Crossbow--2 handed or can use a shield?

[Parzival]

So… Nodwick, then? http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2001-01-01

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Focussing on the official rules and leaving aside any house rules for the moment, I take AH's official edicts with a pinch of salt, partly because I think their rulings are intended to apply to the 2021 remake specifically (although granted that is based on the 1990 remake), whereas I still play the classic 1989/90 edition, and partly because in my own experience, official ruling are not necessarily any better than unofficial fan made ones. There are many examples throughout the history of HQ where official updates (2nd edition over 1st edition, 1990 remake etc) are as problematic as any fan ones, either failing to fix the original issue partially or wholly and/or creating unintended consequences that were worse than the original issue!

I really do wish that AH had gone with a "living rulebook" with the 2021 remake, rather than opting to package rule updates in expansions (which they did back in the old days, but that was really through lack of other options)

That said:

Crossbow has unlimited supply of arrows. Whether wielded by a hero or crossbowman mercenary/evil crossbowman (or, theoretically, an elven mercenary of any type): It doesn't interfere with any weapons or armor, and it can hit any square you can "see" (meaning trace an unobstructed straight line from any part of your square so that it touches another character's square without intersecting the square of another character or closed door along the way), and yes it can shoot straight through tall solid furniture IF ZARGON WISHES (or if he wants it the opposite way, it can't, see the First Light rulebook). It just can't shoot through closed doors, walls, or through one character to hit another on the other side. It can't shoot the four adjacent cardinal direction squares touching the crossbow wielder, but it CAN hit the four close diagonals. And of course it can hit all the squares outward from it as long as (see the restrictions on objects in the way). It can't be wielded by the Wizard (or Warlock or Berserker).

Crossbow can be used to “hip shot” diagonally, even at close range. (The card text only says it can’t be used against “adjacent” targets, which are defined in the game as being orthogonal.

My restriction is that it can't hit those four close diagonal squares (so the ten squares surrounding the figure are prohibited for firing). Otherwise it's the same as AH's interpretation for me.

Did you mean eight squares surrounding the figure? Either way this is an interesting case. Whilst the card does state, I think in all editions, that you cannot use the crossbow against a target in an adjacent square (the wording varies), what we have here is a case of wording on a card taking precedence over the rulebook (which is fine), but when the wording varies on two cards both on which take precedence over the rulebook, but possibly not each other, then there tends to be some confusion!

The rulebook (again I think all editions but the wording varies, but I may be wrong) states:

a) You can only attack adjacent targets (orthogonally adjacent, a picture is provided for clarity but the four squares), let's for a moment refer to this as hand-to-hand attacks.

b) The crossbow card states that you cannot use it against targets on those same squares, ones that are considered "hand-to-hand attack squares", but you can use it on any others, subject to the target being visible (not having the argument about LOS again here!)

This seems straight-forward so far, hand-to-hand attacks are the four adjacent squares, missile attacks all but the four adjacent squares, mutually exclusive, distinct, clear and logical however when you then consider the Spear card (in classic) and the Longsword card (1990 remake) that extend the hand-to-hand attack zone to include the four touching diagonal squares as well as the four orthogonally adjacent squares, then it isn't clear whether this expansion of the hand-to-hand attack zone on these cards is supposed to include a corresponding expansion of the restricted area for missile attacks, if not then we now have squares that can be attacked by both missile and hand-to-hand attacks, which breaks the former exclusivity between the two.

I don't adjust the price, or add carrying capacity restrictions. Everyone in the party can buy one between quests (though a few characters can't use it).

This is correct in the 1990 remake, but as you know under the classic edition, cards limit supply, so there is only one crossbow available so that restriction is in place under that ruleset (not a house rule, just a rule)

You can pass it to an adjacent ally just like any other item.

Using which rules...is the ones that allow you to pass items from one character to another provided that they are next to each other, and it doesn't count as an action? If so then can the Dwarf shoot the Crossbow on his turn and then pass it to the Elf next to him and the Elf then shoot the same crossbow on his turn before passing it to the Barbarian who...you get the point...

To me, the issue is more that it's not spelled out how you're supposed to not combine the Battleaxe/staff with the Shield. You can't have the benefit of them both at the same time, yes, but you could read it as if you have both, you have to discard one, to have the other even in your possession. But to me the "switch at the start of your turn" (no action required) is fine and easy solution, and you don't get to switch back at the end of your turn again (or else you could always be defending with the shield and always attacking with the staff/battleaxe).I'm sure there are people who play it "as written" who just allow you to switch stuff around so the shield w/ BattleAxe/Staff thing is effectively no restriction.

As I have said previously, switching your attack weapon, in fact "selecting" your attack weapon (because "switching" implies that it matters whether your attack weapon changes, which it doesn't), takes place as part of your attack action, "I attack the orc with my battle axe", contains within it the weapon selection, and that remains in place until your next attack action when you can choose to select the same or a different weapon to attack with.

As you have stated, switching weapons costing you an action, isn't workable in many situations; you spot a monster down a passage and use your action to switch to the crossbow, but cannot now attack it, by your next turn the monster has moved adjacent to you, so now you have to use your action to switch to a hand-to-hand weapon, but again having used your action, you cannot attack. By the next turn the monster has moved out of reach, so you have to use your action to switch to the crossbow...

But equally the popular "switch at the start of your turn" (no action required) also isn't workable: I see a monster down a passage at the start of my turn so decide to switch to my crossbow, I then start moving down the passage, intended to move then shoot, but my movement reveals a monster previous hidden by a junction, that is now next to me. I can't attack it with my crossbow as it is adjacent, I can't switch weapon as I already did that at the start of my turn, so can I not attack, or do I attack as if I'm unarmed? Equally if at the start of my turn I decide to select the short sword as there are no monsters visible, but then move through a door revealing a monster that my movement doesn't reach, then I can't switch to my crossbow and shoot it because I can only switch weapons at the start of my turn?

You have to remember that in HQ unlike many similar games (AHQ for instance), the state of play, whether there are monsters on the board or not, whether you are in a "combat" or "exploration" type of scenario, can change during the course of your turn, so forcing a player to make a decision around weapon selection at the start of their turn, based on what they know at that moment, and then not letting them change it, is an unnecessary restriction that just adds complexity. You select your weapon as an integral part of your attack action!

How much time between turns does a hero need to "ready" his weapon?

The exact time taken to select and ready a weapon, including stowing any previous weapons, and aiming and shooting it in the case of a crossbow, is precisely one action. And if you have potions or special weapons that allow for two attacks then that second attack is also included in the time covered by one action.

[Parzival]

a) You can only attack adjacent targets (orthogonally adjacent, a picture is provided for clarity but the four squares), let's for a moment refer to this as hand-to-hand attacks.

b) The crossbow card states that you cannot use it against targets on those same squares, ones that are considered "hand-to-hand attack squares", but you can use it on any others, subject to the target being visible (not having the argument about LOS again here!)

This seems straight-forward so far, hand-to-hand attacks are the four adjacent squares, missile attacks all but the four adjacent squares, mutually exclusive, distinct, clear and logical however when you then consider the Spear card (in classic) and the Longsword card (1990 remake) that extend the hand-to-hand attack zone to include the four touching diagonal squares as well as the four orthogonally adjacent squares, then it isn't clear whether this expansion of the hand-to-hand attack zone on these cards is supposed to include a corresponding expansion of the restricted area for missile attacks, if not then we now have squares that can be attacked by both missile and hand-to-hand attacks, which breaks the former exclusivity between the two.

I don’t think one should assume that because the Longsword (or Spear) grants diagonal attacks as an advantage for that item means that other items can’t also have that advantage. After all, the Longsword also grants 3 dice and allows you to use a Shield. So it still has a functional difference and advantage in close quarters over the Crossbow. The mutual ability to attack along a diagonal is made up for by the allowance of the Shield for the one, and the range ability for the other.

You can pass it to an adjacent ally just like any other item.

Using which rules...is the ones that allow you to pass items from one character to another provided that they are next to each other, and it doesn't count as an action? If so then can the Dwarf shoot the Crossbow on his turn and then pass it to the Elf next to him and the Elf then shoot the same crossbow on his turn before passing it to the Barbarian who...you get the point...

I note that the 2021 rules place no restrictions on sharing items with another hero, including any requirement that the heroes be next to each other. However, the text only mentions the passing of Artifacts or potions; nothing else is mentioned.
However, in the recent First Light rulebook (2024) any item or piece of equipment may be shared, but only with adjacent heroes who are not adjacent to a monster.

So, by the 2021 rules, the heroes could do the “heroic weapon toss” so familiar from cinema and fling the crossbow Willy-Nilly around the place— which I don’t think is the intended idea.

But, grounded back down by 2024 rules, there’s no tossing, just “give me that and hold my beer. And don’t bump my shoulder.”

As for the Crossbow bucket brigade, consider the following: There will only be 4 heroes at any given time capable of using the Crossbow, and in most games only 3, as the Wizard can’t use it. Each hero must have line of sight on a target to use the Crossbow, and must be adjacent (not diagonal) to another hero to pass the Crossbow on (2021 not withstanding). So you need a situation where all three heroes stand side by side and can see a legitimate target to shoot without any of them adjacent to another monster (which prevents sharing for said adjacent hero). This situation will never happen in a corridor, so it’s restricted to a chamber with a very clear field of fire. It can happen, but it takes some good precision work.
Of course all of the users of the shared Crossbow have given up any Shield protection on the subsequent Zargon’s turn. It’s always Shoot or Shield, never both.
Realistically, one could implement a simple rule: No individual item may be used more than once in any given turn unless that’s the item’s stated power.

That prevents the use of any specific Crossbow or other weapon as a “round robin” affair. (And makes sense— it’s a Crossbow; it takes time to load that thing!)

So, yes an unfired Crossbow could be passed to an adjacent hero who could shoot it, but after it’s been fired it’s just a dead weight until after Zargon’s turn.

But equally the popular "switch at the start of your turn" (no action required) also isn't workable: I see a monster down a passage at the start of my turn so decide to switch to my crossbow, I then start moving down the passage, intended to move then shoot, but my movement reveals a monster previous hidden by a junction, that is now next to me. I can't attack it with my crossbow as it is adjacent, I can't switch weapon as I already did that at the start of my turn, so can I not attack, or do I attack as if I'm unarmed? Equally if at the start of my turn I decide to select the short sword as there are no monsters visible, but then move through a door revealing a monster that my movement doesn't reach, then I can't switch to my crossbow and shoot it because I can only switch weapons at the start of my turn?

Your description doesn’t work. If you move down a hallway to a crossway of any sort, you will see a monster before it is adjacent to you, as the monster “hiding around the corner” becomes visible when you reach its diagonal. And even if you rule that you can’t shoot diagonally (a ruling I disagree with, as previously), you can still shoot the distant target; the presence of a monster diagonal or even adjacent to you doesn’t stop you from attacking a different monster, even a distant one.
So in this case, the declaration of a switch at the start of a turn may indeed put you at an unexpected disadvantage— surprise!— but they don’t prevent you from using the weapon you selected. That it’s not the best weapon for the situation, or that you failed to anticipate the presence of another danger isn’t relevant— that’s on you as the player having made a less-than-optimum decision. Or, in the vernacular, “Thems the breaks. Suck it up.”

(But hang on, I’m not done yet…)

You have to remember that in HQ unlike many similar games (AHQ for instance), the state of play, whether there are monsters on the board or not, whether you are in a "combat" or "exploration" type of scenario, can change during the course of your turn, so forcing a player to make a decision around weapon selection at the start of their turn, based on what they know at that moment, and then not letting them change it, is an unnecessary restriction that just adds complexity. You select your weapon as an integral part of your attack action!

And I will somewhat disagree. While I don’t think the “declared item” idea is the intended rule, it’s not automatically a bad approach. Operating on uncertain knowledge is a major factor of the game— do you plunge forward into a room to attack a foe without knowing if any traps exist on your path? Do you allow it to move first instead? Do you risk searching for treasure? Do you open that door, having already used your action for the turn? Is that monster really what it appears to be? All of these are questions that arise in the game; there is no “perfect knowledge” situation. Yes, you coulda had a V8… but it’s too late now!
Again, “TtB. SIU.”

So the “declaring a switch” at the start of your turn, while not a rule of the game, could be used to add a further element of challenge. But the group would need to agree.

How much time between turns does a hero need to "ready" his weapon?

The exact time taken to select and ready a weapon, including stowing any previous weapons, and aiming and shooting it in the case of a crossbow, is precisely one action. And if you have potions or special weapons that allow for two attacks then that second attack is also included in the time covered by one action.

I agree that this is clearly the concept of the rules— everything to perform an action is covered by that action. The time required for that action is indeterminate and not fixed. And since drinking a potion is explicitly not an action, then the decision to do so is neither hampered by nor prevented by whatever choice is made for an actual action.
So “how long does it take to load a crossbow” isn’t relevant. The relevant question is “how long does it take to load, aim and fire a crossbow?” And the answer is “One action.”
Equally so, the question of “how long does it take to swap out my crossbow for my longsword and shield and attack with my longsword” is answered as “One action.” Whatever is required to carry out an action is covered by that action.
If the action is “Search for traps,” then whatever real life time would be required to scan a room or hallway for suspicious-looking elements is, nevertheless, one action.
If the action is “Search for secret doors”, the feeling around for loose bricks, hinged candlesticks, books that are actually levers… all of that is “one action”
And so rifling through every nook and cranny in the sorcerer’s second closet in a search for treasure is “one action.”
It’s a boardgame, not a simulation.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I don’t think one should assume that because the Longsword (or Spear) grants diagonal attacks as an advantage for that item means that other items can’t also have that advantage. After all, the Longsword also grants 3 dice and allows you to use a Shield. So it still has a functional difference and advantage in close quarters over the Crossbow. The mutual ability to attack along a diagonal is made up for by the allowance of the Shield for the one, and the range ability for the other.

I wasn't making that assumption, I was stating that the "exclusivity", the divide, between hand-to-hand attack weapons targeting the four squares only and missile attack weapons targeting everything but the four squares only (allowing for LOS of course) was established in the rulebook to allow for the creation of a wider variety of weapons, if missile attack weapons could also target the four hand-to-hand squares then there would be no point in buying most hand-to-hand weapons as you would just buy the Crossbow and be done with it. When you add in diagonal hand-to-hand attack weapons that extend the range of the hand-to-hand attack zone, then to maintain that "exclusivity", that divide, then perhaps you need to make a corresponding restriction to the missile attack weapon zone.

As for the Crossbow bucket brigade, consider the following: There will only be 4 heroes at any given time capable of using the Crossbow, and in most games only 3, as the Wizard can’t use it. Each hero must have line of sight on a target to use the Crossbow, and must be adjacent (not diagonal) to another hero to pass the Crossbow on (2021 not withstanding). So you need a situation where all three heroes stand side by side and can see a legitimate target to shoot without any of them adjacent to another monster (which prevents sharing for said adjacent hero). This situation will never happen in a corridor, so it’s restricted to a chamber with a very clear field of fire. It can happen, but it takes some good precision work.

Realistically, one could implement a simple rule: No individual item may be used more than once in any given turn unless that’s the item’s stated power.

That prevents the use of any specific Crossbow or other weapon as a “round robin” affair. (And makes sense— it’s a Crossbow; it takes time to load that thing!)

So, yes an unfired Crossbow could be passed to an adjacent hero who could shoot it, but after it’s been fired it’s just a dead weight until after Zargon’s turn.

I think that agreeing on a baseline, on what the official rules are, before considering any house rules, is the best way to proceed, hence my comment earlier "Focussing on the official rules and leaving aside any house rules for the moment...".

It is hard enough with all the differing official rulesets in existence for HQ, at least three before AH took charge, and even more now, to agree on the official baseline (Living Rulebook, please!)

That said, your comment around "this situation will never happen in a corridor", I don't think is correct (unless I have messed up the official rules which is quite possible!), the Dwarf could shoot the crossbow as his action at a monster, then pass the crossbow to the Barbarian located on the square behind him, the Barbarian then moves in front of the Dwarf, and shoots the same crossbow again at the same target.

Of course all of the users of the shared Crossbow have given up any Shield protection on the subsequent Zargon’s turn. It’s always Shoot or Shield, never both.

Again, I don't think that the official rules, any of them, apply a "shoot or shield" rule.

Switch at the start of your turn option

Your description doesn’t work. If you move down a hallway to a crossway of any sort, you will see a monster before it is adjacent to you, as the monster “hiding around the corner” becomes visible when you reach its diagonal. And even if you rule that you can’t shoot diagonally (a ruling I disagree with, as previously), you can still shoot the distant target; the presence of a monster diagonal or even adjacent to you doesn’t stop you from attacking a different monster, even a distant one.
So in this case, the declaration of a switch at the start of a turn may indeed put you at an unexpected disadvantage— surprise!— but they don’t prevent you from using the weapon you selected. That it’s not the best weapon for the situation, or that you failed to anticipate the presence of another danger isn’t relevant— that’s on you as the player having made a less-than-optimum decision. Or, in the vernacular, “Thems the breaks. Suck it up.”

I'm not sure that I would describe not knowing what movement dice you are going to roll and the presence and exact position of a monster round a corner that you can't see as a "failure to anticipate" more impossible to anticipate, and there is a separate discussion underway on a different topic about how exactly the visibility at corners works, but rather than repeat it here, let me simply choose better examples:

Case 1: No monsters visible, Dwarf has crossbow and battle axe and selects crossbow at the start of his turn, moves along passage to corner square, revealing a monster a couple of squares along the passage. The Dwarf has enough movement to reach the monster and attack with his battle axe (4AD) but cannot due to his previous weapon selection, so he wastes a few movement points and attacks with 3AD, sub-optimal but probably not the end of the world.

Case 2: No monsters visible, Dwarf has crossbow and battle axe and selects battle axe at the start of his turn, moves along passage to corner square, revealing a monster a couple of squares along the passage. The Dwarf doesn't have enough movement to reach the monster and attack with his battle axe (4AD), but he could have attacked with his crossbow but cannot due to his previous weapon selection, so he wastes an attack opportunity altogether.

While I don’t think the “declared item” idea is the intended rule, it’s not automatically a bad approach

Maybe not, but if we are "focussing on the official rules and leaving aside any house rules for the moment..." then what is the official rule around weapon selection/switching, which was Kurgan's question further up, if not the "select your attack weapon as part of your attack action"?

On Invisible Porters

Around the subject of invisible porters (and the related concepts of the practicality of a little shop located between dungeon levels*, and similar concepts) I think it is important to consider the following two points:

*Although in fairness what kind of dungeon builder would ever even consider a design without a gift shop near the exit!

(1) Levels

HQ like many similar games has two distinct "levels" which for the purposes of this conversation I will call the "character level" and the "player level"

+ The character level is the "in-game" imagined experience, Dwarf moving through a dimly lit dungeon, disarming traps, slaying princesses, pocketing loot and rescuing dragons and so on.

+ The player level is the "real", from the outside, a player or group of players that are people rolling wooden dice, shuffling paperwork, handling cards and moving pieces of plastic around on a board

At this point I'm aware that many people reading will be rolling their eyes at me for stating the bleeding obvious.

In order to keep things simple, HQ only considers the "character level" during a quest, within the dungeon, we join our characters at the start of each episode, as they enter the dungeon, and leave them as they exit the dungeon. Anything that happens outside of this happens at the "player level" only, it happens as an abstract concept, off-camera.

At the character level our Dwarf slays the monsters in a room, then searches the now empty room, finding gold, which he greedily stuffs into his pockets

At the player level, the Dwarf character player, accumulates treasure cards that have a gold value.

Once the quest has been completed, and our character level vanishes, and at the player level, this gold value is totalled up and is converted into an abstract concept, often called experience points (XP) in many similar games, and is added to any experience point/gold coin value carried over from the previous quest. These experience points can be used to purchase upgrades, represented in HQ by equipment cards, and/or can be saved and carried over, for future upgrades.

When, at the start of the next dungeon we re-join our Dwarf (at the character level) he isn't carrying the 500 experience point/gold coin value equivalents that have been carried over from previous quests, these are an abstract measure of accumulated experience, his pockets are empty (and at the player level, the player starts the quest with no gold-value treasure cards).

To ask how the characters manage to carry all this gold, (or whether they should be charged a money lender fee between quests, or make wills and so on) is a question that only arises out of a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that the game works. You might as well ask how Sonic can move so fast when he is carrying all those gold rings or how does Mario manage to squeeze through pipes with all those gold coins in his overall pockets?

In a similar vein, the "how do you manage to travel to the little shop to buy equipment, if the exit from one dungeon is the entrance to the next?" question falls into the same category, the character doesn't travel to the little shop to buy equipment between dungeons, the character only exists in-game within the dungeon, the player uses the gold from the quest as "experience points" to purchase upgrades "equipment cards" and when the character reappears at the start of the next dungeon he is now holding a battle axe. Simple.

(2) Carrying capacity

Under the classic edition, the principle of "cards limit supply" combined with the 14 equipment cards and 5 quest treasure cards provided, 19 in total, divided between a typical party of four adventurers works out as 4-5 each, plus 7 potion cards (not all of which were necessarily in play at once, but worst case), so about 6-7 cards each by the end of the Gathering Storm campaign. This principle meant that there was no need for any form of carrying capacity rules, which kept it simple. Under the 1990 remake, the decision was made to abandon that "cards limit supply" principle and instead use a more RPG style of managing equipment by writing it down and crossing it off on your character sheet, which is fine, however RPGs that use this method, generally combine this with some form of carrying capacity mechanism, but one was not provided with the 1990 remake, so this leaves a gap that needs to be filled in the 1990 remake with some form of house rule (or official rule if one is forthcoming), but that is an issue for players of the remake, and not players of the classic edition.

The removal of this "cards limit supply" principle also leads to a number of other areas that could have done with additional rules creating to plug the gap created, such as rules around potion stacking, consideration of the effects of potion hoarding on quest difficulty (introducing the healing potion death save in combination with a character carrying 10 healing potions, makes the EWP's task of creating a sense of impending doom through attrition pretty much impossible), how do you easily track which equipment the character is actually holding at any given moment, how do you scale difficulty or encourage co-operation and teamwork when every hero (except the Wizard) is a fully equipped one-man band with a battle axe, longsword, shield, plate armour, helmet, crossbow, tool kit...but sadly they weren't clarified (to the best of my knowledge).

[Kurgan]

Yes, BH, that's a good point, I do admit that cards limit supply of equipment in the EU editions. But I also know that that rule is done away with in the EU exclusive "Adventure Design Kit" of 1991, so it's still possible for multiple crossbows to be purchased (and used) in the 1st & 2nd editions, if Morcar allows it!
Meanwhile, the Japanese edition not only limits supply with cards, it also restricts the crossbow ONLY to the Elf...

I know we speak from different perspectives. For me personally, the "classic" edition of HeroQuest was released in the US of A in 1990. I didn't know about the other editions until at least a decade later. I may speak of the entire era of 1989-1993 as the classic era of course, and I call them that, because for people who played them back in the day, those are the classics. I have certainly learned a lot since 2002, that these editions were not just a tweak here or a name change there, but end up playing very differently, despite the vast number of similarities and common wellspring of inspiration.

So yes, when you read my posts, assume (unless I state otherwise) that I'm talking about the 1990 NA edition rules (and to an extent the remake edition based upon it but I usually specify there as well). When I read your posts, I'll assume you're talking about the 1st/2nd EU edition (or your own harmonization of the two).

I think Mike Gray's team (like AH after them) recognized the "passing the crossbow" exploit possibility early on, which is why they added the "while neither is adjacent to a monster" caveat in the 1992 expansions (and AH has repeated this in pretty much every other expansion as well). In the classic game, technically nothing stops you passing an item to another hero on your turn. Yes, in one place you could read it to say that the number of potions passed is one (if read strictly literally) but that doesn't affect this Crossbow question. I've never been in a game where anyone tried it (and I do use the "not adjacent to monster" rule, but this wouldn't stop most scenarios in which you did want to do it).

I'm sure the critique here will be that one has to decide how one handles all these "rule clarifications" that are provided either in expansions, new editions, or in social media posts (or in the companion app) outside of the particular campaign book you're playing. Are you supposed to use later rules to modify your game or is it better to just use what's written there instead? Do you let the Wizard use the Handaxe in the 2021 edition but not let him in the 2022 edition (or if you've purchased ROTDM or First Light)? Before I extensively read the 1st & 2nd EU editions I really did think that cards did not limit supply, mainly because so many online EU players talked as if they didn't (but they were just adopting the ADK rule because they liked it better). I don't see the problem either way, use what works best for you. I do like the idea that you don't need to do extensive research and buy a whole bunch of other products just to understand the game you bought, but that stuff is out there if you want to appeal to it or use it. We love our debates, but the only people that have to care are the ones at your table, and as the GM, whatever you say goes (someone doesn't like it, they can change it when it's their turn to head the game!). AH has a tougher job because they are trying to find the broadest general ruleset they can give out that most potential customers will accept (or accept to the point where they will buy then modify it later). They want it to be as easy to understand and fun to play as possible the first time, because as we know not everyone is going to put in the effort to buy it and rewrite everything... that first experience and impression is so very important to winning them over to the franchise.

PASSING ITEMS???

Not to get too bogged down in it with precise quotations, but I'm pretty sure even prior to First Light's release, the explanation in the 1990 NA & AH editions has been that ANY item can be passed from one hero to another (other than regular spells I guess; unless you're recovering them after their being stolen!) not just potions or artifacts. You'll get that impression if you read the whole booklet, rather than just a specific passage, which if viewed in isolation might give you the idea that only a few types of items can be passed. Further, the requirement that you be adjacent is specified and that it must be the turn of the one doing the passing (otherwise you'd get the impression two heroes could trade all of their gear on the spot). The later expansions merely add the "not adjacent to a monster" restriction, and reiterate the fact you can give any item. I agree FL spells this out much better, but it's not really a change.

There is another scenario however that may be an exception to this... the quest notes themselves often will say something like "X should be given to the Wizard" or "treasure should be divided between the heroes" (or similar) but for events that happen mid-quest (trading between quests is no issue). There's some ambiguity here. Were the writers intending to say that Zargon should simply encourage the heroes to share their stuff (but not enforce it)? Or is this actually meaning that magically, automatically, the item appears in the inventory of the one who is supposed to get it (since for example the Barbarian might search for Treasure and find the Wizard's cloak, and the Wizard is far off in some other area of the board, or might not even be alive in this quest!). I could say it playing out both ways, but this could be viewed as a special exception to the "have to move up to the other hero and then pass the item(s) to him when it's safe to do so." I think we just automatically handed it out when we played back in the day. Was that what was intended? But you could argue over little details like that too if you wanted!

I could picture the "crossbow bucket brigade" happening in the double corridor. Really all a hero would have to do is fire the crossbow, then move, and as he's moving past the other hero in line, he could "pass" the item" (nothing says both heroes have to stop their movement in order to pass the item, since it's a free action like opening a door or downing a potion). That hero fires, then moves past the group, giving it to another hero as he passes through their square. Those new heroes won't exist in the classic editions (unless this is from White Dwarf or something). A rare scenario, but maybe not as rare as it might appear at first glance. Using the 1992 NA/AH remake rules passing will tend to happen when there are no monsters around, that seems to be what they were going for, but doesn't prevent it happening when monsters are "far off" (at least 1 square distant).

I don't really have a problem with the "crossbow bucket brigade" scenario. If my heroes are being that clever, I'll let them do it. But then I will insist on the (homebrew) requirement that they change weapons/armor only once per turn (and on their turn). It won't really prevent them from using the tactic, but it will require them to think about what they're doing, and coordinate (which I think is one of the most fun parts of the game, seeing the heroes strategizing together).

Did you mean eight squares surrounding the figure? Either way this is an interesting case. Whilst the card does state, I think in all editions, that you cannot use the crossbow against a target in an adjacent square (the wording varies), what we have here is a case of wording on a card taking precedence over the rulebook (which is fine), but when the wording varies on two cards both on which take precedence over the rulebook, but possibly not each other, then there tends to be some confusion!

Oops, yes, edited after the fact, I did mean "8" not "10." There has been a huge debate over the years with the use of the term "orthogonally adjacent" which does not appear in any official HQ text (if AH has ever used it on social media, please furnish me the quote, I'm not remembering). I tried using this term at one time on these forums but I recall being jumped on by people who said I wasn't using the term correctly. A few internet searches revealed that this phrase is used mainly by board game players who are arguing with each other about rules, so I have tried to avoid using it. Instead I just say "the four close diagonal squares surrounding the figure."

The Japanese edition of HeroQuest (minus the Elf exclusivity) provides the interpretation that I like the best, and describes how I limit the crossbow. One might say that perhaps it's just an accident of translation (I don't know Japanese). I don't let you hit the four diagonals as if you were wielding a staff or longsword, and I retain the restriction against "adjacent" squares. For me the appeal of the Crossbow is that it's a ranged weapon. You're meant to use it to hit monsters that are at least one square away from you, out of reach of the rest of your weapons (and without the penalty of losing a weapon you throw at a target). I think it's quirky that officially the Crossbow can hit the four close diagonal squares, but I guess in the logic of the game mechanics, diagonal is supposed to be something that generally requires additional "reach" (see the Rapier, Longsword, Staff). Perhaps this "reach" is beyond whatever prevents you normally from hitting the close adjacent squares? But to me its an arbitrary game mechanic. Why couldn't you shoot someone at close range with a crossbow? Is the Crossbow meant to be so big and unwieldy that you can't bring it up to hit a close opponent? (at this range, you can't miss!) But we're also meant to believe that it doesn't provide any encumbrance otherwise (you can fire it "one handed" while wielding a shield I guess). Here again we're applying logic from interpretations taken from our perception of historical realism or other games to HeroQuest, which never provides a definitive answer. Instead, HeroQuest gives you some options, and often forces you to strategically choose between competing options. Do I use X or Y... do I spend my gold on A or B? I don't have a problem with games doing that, but the great thing is one can change the game to the point where any feelings of disappointment with the official rules are satisfied.

AH has clarified both inside (and outside, if I recall correctly, see the First Light booklet) what they mean when they say "adjacent." Adjacent to them means the north, south, east, and west squares from a figure's square. I think I wrote "ten squares" because I was thinking of a two square character (why I was thinking that when talking about a hero with a crossbow, I attribute to a brain malfunction). Have had a lot on my mind lately, but this has been a nice diversion!

Was the crossbow thing an oversight or textual mistake all along? Not sure, but regardless, AH, for reasons surely its own has not chosen to change that (just like so many other ambiguous or quirky things in the rules they've not seen fight to change). While they've felt free to change some things, I think in general they are conservative in their preservation of the rules (putting the priority on the 1990 NA ruleset), and when they do change something, they do so when they think it's an area where a lot of fans are okay with changing it. The thing is, when it comes to the crossbow they've made no changes, despite the fact that if you just did some online searches you'd find tons of homebrew pages declaring this or that restriction for the crossbow. I think those alternate armories and "revised" equipment cards are passed around and copied but not necessarily what the largest number of fans want. I'm glad they're not just going by these homebrews. Otherwise we would indeed have a crossbow that "breaks" if you roll two black shields, can "only" hit an enemy 9 (or so) squares away, requires you to spend gold to restock its arrows, and/or is considered "two handed." For now the only restrictions are having a clear line of sight, no adjacent shots, and can't be used by certain heroes, like it's always been. But then we also have the slightly more restricted Japanese version. With First Light's declaration about furniture as obstacles, you pretty much have an official endorsement of both the NA AND EU interpretations of its range/target ability according to Zargon's preference now.

Carry Capacity for me is on the "player level" to use BH's term. It's however much you can fit on your character sheet is how much you can carry. That means you can write small, and I really don't care if you grab a larger sheet of paper and rewrite everything on it if you run out of space (and you probably will if you carry a character across multiple quest packs, whether you use the 1990 NA/AH Remake rules or the EU rules amended by the '91 ADK... notice how big those new character sheets they provided in the latter pack are compared to the originals? exactly). The EU edition had far fewer boxed quests to play through than the NA edition, and even retaining healing potions (since there are no potions to buy in the EU editions) to me isn't such a big problem unless the heroes can't keep track of their stuff. The quests after the original 14 were all intended to be harder, and the speculation that they presumed most players who bought these expansions probably bought the few other expansions too wasn't so far off (nowadays with the ever increasing pool of expansions that far exceeds any region in the old days makes AH's decision to not presume ownership of multiple expansions for each one a wise one for the greater number of players). So whether you have a hero who has saved many healing potions from the original 14 into Wizards of Morcar, or you are writing a brand new quest for him, chances are he's going to need them. Just because Morcar can't see finite stack of cards in front of that player at the table, he can still check the character sheet (that's a good practice anyway, not because players are trying to cheat necessarily, but they can forget to write stuff down or cross it off/erase when they're supposed to).

But regarding the player/character thing which is interesting, sure... much in the game we simply accept. In video games there are "unrealistic" things even for a game that is set in a more "grounded" fantasy world (than Super Mario Bros. or Sonic the Hedgehog) where magic exists yes, but is not used to explain away everything that isn't an accurate simulation of something on earth in the medieval period (or whatever the fictional game world's setting is inspired by). For instance I loved playing 2011's "LOTR: War in the North," and in that video game as you moved across the countryside or underground passages of Middle Earth you'd regularly encounter these whisps of glowy smoke that were "shops" you could visit mid-quest. I guess they were magic but still followed the rules of commerce with an unseen shopkeeper. Yes, the characters had magical abilities, but these portral vending machines or whatever they were still existed, despite never being mentioned in Tolkien's written works. Oh well! I'm glad they were there so I could shop more often than when I left to go back "to town." Also that game let me send items to another hero in the party even if they were nowhere near me (it would appear on their screen like they'd been sent an email on their smart device, really, and they could pick what they wanted to add to their inventory or drop it on the ground in front of them). We could use "A Wizard Did It" to explain anything that was "just because" in a game, throwing realism aside. I think this discussion comes up again and again because at least to a limited degree, many players still have this desire to put a level of realism or logic into the game, even if we don't all agree on what that is. For me the primary logic of HeroQuest isn't even the logic of other games, but it's more the logic of the a pastiche of movies and comic books, novels, cartoons, and other entertainment we happen to like that this game is letting us indulge in, in the board game sphere. But this also lends itself to the sort of arguments over what armaments a Wizard or Barbarian "would really use" and so on. It's fun, but I think even on an instinctual level we as kids understood that there may be Game A where you are allowed to do X but in Game B you are allowed to do Y. Just like you can't use a gun in every video game (nor can every character crouch or climb) it's okay if there are restrictions or limitations. Yes, in a game like this which is so heavily reliant upon imagination, why NOT remove those limits? "Because the GM said so" is good enough of an explanation.

So… Nodwick, then? http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2001-01-01

That's a funny one, thanks for sharing!


As for homebrew, I love to make my own stuff for HeroQuest, but in general I find myself mostly just adding on to what is already officially there. I guess I do that not because I necessarily think the "official" interpretation is always right or the best, but because I play with so many other nostalgic fans, I want to try to preserve as many nostalgic things about how the original game was with them too, to keep it recognizable as the classic game (even though in reality probably all of us used some homebrew when we played in our youth with no arrangement exactly the same as any other). And I don't have any problem with people who like to make extensive, even radical changes to the game. I think that's a great thing about HeroQuest that it's so easily modified, that it can be a sandbox game or inspiration for so many things. It's not "wrong" to do that, and not a betrayal of the HQ game, it's well within what you're "supposed to do" (as Doug and Chris would say, they love that fans will "make it their own game"). There's no rule that you can or should change only up to X percent of the game. As long as you and your group likes it, that's all that matters. I do appreciate though once again that AH is not the one making those radical changes... mostly they are simply providing options, being very careful to allow and encourage players to do what they want with the game, while also preserving a pretty stable, coherent system of their own. Look at all these many debates we have over minutia... mostly we're not radically revising the game, just tweaking little things here or there that bug us or we think aren't clear enough (all based on individual preferences). So I like that AH is being clear about what they want but also not trying to cram down too much (though I give them a lot more leeway when it comes to their original creations, as opposed to remakes of "classic" stuff).

That said, I still make little tweaks and changes to my preference and I try to explain these to new joiners of our table so it's not a big shock when those situations arise where I differ from others. I've also discovered that there are other ways to tweak equipment or spells to make them feel a little different from each other without rewrites... one is adjusting the gold price (if there is one) and the other is using the so-called "Power Dice." So if I wanted to make a weapon weaker or stronger, I could adjust the dice color/combination it uses but keep the rest of the mechanics the same. Not everyone's cup of tea but just thought I'd throw that idea out there for people looking to modify their stuff. Probably someone who doesn't want to buy anything new (are you reprinting all your cards though?) might not go for it, but there's always to do the dice thing too on regular combat dice, like allowing limited re-rolls or counting certain symbols as other symbols.


PS: I really enjoyed the bringing up of the scenario in which the Crossbow hero moves around a corner and sees a monster. In that case I'd make an exception... since I'm prohibiting the close diagonal attack with the crossbow. Instead of making the "taken by surprise" Hero punch the monster with 1 combat die, I'd just let him use a different weapon. Just like if I started to move his character through down a hallway but I forgot to mention there's a door there and he would have passed it by (I'd just say hey did you want to move that far or just stop here?). I chalk that up to just being a good GM, facilitating the gameplay with human oversight rather than playing it like a computer game where you pressed the wrong button by accident now pay the consequences.

PPS: I really loved this quote from Parzival “That which doesn’t kill you makes Zargon unhappy.”

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Yes, BH, that's a good point, I do admit that cards limit supply of equipment in the EU editions. But I also know that that rule is done away with in the EU exclusive "Adventure Design Kit" of 1991, so it's still possible for multiple crossbows to be purchased (and used) in the 1st & 2nd editions, if Morcar allows it!

The "cards limit supply" principle is in place for both the 1st and 2nd editions of the game, the "Adventure Design Kit" certainly appears to be an attempt to move away from this principle at a later date (probably influenced by the 1990 remake), so whilst you could consider the ADK to be an official change, that would make it a 3rd edition, but I don't see how that means that you can purchase multiple crossbows in the 1st and 2nd editions. Obviously the Evil Wizard player (Morcar is a character in the game not a player) can apply any house rules, provided that is ok with his players, but that doesn't make any difference to the official rules of any edition. I've read a fair few versions of the HeroQuest rules over the years and in various languages, but I've haven't yet come across a rulebook that you open and it has only the words "The rules are whatever the Evil Wizard player decides", even if you consider the Evil Wizard player as the arbiter of the rules, then there have to be rules in existence for him to arbitrate!

I know we speak from different perspectives. For me personally, the "classic" edition of HeroQuest was released in the US of A in 1990. I didn't know about the other editions until at least a decade later. I may speak of the entire era of 1989-1993 as the classic era of course, and I call them that, because for people who played them back in the day, those are the classics. I have certainly learned a lot since 2002, that these editions were not just a tweak here or a name change there, but end up playing very differently, despite the vast number of similarities and common wellspring of inspiration.

Fair point, I chose the term "classic" as I was going to use "original", but can an original have a 1st and 2nd edition?

I think Mike Gray's team (like AH after them) recognized the "passing the crossbow" exploit possibility early on, which is why they added the "while neither is adjacent to a monster" caveat in the 1992 expansions (and AH has repeated this in pretty much every other expansion as well).

That statement doesn't make sense to me, the "while neither is adjacent to a monster" caveat, doesn't fix the passing the crossbow exploit, it is just a restriction on what you can do if you are adjacent to a monster.

I'm sure the critique here will be that one has to decide how one handles all these "rule clarifications" that are provided either in expansions, new editions, or in social media posts (or in the companion app) outside of the particular campaign book you're playing.

Which is exactly why I would have preferred a Living Rulebook approach.

Before I extensively read the 1st & 2nd EU editions I really did think that cards did not limit supply, mainly because so many online EU players talked as if they didn't (but they were just adopting the ADK rule because they liked it better). I don't see the problem either way, use what works best for you.

I just think it is a shame when I see so many posts on this and similar forums, from newcomers to the game, where they have bought a version after the "card limit supply" principle was removed and after enjoying the gathering storm campaign, they fork out cash on an expansion, only to find that because that principle was removed, and no attempt was made to fix the holes created by its removal (carrying capacity limits, maximum stat characters, potion hoarding, stacking effects and boss-killers etc), it ends up becoming practically unplayable without serious modification (which for some is great, but for others not their bag) and retconning (or retiring) their original characters.

I think it's quirky that officially the Crossbow can hit the four close diagonal squares, but I guess in the logic of the game mechanics, diagonal is supposed to be something that generally requires additional "reach" (see the Rapier, Longsword, Staff). Perhaps this "reach" is beyond whatever prevents you normally from hitting the close adjacent squares? But to me its an arbitrary game mechanic. Why couldn't you shoot someone at close range with a crossbow? Is the Crossbow meant to be so big and unwieldy that you can't bring it up to hit a close opponent? (at this range, you can't miss!) But we're also meant to believe that it doesn't provide any encumbrance otherwise (you can fire it "one handed" while wielding a shield I guess). Here again we're applying logic from interpretations taken from our perception of historical realism or other games to HeroQuest, which never provides a definitive answer.

Terminology aside, there are good reasons both at the "character-level" and the "player level" to divide space into hand-to-hand attack area and missile attack area.

From the point of view of the characters, the Gary the Goblin doesn't wait until Duncan the Dwarf has finished his "turn" before charging at him, the action happens continuously and simultaneously, we only abstract this into sequential turns for ease of playing the game. Duncan the Dwarf will not survive long if he chooses to load his crossbow, aim and shoot at Gary the Goblin, if Gary the Goblin is so close that he will strike and kill Duncan the Dwarf before he has even managed to load his crossbow. This means that there is a minimum effective range within which you cannot use a missile attack, due to the time taken to ready the weapon, compared to the time taken for the distance to be covered.

From the point of view of the players and the mechanisms of the game itself, if you rules that missile attacks could be made against any square (subject to LOS) then you would only ever need to provide 3 weapons, a 1AD-2AD-3AD missile attack weapon, this lack of variety and choice would seriously limit player choice and ruin the advancement system

My point was, if you wish to keep this distinction between missile and hand-to-hand attack areas, then when you introduce a hand-to-hand weapon that expands the hand-to-hand attack area to include the "four close diagonal squares" then perhaps you need to contract the missile attack area in the same way.

Carry Capacity for me is on the "player level" to use BH's term. It's however much you can fit on your character sheet is how much you can carry. That means you can write small, and I really don't care if you grab a larger sheet of paper and rewrite everything on it if you run out of space (and you probably will if you carry a character across multiple quest packs, whether you use the 1990 NA/AH Remake rules or the EU rules amended by the '91 ADK... notice how big those new character sheets they provided in the latter pack are compared to the originals? exactly).

What you are describing here is unlimited carrying capacity.

The EU edition had far fewer boxed quests to play through than the NA edition

"Original edition" had Gathering Storm, Kellar's Keep, Return of the Witch Lord, Against the Ogre Horde, Wizards of Morcar and The Dark Company = 6
1990 remake had Gathering Storm, Kellar's Keep, Return of the Witch Lord, Mage of the Mirror & Frozen Horror = 5

Did I miss some?

Even retaining healing potions (since there are no potions to buy in the EU editions) to me isn't such a big problem unless the heroes can't keep track of their stuff.

A significant part of the excitement surely is managing to successfully achieve the quest objective and emerge battered but alive, having fought against seemingly overwhelming odds, and risen to the challenge, but what are the odds of dying for a Barbarian with 10 healing potions and a rule that allows him to use them each time he gets reduce to zero BP?

As for homebrew...

I have no objection to anyone adding house rules to the game or even radically changing the game (or even just using the components provided to make their own game), I just don't consider any of those good reasons for not having a clear and complete set of official rules for the game that you bought.

I really enjoyed the bringing up of the scenario in which the Crossbow hero moves around a corner and sees a monster. In that case I'd make an exception... since I'm prohibiting the close diagonal attack with the crossbow. Instead of making the "taken by surprise" Hero punch the monster with 1 combat die, I'd just let him use a different weapon.

So you would replace the "select weapon as part of your attack action" rule with the "select weapon at the start of your turn" rule, but if a situation occurred where the "select weapon at the start of your turn" rule resulted in a different outcome than the original rule, then you'd override the new rule with the original rule that you dropped in the first place?

But returning to the actual original question, I personally don't think that a character can "ready", retrieve, load, aim and shoot a crossbow, whilst holding a shield, but I don't consider it a game breaker either way.

[Kurgan]

Yeah the idea of Avalon Hill clarifying and even revising the HQ rules within expansions isn't something they invented. Hasbro's Milton Bradley was doing it back in the day too.

Whether they wrote down "hey, make up your own rules" in an official book or not, that's what people did. But I think starting off with encouraging people to make their own adventures opens that up, even if the players was unfamiliar with the use of homebrew and house rules in countless other past and contemporary games.

There may have been HeroQuest players out there (and maybe some still today) who might even think that you're only "allowed" to name your characters, paint your miniatures, and create a new quest using the available assets only, and nothing more, that the GM is only to use his imagination to solve disputes over ambiguous situations not to actually change the written rules. Since HQ isn't the sort of game that has official tournaments (which tend to require stricter rules) makes it pretty hard to discourage people from just making it their own, and I'm pretty happy that AH so far is committed to both crafting their own game but also encouraging people to customize it to their liking.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Agreed, but I think that expecting MB, back in 1989, to host an online living rulebook with bug reporting and player votable feature lists, for players to view and download seems a little unfair, less so in 2021.

[Kurgan]

Perhaps it's like a historical repeating crossbow, and just clip it to the top of your shield?

As for this living rulebook idea... something like that could have existed in 1989. It would be like becoming a member of a fan club or subscribing to a newsletter. They could have released a monthly, quarterly, or annual, etc. paper that includes all their tweaks and updates, based on feedback. Just sell your box with one of those cards inside to get people attached to it, whether it was free or a cheap subscription price. But they didn't. Then again we're talking about a game that was only officially supported for at best 5 years (less than that in many regions; and of course I mean before the revival which is fast approaching that record), vs. something that went on for decades like D&D.

Just a silly nitpick, but "Gathering Storm" is a fan title for the first 14 quests invented sometime in the 2000's (see Phoenix's page). It's actually the name of one of the EQP adventures. Yeah it's cute that they both use the initials "GS." But a person could come up with a dozen or so titles with those initials if they really wanted.

I know, I call all of the starter boxes "Game System" when there was no such title except for the NA edition, so I'm guilty too! Still, as much as I love this place, no matter how popular an idea is on here, doesn't mean I have to adopt it, though I can respect that tenacity.

"Original edition" had Gathering Storm, Kellar's Keep, Return of the Witch Lord, Against the Ogre Horde, Wizards of Morcar and The Dark Company = 6
1990 remake had Gathering Storm, Kellar's Keep, Return of the Witch Lord, Mage of the Mirror & Frozen Horror = 5

I was thinking in terms of indivdidual quests...

Just looking at the boxed European releases in English, you've got the 15 core quests plus the Dark Company as one continuous quest and four expansion boxes, I came up with 48 quests (being generous and counting DK as 4 gives a total of 51). Not counting Adventure Design Kit here for obvious reasons (but if you want to add the sample "Plague of Zombies" on the back cover, okay that's 49... or 52 if you split up DK again).

In the US it was 54. I guess that's not "far more" but it's definitely "more." I tend to think of Europe as having more quest content, because I'm thinking of the bonus quests you got in the marvel comics special, the two novels, and the two official magazines. So if we go by "official" it is all pretty close in the end.

Avalon Hill is up to, what, 78 original creations so far (counting FL & CoPD in there)? Not bad in terms of output in a similar time frame. Another year or so and they might surpass the original tally (I keep forgetting to add in the 14 Japanese quests, they really are like mostly new adventures compared to the small differences between EU and NA).

The great thing now is there are supposed to be no more region exclusives (even if some markets haven't gotten everything in their own language yet, though I think this may be limited to the non-quest releases like the dice or hero collections) and so far nothing has been allowed to go "out of print" (other than, sadly, the Spanish translations of the expansions).

[Parzival]

Here’s an interesting article on bow and crossbow weapons and how they were most likely used in battle versus how they are typically depicted on screen (and in video games and board games): https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collectio ... lley-fire/

It’s a lengthy article, but to summarize:
1.) No “volley” fire tactics were used— archers just drew and shot independently at targets of their choosing.
2.) Bows and crossbows were not all that effective “killing” weapons, especially against even moderately armored opponents. But they did hurt and thus contributed to fatigue in approaching enemy troops.
3.) Nobody drew and held a bow for any significant amount of time— it would simply be too hard to do with a war bow (70lbs-180lbs draw weight). Instead, if you wanted to consider your shot, you nocked the arrow on the bowstring, lifted the bow, and waited to draw until you’d picked a target. Then you’d draw, aim, and release very quickly.
4.) Nobody held anyone at “arrow/bolt point.” It’s a ridiculous notion, entirely concocted by Hollywood. You used a spear, sword, or similar hand weapon to threaten someone at melee range.
5.) Everything else is just cinematic nonsense, based on the gunpowder era

Based on this article (and stuff I previously mentioned), a reasonable approach to missile weapons in HQ (along with house additions) would actually be:

Bow: Two 1 die range attack (normal defense die rolls against each), LOS only, unlimited usage. Cannot be used against adjacent or immediately diagonal targets. 2-handed, no shield. No Wizard. 100 gold.

Longbow: Two 2 dice range attack (normal defense die rolls against each), LOS only, unlimited usage. Cannot be used against adjacent or immediately diagonal targets. 2-handed, no shield. No Wizard or Dwarf (too short). 400 gold.

Crossbow: 3 dice range attack, LOS only, every other user turn (flip the card at end of turn; if face down at start of turn, it can’t be used.) Cannot be used against adjacent or immediately diagonal targets. 2-handed, no shield. No Wizard. 350 gold.

Pistol Crossbow: 1 die range attack, LOS only, unlimited usage. Can be used against adjacent or immediately diagonal targets. Can be used with shield. No Wizard. (No reload delay because it’s such a weak weapon.) 300 gold. Can use two simultaneously, without shield, one attack each, normal defense rolls.

Repeating Crossbow: Two 1 die range attacks per turn (same or split targets; normal defense rolls apply to each attack), LOS only, unlimited usage. Cannot be used against adjacent or immediately diagonal targets. 2-handed, no shield. (It’s a two-handed lever-action weapon— that’s how it works!). No Wizard. 400 gold.

Handgonne: 4 die range weapon. Costs 1 action to reload (flip card facedown when used. To reload, use your action to flip the card back). Otherwise unlimited ammo. Can be used against adjacent or diagonal enemies. Cannot be used with shield. Dwarf only (tradition). 600 gold.

Note While I didn’t allow wizards to use any of these— I’m an old school guy— you could allow them to use the Pistol and Repeating Crossbows, because they’re kinda wimpy anyway. Nice option when the spells run out, though.