I would assume most people would have the crossbowman switch to a melee weapon with two attack dice.

If you allow the NA crossbowman to attack diagonally as suggested by the game system rules, then the only reason to hire a Halberder is if you run out of little gray plastic crossbows.

Say, wasn't this thread about Return of the Witch Lord?

[torilen]

Blackthorn - I've come to expect any post on any thread to become something that it was never
intended to be. Just par for the course.

I must admit that, usually, even the very long-running, far-fetched tangents turn into nice discussions about
something, though.
I do find it very interesting how a topic such as money getting stolen turns into a discussion on the uses of
crossbows and halberds. Very interesting, indeed.

[Daedalus]

I think it's an oversight personally, but your right, read as written it's just the 4. But I think the intention of the not adjacent is all 8. Unless your not supposed to shoot diagonally! But I doubt that's the case.

I'm going to houserule it too, it just seems dumb that the halbrider would be useless.

A Longsword or Halberd have specific advantage in diagonal melee attack that a Crossbow is often denied, as there is indeed a case where a Crossbow isn't supposed to shoot diagonally. This case need only use the orthogonal adjacency rule on p.13 of the Instruction Booklet and the line-of-sight rule. I had responded to Thrawn about this at the top of this thread page by directing him to a link where I covered this in detail. Unfortunately, the post must be searched on that link's page, so I'm moving it here as a quote:

In my version's armory the crossbow description says...

you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you

...but makes exclusion to diagonal attacks. So for me, if my hero has a crossbow and a broadsword then he can hit any adjacent or diagonal square with 3 attack dice so a longsword is obsolete. What am I missing here?

The Longsword has a purpose, but you can't equate the diagonal attack from a Longsword with a Crossbow shot from the same diagonal space. Why? Because a careful inspection of wording disallows a Crossbow shot diagonally between 2 corners. The wording for the Crossbow from the Armory goes like this:

This long-range weapon gives you the
attack strength of 3 combat dice. You
may fire at any monster that you can
"see." However, you cannot fire at
a monster that is adjacent to you....

So you have to "see" a monster in order to fire at it.
The wording for seeing from p.15 of the N. Amer. Instruction Booklet has this to say under "SEE":

A Good Rule of Thumb: Draw an
invisible straight line between the center
of the square the spellcaster is on and
the center of the square the target is on.
If the line does not cross a wall, closed
door, Hero or monster, the target is
declared visible, even if the line just
touches a corner or wall edge. The
following diagram shows an example
of what is visible.

The key is the qualifying dependent clause "...even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge." This specifically includes the case of one corner of a Hero or monster--indicated by the article "a", but it doesn't include a line that touches two meeting corners of two Heroes or monsters. Touching just one corner or edge provides line-of-sight to the target because the square(s) opposite/across from of the blocking corner or edge are free of obstruction. Should two corners of obtructing squares meet, however, then there are no clear squares opposite to "see" through.

So a Hero is prohibited by the "see" rule from shooting through two corners, which is the case when shooting between diagonally-adjacent monsters or Heroes. The diagonal attack of a Longsword is useful because it is under no such restriction. Similarly, a Hero can't shoot a Crossbow diagonally between a door corner and the corner of an adjacent Hero. Again, the diagonal attacking ability of the Longsword allows this....

Of course, your house rule also solves the problem easily enough. Some probably find my interpretation less-than intuitive, so you're justified in houseruling a genuine need for correction.

[lucasdp]

I'm necromancing this thread (and going back to the original topic ), as my group is approaching this quest.
Background info: We have been playing RotWL as a series, but I wasn't aware of that bit in AtOH, so no extra healing potions at the start. Quests 1-4 so far, no trips to the Armory/Alchemist's Shop, apart from one side quest between 2 and 3. My heroes are pretty much "maxed-out" with an average of about 8 combat dice each.

Anyway, I know my heroes will not be happy about losing all their gold. They've realized that they're maxed-out in weapons, but they finally see the value in stocking up on potions, and they finally have enough gold to do that (when I let them visit an Alchemist's Shop again, that is ). Maybe they could get a chance to reclaim it? I am considering using something similar to the mechanic that Anderas came up with for Quest 6 of his four level questbook (viewtopic.php?f=149&t=3070), with the red Orc that attempts to run off with the gold. Maybe the gold could be in a second chest and one of the Chaos Warriors could grab it and make a break for the stairway. Thoughts?

Another issue I have with this quest is that it seems arbitrary that the Wizard and Dwarf start off together and the Elf and Barbarian must be rescued. Has anyone come up with a reason for this that I may not have thought of? In my group, the Wizard and Dwarf are sometimes running a few minutes late... Might switch it around and have the Elf and Barbarian be the rescuers instead.