Is "see" the same thing as "line of sight?"

[Kurgan]

So I was wrong. All this time... reading all these discussions, my eyes weren't actually processing what I was seeing in the illustration (center orc on the right, page 15, rules of play). This is clearly an "off axis" example. I may need to keep a ruler handy next time...

This is stated in the context of spell targeting but in principle it would apply to ranged weapon attacks as well (trumped only by card or armory text).

So for the NA rules, it's not quite so loose as the EU, but still more free than I've been playing all these years. Live and learn!

[Kurgan]

As I shared this example in another thread, consider the Barbarian in blue here. He can hit three monsters with his crossbow (white and green, but also the one in gray on the far upper right).

The adjacent monster (white) can't be hit with the crossbow, nor can the monster directly diagonal (gray). But if he wanted to throw a dagger at either one, he could! In short, the dagger can hit all of the monsters in the pic, while the crossbow can only hit three of the five.

Magic spells tend to be usable against enemies (or benefit heroes) you can "see" so such a spell could hit ANY of the figures surrounding the blue Hero in the pic below.

So I was mistaken about the thrown (magical or not) dagger's abilities (conflating it with the crossbow) and also ignoring the fact that you can "see" some monsters that aren't directly in line with the eight directions of squares from your hero's position. I plan to play it correctly from now on, which will certainly provide more opportunities for player action!

PS: Some folks made a pretty convincing argument that the relative distances on the board in HQ would be "realistic" for hitting something with a crossbow. Research into the other thrown weapons gives plausible results for: throwing knives, hand axes and spears.
Unlimited arrows, now that's unrealistic. But carrying just enough arrows (bolts, rather) to hit all the monsters in a typical quest? Perfectly realistic.

[Jalapenotrellis]

As I shared this example in another thread, consider the Barbarian in blue here. He can hit three monsters with his crossbow (white and green, but also the one in gray on the far upper right).

The adjacent monster (white) can't be hit with the crossbow, nor can the monster directly diagonal (gray). But if he wanted to throw a dagger at either one, he could! In short, the dagger can hit all of the monsters in the pic, while the crossbow can only hit three of the five.

Magic spells tend to be usable against enemies (or benefit heroes) you can "see" so such a spell could hit ANY of the figures surrounding the blue Hero in the pic below.

So I was mistaken about the thrown (magical or not) dagger's abilities (conflating it with the crossbow) and also ignoring the fact that you can "see" some monsters that aren't directly in line with the eight directions of squares from your hero's position. I plan to play it correctly from now on, which will certainly provide more opportunities for player action!

PS: Some folks made a pretty convincing argument that the relative distances on the board in HQ would be "realistic" for hitting something with a crossbow. Research into the other thrown weapons gives plausible results for: throwing knives, hand axes and spears.
Unlimited arrows, now that's unrealistic. But carrying just enough arrows (bolts, rather) to hit all the monsters in a typical quest? Perfectly realistic.

The diagonal isn't considered adjacent in NA HeroQuest rules. You could shoot the crossbow at him too. The advantage of the longsword is you can defend with a shield, whereas the crossbow does not if attacking diagonally.

[Kurgan]

I'm pretty sure it IS considered adjacent (hence the limitation on the crossbow). The Crossbow, like all weapons (other than the Staff, BattleAxe and in the EU the Spear), is one handed, so doesn't interfere with the ability to defend with a Shield. UNLESS of course you're using house rules to change any of that. You use the same defend dice when defending against diagonal attacks (which are rare in canonical quests, but still).

Few admit to playing the rules exactly as written alone, of course.

[iKarith]

PS: Some folks made a pretty convincing argument that the relative distances on the board in HQ would be "realistic" for hitting something with a crossbow. Research into the other thrown weapons gives plausible results for: throwing knives, hand axes and spears.
Unlimited arrows, now that's unrealistic. But carrying just enough arrows (bolts, rather) to hit all the monsters in a typical quest? Perfectly realistic.

If you could carry 60-75 arrows in a full quiver and your belt, it's perfectly fair to suggest that a crossbowman would carry even more. A bolt is going to be half or less the weight of an arrow, so yes, I don't really see a reason to count off ammo.

I remember one of the quests has a crossbow for heroes to find, but explicitly says the ammo is limited to six shots. The crossbows in HQ seem to have a magazine ala Jörg Sprave's Instant Legolas devices. What I assume there is that there are six bolts in the magazine and no quiver … so unless you have another hero with a crossbow you're not going to have more.

[Jalapenotrellis]

I'm pretty sure it IS considered adjacent (hence the limitation on the crossbow). The Crossbow, like all weapons (other than the Staff, BattleAxe and in the EU the Spear), is one handed, so doesn't interfere with the ability to defend with a Shield. UNLESS of course you're using house rules to change any of that. You use the same defend dice when defending against diagonal attacks (which are rare in canonical quests, but still).

Few admit to playing the rules exactly as written alone, of course.

In the NA rules they specifically state that diagonal is different than adjacent. The only reason to have a longsword is a shield, otherwise you may as well just have a broadsword and a crossbow.

[Kurgan]

Hmm... I was thinking you were dead wrong about this, but it seems logical...

The manual says adjacent and shows a picture of the four squares only. The Armory text says not adjacent for crossbow.

So if you take that literally and I don't see any other text... may be be right after all. "Diagonally adjacent" in NA terms isn't clarified.

So Longsword can attack diagonally AND adjacently.

Crossbow has to be one square away to hit enemies but can also hit enemies on the four diagonals. Same price. Still both useful. Still both one handed weapons.
A broadsword + a crossbow will cost you 600 gold (unless you're the barbarian who only needs to pay for the crossbow). It does diminish the longsword somewhat if we interpret things this way (since it can be rusted while a crossbow cannot, but then so can a broadsword).

[Jalapenotrellis]

Where does it say the crossbow can't shoot at the 4 diagonal squares touching you?

[Kurgan]

See above. I thought better of it and changed my reply. Apologies. At least in the NA version, you seem to be correct about crossbow functionality.

[Jalapenotrellis]

So there is another thread on the crossbow being two handed or one. I think most treat it as a two handed weapon. If you don't, there is absolutely no reason to ever buy a longsword if you can just use a crossbow and shield and broadsword. I think they assume that the crossbow is two handed. One hand to hold it, one hand to pull the trigger or load a bolt. I've watched TV shows where they hold it or shoot it with one hand here and there, but it could be played either way since it doesn't say specifically. However, to avoid not needing the longsword, in my games, if they attack with the crossbow, they cannot defend with a shield. If they attack with the longsword, they can defend with the shield.