Combat: A Sticky Situation?

[Markus Darwath]

Perhaps the probability of getting stuck may need further adjustment. In your first picture example, the orc would unlikely dare to pass the barbarian if that guy was wielding a weapon with diagonal attack capability because he could get stuck on the first square with a 50% probability, which would cost him his complete attack.

Also, there might be issues when guarding corners. A hero with a diagonal attack could wait 1 square behind a corner and stop an orc from moving onto the corner square with a 50% probability, which the orc would need to make his normal attack.

One could always handle it the way D&D deals with threat ranges and opportunity attacks. Basically, you can move freely within the range at which the opponent can still hit you, you just can't simply walk away from the threat without possible repercussion. Since the diagonal attacking weapons pretty much also work adjacent, there's no issue with being pinned in that square and unable to fight back. On the other hand, you -could- be prevented from moving -to- the diagonal square by an adjacent only attacker.

[MonsterMotor]

Perhaps the probability of getting stuck may need further adjustment. In your first picture example, the orc would unlikely dare to pass the barbarian if that guy was wielding a weapon with diagonal attack capability because he could get stuck on the first square with a 50% probability, which would cost him his complete attack.

Also, there might be issues when guarding corners. A hero with a diagonal attack could wait 1 square behind a corner and stop an orc from moving onto the corner square with a 50% probability, which the orc would need to make his normal attack.

One could always handle it the way D&D deals with threat ranges and opportunity attacks. Basically, you can move freely within the range at which the opponent can still hit you, you just can't simply walk away from the threat without possible repercussion. Since the diagonal attacking weapons pretty much also work adjacent, there's no issue with being pinned in that square and unable to fight back. On the other hand, you -could- be prevented from moving -to- the diagonal square by an adjacent only attacker.

Well, this would lead to the strange situation that an enemy can travel freely around a figure with diagonal attacks but can get stuck doing so if the figure has only attacks on adjacent squares.

See, such are the issues one can easily run into with these zone-of-control mechanics. A lot depends on the type of grid of the game board. D&D has none, but that brings other problems we don't have in HQ, fortunately. On hexfield boards, these mechanics can work quite well, usually, but on a square grid as in HQ this can already get tricky.

A simple possibility would be to count only directly adjacent squares as zone of control, regardless of the type of weapon. Then a 50% chance of getting stuck might even be a appropriate.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Agreed, amendment made

To move out of a square that is adjacent to an enemy you must make a dodge roll. Roll one combat die, on a roll of a skull you may move as normal, on a roll of anything else your turn ends

I accept the points made around the odds of success and whether it really should end your turn, or your movement, but I have decided to keep them as is for this basic rule, to keep it consistent with jumping (and traps that end your turn rather than your movement, although you could make that change in all areas to keep them consistent) and also because many players are using a Dash rule or similar that allows you to sacrifice your action to move further.

In my own ruleset HeroQuest Gold, I use a different mechanism for jumping (and everything that isn't combat) of roll x combat dice (4 in the case of a standard pit), and score at least 1 to succeed so I would adopt the same mechanism here for consistency.

[Vorimir]

Maybe it can be handle easier with paying double movement when leaving a square adyacent to a monster...

[Markus Darwath]

One could always handle it the way D&D deals with threat ranges and opportunity attacks. Basically, you can move freely within the range at which the opponent can still hit you, you just can't simply walk away from the threat without possible repercussion. Since the diagonal attacking weapons pretty much also work adjacent, there's no issue with being pinned in that square and unable to fight back. On the other hand, you -could- be prevented from moving -to- the diagonal square by an adjacent only attacker.

Well, this would lead to the strange situation that an enemy can travel freely around a figure with diagonal attacks but can get stuck doing so if the figure has only attacks on adjacent squares.

Yes, it would be strange, but a board game of this nature tends to be full of quirks. Personally, I just leave it alone and accept the quirkiness of wandering around freely in combat as a "boardgame thing"... mainly because changing it would have hard to predict effects on combat balance given the constricted boundaries presented on the board. If I were to house-rule a change I'd lean more toward the opportunity attack model. On the other hand.....

Maybe it can be handle easier with paying double movement when leaving a square adyacent to a monster...

The 'difficult terrain' model... simple, consistent. I would apply it to threatened squares, not purely adjacent, but it affects not only heroes attempting to leave a threatened square but also those moving through the space of an ally in combat. It's not super 'sticky', but one can get stuck in the middle of a crowded fight.

[Stig]

All great ideas!

I tested the “no moving out of combat” rule a while back and it made gameplay rather dull.

I like the dodge rule - however on a skull what’s nice is a “free hack” similar to many other game systems, where the oppo gets a free hit on the player moving out of the death zone.

I like the AHQ death zone rules and don’t consider them too complicated. The key points:

1 Death zones consist of adjacent squares that can be attacked in combat (so typically not the corner squares unless they have a long weapon or something)
2 When an enemy enters an adjacent square, the death zone disappears as they are locked in combat.
3 You can’t move through enemy death zones, if you enter a death zone, movement stops

We could now replace 3 as per above nice idea

3 To leave a square of a death zone, a shield must be rolled. On the roll of a skull, the enemy may make a “free hack”; a free attack which can be defended against normally.

NB This roll is made for EACH square, like a dodge roll in blood bowl. Unlike in BB, heroes should make the roll for each enemy. This way, running past someone in the corridor is almost impossible as it should be.

This leads to some nice strategies, such as sending in the tank to “occupy” a monster, thereby removing its death zone, allowing other heroes to pass.

In the above examples:

Scenario 1, the orc would make three dodge rolls moving past the barbarian, potentially suffering three free hacks, a very risky manoeuvre.

Scenario 2, same principle, but only two dodge rolls.

Scenario 3 The Orc should make a roll for each hero, potentially suffering three free hacks to move out. A risky option.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

The issue with the double movement idea is that it doesn't actually fix the problem in most of the scenarios in which it occurs, so it is at best a partial mitigation. The free attack suffers from the opposite issue, in that it isn't needed to fix the issue, it is an interesting idea and potentially would make a good homebrew rule, although some may consider losing your action and putting yourself in a situation in which you are almost guaranteed to be attacked on your enemies next turn anyway, is enough of a penalty without giving away a free attack on top of that!

I think that the latest version of the dodge rule hits that sweet spot by resolving the original issue, without adding too much complexity.

[Markus Darwath]

The issue with the double movement idea is that it doesn't actually fix the problem in most of the scenarios in which it occurs, so it is at best a partial mitigation.

It certainly would have a major effect in the scenario you first presented, as the gargoyle moved out of 3 threatened squares in one move, which would expend its entire 6 movement, presumably before it could get in reach of the wizard in the hall. In fact, if there were any empty squares between the combatants it would not have been able to pass through it's ally's space at all, because entering and leaving that square would take a total of 3 movement, where it would have already used 4 of its 6 by leaving the barbarian and passing the elf, and since you can't end a move in an occupied square it would be unable to enter that space without sufficient movement to then exit.

Would it make a big difference in all scenarios? No. But again, with such tight spaces on the board any alteration of combat movement rules is going to have an outsize effect on overall combat balance. We have to be careful as to how that effect affects playability.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I wasn't claiming that it wouldn't have an effect in any scenario, just that in many scenarios like scenario 2 above, as an example, even with this rule in place it wouldn't resolve the issue, the Orc could still move out of combat with the Barbarian without risk and move to and attack the Wizard, he would have to sacrifice a square of movement, but has excess anyway and wouldn't need his last 2 squares of movement so sacrificing one of them isn't a penalty or a risk. This would mean we would be adding complexity in the form of a new rule (not a complex one granted, but an extra rule is more complex than not adding an extra rule) and in many scenarios not getting any benefit in return.

However the new dodge rule in this situation, scenario 2, would force a choice, I can attack the heavily armoured Barbarian or choose to dodge and try to reach the soft target of the Wizard but to do so I risk a 50-50 chance of failing the roll, ending my turn, losing my attack opportunity entirely for this turn, and probably getting clouted by the Barbarian on his next turn, perhaps I'm better off staying put and using my attack against the Barbarian...or not...more choices makes for improved gameplay

This could also make Veil of Mist a little more useful as you wouldn't need to dodge under the influence of that spell...

I can also see it adding tension for a low BP hero in combat, do I stay and fight or dodge and go...(and now I have The Clash as an earworm)

I'll do some playtesting using the simplest variant of the proposed rule as see how it goes:

If you are the only hero on a square adjacent to a monster, or the only monster on a square adjacent to a hero, then you cannot move, neither can you allow a friendly figure to move through your square.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Much playtesting later…

There is always a risk when considering house rules, that whilst the new rule might achieve what you wanted it to achieve, it might also have several unintended consequences that introduce new issues or break other things. Whilst play testing this rule however it seems to be one of the rare occasions where the unintended consequences might have a positive effect…

Within HQ (all editions) there is a conflict when, in order to prevent characters from bypassing your defensive minions and killing your spell caster before he had a chance to use his missile attack spells, you need to form a defensive wall of monsters, however the defensive wall of monsters blocks your spell casters line of sight rendering his missile attack spells unusable.

(This is also true for monsters with missile attack abilities and the other way around from the point of view of the adventurers and their Wizard and/or characters with missile attack capability).

Image 1 Double Monster Wall.png

This is conflict is side-stepped under the classic edition, both 1st and 2nd editions, by the inclusion of a rule that states that “all figures in the same room are visible” (in terms of placement and missile attacks), however that rule also introduces the odd situation where a character cannot target a second monster behind the first monster in a line where they are in a passage (which might be a perfectly sensible approach), but the exact same set up if lifted and shifted into a room, allows the same character to target the second monster behind the first monster in a line, which feels inconsistent.

The remake (1990 & I think 2021), dropped that “all figures in the same room are visible” (in terms of placement and missile attacks) rule, which then lead to complaints that doing so had “nerfed the Wizard”, which is to say it re-instated the original problem.

The new rule being proposed here, “sticky combat” has an interesting side-effect when combined with scrapping the “all figures in the same room are visible” rule.

If you are the only hero on a square adjacent to a monster, or the only monster on a square adjacent to a hero, then you cannot move, neither can you allow a friendly figure to move through your square.

If you take a look at the image below, which is a recreation of the first image, but with a gap that allows the spell caster to have LOS, without “sticky combat” the characters would just move through the door, through the gap and slay the caster, but if you add in the “sticky combat” rule and then step through it, you will see that the behaviour has changed.

Image 2 Double Monster Wall with Gap.png