Ye Olde Inn

Except realism really doesn't matter here, lots of stuff in the game isn't realistic to actual medieval weaponry. It's intended for balance/gameplay/fun mechanics. It's perfectly possible in real life to hide behind a shield as you load (and fire) a crossbow, even one handed. Warriors fought with spears and other long weapons while holding shields as well. Longswords are two handed in real life, but you can swing them (less accurately or powerfully) one handed. Plate armor doesn't halve your movement, why would being a "wizard" prevent you from wielding a metal weapon or wearing metal armor? blah blah blah. I point out the realism more when someone says it isn't realistic when it actually is. As to whether it should be that way in game, is another question.

So the question is what did the game designers intend. Is it clarified in the EU rules? Otherwise you're just making a homebrew rule to either make it more realistic, more fun or more balanced your own way.

So how do you treat switching between the shield and two handed weapons? Because that's not covered in the rules at all. Strictly speaking it would seem you would have to drop the item that's causing the conflict (losing it forever like a thrown dagger?) or hand it to another player to hold (free action). Then again the game never had a problem swapping between one two handed weapon and another. And the idea of carrying capacity is completely a house rule... we know the Heroes will have plenty of weapons by the end of even the base campaign.

I get what you're saying... why would a Hero spend an extra 100 gold to have both a ranged 3 dice attack and an adjacent 3 dice attack? Could be they screwed up in the explanation. Or maybe it's just that your gold situation might call for one but not the other. To many players its worth it to have the extra movement than the extra protection of Plate for instance. Maybe having both is more worth it to someone vs. just having the 3 dice diagonal strike.

In the PC game (which uses a blend of EU version rules and its own conventions) just makes it a free action. You go into your gear menu and toggle off the shield, then you toggle on the battle axe or staff that you wanted to use. When you're done attacking, toggle the two handed weapon off and the shield back on. You can do this every single turn. The question then becomes if you make it that easy, how do you prevent it being abused (always have benefit of shield for defense, always have benefit of Battle Axe for attack)?

So I wasn't trying to make any realism argument. I'm not sure why that was what you got from my last post other than me saying I've seen it both ways in TV shows, in my mind referring to Merlin or Game of Thrones (which are both, unfortunately, fictional).

I make the argument from a balance standpoint. It creates purpose for the longsword.

I also allow them to not swap anything out that they just attacked with. They can swap at the beginning of a turn, and then not until the beginning of their next turn. But yes, that is a balance rule I made to clarify the rest of the rules to make sense with each other.

Allowing them to always defend with 5-6 dice depending on plate mail for the non wizards is too easy. If certain weapons offer a combat advantage, the shield can't be used. Such as the crossbow or battle axe and my assumption they are two handed.

The crossbow could have been listed in the armory as "cannot be used with a shield" like they did for everything else, and clearly they didn't put that under that weapon, therefore making the longsword a "trap" purchase or "junk" purchase with the game as written. The idea you can't fire it adjacently seems to assume some form of unwieldy aspect to using it next to a monster.

Yeah, you're definitely arguing game balance. I'm inclined to keep it as it is (while yet again admitting I WAS WRONG about the diagonal 1 square thing). My inclination with these rules is to play it "as written" as much as possible and just sprinkle little extras on top, rather than modifying it into something I think is more balance/realistic/fun... though others may freely disagree. If I were writing the rules I'd say the diagonal squares are still "too close" if adjacent is "too close" but you've shown me that I was reading that into the text, it wasn't actually saying that and the picture solidifies that position for me now (my own picture, illustrating what I thought it was aside).

I am seeing it as a compromise buy, not a trick to ruin the player.

As near as I can tell it's just a matter of what you want to spend your gold on. It's sort of like how you could buy chainmail, then later trade it in for platemail. But why not save your gold (you'll lose half the value of chainmail selling it.... though you could gift it to another Hero but now he's in the same situation). So just saving up for the stronger armor saved you 250 gold! But now you've got a movement penalty, I suppose.

The longsword gives you a nice balance, but if you really want all the abilities you would just get (or keep) your broadsword and crossbow. That is.. without any house rules changing weapons into two handed, or making switching an action, or limiting carrying capacity, etc.

Why would you ever buy a shortsword? Well, maybe you lost yours and that's all you can afford? The player gets to make choices.

Even with 6 (or 7) defend dice, Heroes still get killed playing absurdly difficult quest packs like EQP/BQP...
Thankfully if you have enough gold, you can stockpile potions (no rule against them stacking), which can make up for the movement limitations of Plate (for one Hero... if another gets Borin's Armor and the other gets Elven Chainmail, they have the full benefit anyway) and you can add more attack and defend dice, I believe up to 8 or 9 dice (I'd have to check again) if combined with spells too. But you've got to find the gold in the first place...

We had another debate tonight over the Courage spell.

Courage lasts as long as you can "see" an enemy. We concluded that the NA rules pretty much tell you to have the wizard go last, and this is dumb: Zargon knows you just cast Courage on someone. So all the monsters run out the door and behind a wall, thus guaranteeing that the spell is 100% useless all the time? So we decided to play it as courage lasts at least to the end of your next turn. Yeah Zargon can retreat everybody to just behind a wall, but if the hero gives chase and can keep up, he'll maintain it.

But what kind of "see" is meant by the spell?

We've determined there are really three kinds of visibility in HQ:

1. In play. It's on the board and the players can see it.
2. Line of sight. You see it, and you could shoot it or throw a spell at it.
3. Visible. You see it, but you do not have an unobstructed line of sight.

The third option, visible, is kind of an inference. When you open a door and don't step in (NA rules do not require you to enter a room upon opening a door), or round a corner in a hallway, everything beyond is placed on the board. If there's two skeletons and a wall down that hallway, you see them. You don't have line of sight on that second skeleton (the first one is in the way), but you see that he's there.

Walls block visibility. Closed doors block visibility. Furniture doesn't (although if a bookshelf is not up against a wall and there's a goblin behind it, c'mon, you DO NOT have visibility of that goblin! EU rules suggest that not only do you, but you can ricochet your spells and bolts of the wall to shoot him around the corner in a room but out in the corridors, strict line-of-sight rules apply to do the same!

This kind of visibility is a bit subjective as kinda not really quite written. *shrug* Like I said, the goblin behind a bookcase would not be visible, but the orc on the other side of the table would be. And while you can't shoot over/under/around friendlies to attack hostiles, you can see the hostiles are there.

But can you "see" them for the purposes of Courage?

The EU rules apply line of sight to corridors always, but throw that out the window for rooms and if you're on the other side of an open door … what? It's not really specified which you use if you're looking at a room through an open doorway you haven't passed through yet. But otherwise these are pretty simple, if BS with the line of sight to the entire room, no matter who or what is in the way. As usual NA is the one that makes it unclear.

[TLDR: Visible and "see" can be systematically related to the duration of Courage. I reason the rules support only checking to end a Courage spell on the turn of the Hero with the spell effect.]

iKarith wrote:We've determined there are really three kinds of visibility in HQ:

1. In play. It's on the board and the players can see it.
2. Line of sight. You see it, and you could shoot it or throw a spell at it.
3. Visible. You see it, but you do not have an unobstructed line of sight.

I like those categorizations. As for Courage . . .

". . . The spell is broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player." -EU 2nd ed.
". . . The spell is broken the moment the Hero can no longer "see" a monster." -NA

With these durations in mind, here's some expanding:

1. In play. It's on the board and the players can see it.
In the UK text of Courage, "visible to that player", not "visible to that player character" technically allows for this visibility. However, "that player" implies a Hero's particular point of view. I've not yet heard of EU players using this visibility for Courage.

Broken when it's removed from the board. This usually involves killed monsters, but not if they are replaced in time through Raise the Dead or Reanimation. Courage also ends when a monster moves into a new area, or even a revealed area if now out of LoS (Morcar's/Zargon's call.)

2. Line of sight. You see it, and you could shoot it or throw a spell at it.
EU players just use this visibility between or outside of rooms, but the NA rules also use LoS for Courage within rooms. (Even if revealed by "looking", LoS is still required to "see" a blocked monster.) The more generalized use of LoS in the NA rules result in a weaker Courage spell.

Broken by movement or a blocking spell being cast. Figures move so that an uninterrupted line can no longer be drawn (momentarily or longer) between the centers of the Hero with Courage and a monster. Certain wall spells may be cast between the figures to also end Courage.

3. Visible. You see it, but you do not have an unobstructed line of sight.
Used while "looking" during movement, visibile is used to see the entire contents of newly revealed rooms. The Avalon Hill HQ will use visible in corridors for placing monsters. The more generalized use of visible for rooms in the EU rules make the Courage spell stronger.

Broken when it can't be seen in a room. Usually somebody leaves the room (EU rules), but Courage may also be ended by a vision-cancelling spell (Cloak of Shadows, Blinding Sleet.) At Morcar's discretion, visible may be ended by large furniture, blocked square markers, or certain wall spells.

"Visible" and "see" are explained twice in HQ. First under movement rules, both terms are used in the placing of monsters and items within LoS into newly discovered rooms and passages/corridors. The NA rules even define a new term, "looking" for this kind of visibility, though "see" is referenced.

The other instance where "visible" and "see" is explained is under the action for casting a spell, which best applies to the duration of the Courage spell as an effect, in my opinion. Under this definition, checking for LoS is a momentary snapshot of positions.

Now to put at least some of the above to use to help answer an old question from another thread on Courage:

Daedalus wrote:I was wondering about what can end the Courage spell.. . .

. . . For me the question is what constitutes a monster not being seen by the Hero. Must the Hero "see" a monster at all times, or should the test apply only during the Hero's turn when he potentially needs it to attack with the effect?. . .

(The rest of the quote included 19 special cases of how Courage could possibly end. Mainly, they were split into movement related or spell effects.)

I've come to believe that it's best to restrict any checks for "visible"(EU) and "see" (NA) to the turn of the Hero with the Courage effect. My reasoning is that "visible" and "see" are explained as happening either during movement or during an action, both of which are specifically part of an active Hero's turn. On other Heroes' and monsters' turns the Courageous Hero doesn't move or take actions, so "see" needn't apply.

Of course, the Hero with the Courage effect doesn’t shut his eyes during other player turns. Although turn structure segments combat, it is meant to represent a chaotic melee with participants continuously overlapping their attacks and defenses together. Likewise, the turns of the Courageous Hero represent what he focuses on of this shared event. Because of this (in my opinion), the check for ending Courage need only come about on the seeing Hero's turn as he reacts to the changed positions of other figures.

How this matters: If one decides seeing checks are restricted to the Hero with the Courage effect, all other Hero and monster movement and actions are evaluated together at the beginning of the Courageous Hero's turn. So if the last visible monster is killed or leaves LoS after the turn of the Hero with the Courage effect, but Morcar/Zargon or a Wandering Moster card brings another into view before that Hero's next turn, then the Courage spell continues to work.

Now to revisit and complicate things and confuse myself again (better here than mid-game, I say!)...

So a Couraged hero could kill the last monster on the board, let's say (to make it unambiguous) and then with his movement phase remaining, step on a "Wandering Monster Trap" and be attacked. Would the spell be doused in that case? It would seem unfortunate, of course, but these instances are a very real possibility in later quest packs.

Under the NA rules I play with (granted, I use a hybrid, like many of us do, but I try to follow those as much as possible), I take the stricter approach of "see" meaning an unobstructed line of sight from the Couraged hero to his target but place "the check" (if you want to call it that) at the end of his turn (run back into LOS of some monster to keep it active) and would tend to say that in the above circumstance, since it's still on his turn that this occurs (Wandering Monster trap doesn't end a Hero's turn, if memory serves), the spell would still be active.

It's certainly nicer of Zargon/Morcar to allow the heroes to keep their courage active if the only thing standing between them and some monsters are their fellow heroes (if you allow "shooting over their heads" which seems to be a rule in the Japanese version, via the recent translation posts) then it would stand to reason that this should be allowed, though it would certainly make things a lot easier for the good guys. But we are talking about keeping the spell active. If you can't hit the monsters, the bonus is not doing you any good at the moment and we are talking about how easily the monsters could "escape" the threat.

But let's say the Courageous Hero kills the last monster in the room and the next Hero after him searches for treasure and finds a wandering monster, I would tend to say no, sorry, it sucks for the hero who had courage, but it's no longer active, so he doesn't get the bonus when his turn comes 'round again to try to attack this new enemy. So there I'm interpreting it as this one player's turn, rather than the Heroes collective turns before Zargon gets to go again (Wandering Monsters are an interruption in the flow--where the monster simply appears next to the searching hero and attacks him ONLY, but when that Wandering Monster attacks the last hero in the sequence, if Zargon's turn occurs next he gets to attack "again" with that same monster if he wants to and now that monster can move as well).

If the Hero falls into a pit, can he still attack monsters with the bonus? That gets trickier, but if he can still shoot them with his crossbow or toss daggers at them, then I guess it's reasonable to say he can still "see" them, hence Courage would still be active for that purpose. A little bit more of a stretch, but it depends upon where you come down on it. I would certainly say he can still engage in melee combat with adjacent monsters with the bonus since they can also attack him, though with the usual penalties for being in a pit.

So I'd want to say when that Hero's turn is really and truly over, and he can "see" no more monsters, then that should be it. Any special circumstances will be up to Zargon whether they should favor the Heroes or give them the so-sad, too bad treatment. But I understand that expectations will determine tactics so its good to know ahead of time what will work.

That's all talking about Courage, but think of another scenario. Let's say you have a bunch of heroes lined up in a corridor. The Wizard or Elf wants to heal another hero, but there is another hero standing between them and the one they are trying to heal. Would you allow the intended target to be healed in that case?

I think if you can shoot arrows over someone's head without penalty, then the same should be true for magic. If you can't, then it is certainly a nice gesture, but not strictly in line with the "have to have LOS for spells unless the card says otherwise." But you could take a strict interpretation of "any hero" (doesn't say "that you can see" though this is implied on the back of the Hero turn/character card, "spell on another hero you can see") and say that it would work but then you could also say any Hero on the board could be healed by your spell. If LOS isn't needed (I would tend to say it is needed) then in theory the Heroes wouldn't have to stick together, they could send somebody off into danger and then heal him while the others remain in safety. I did allow it to work one time though, as this hadn't been clarified anywhere, but would make a point to clarify it before the next adventure with this particular player.

I still contend that the notion that e.g. the dwarf standing between the barbarian and an ogre doesn't render the barbarian unable to see the ogre and thus lose Courage at any point.

In fact, if someone my size (a potential "blocker") is between me and a target, unless the target is the size of a toddler and immediately behind the blocker, I'm going to see that the target is present. I won't have a clear view of them (no LoS, can't shoot at them or anything) but … I can still see that they're there.

And I feel like we keep coming back to that same issue.

Why do we have explicit rules that ogres are so big that you can't see what's behind them if you can't see what's behind a dwarf or a goblin either?

Yeah, I think the "I know he's there even if I can't target him" is a bit like the goblin on the other side of the bookcase you've got your back up against. A special feature of the Ogre monster is that he obstructs the path so other monsters have to wait for him to move rather than leap past him like they normally would in a corridor. Veil of Mist/Dust of Disappearance is a magical exception to the normal "passing through a figure" rule so I would allow it.

Can you shoot through the Ogre's legs to hit the monster behind him? It starts to get tricky, but again I'd say no. I'd rather follow the rule strictly and give a couple of special exceptions, otherwise we'll start sliding into full on RPG territory where we're measuring wind speed angles and stuff.

The whole "shoot over their head" is a fun little exception but it gets tricky. If you say it only applies to goblins and dwarves vs. other taller characters fine. Once you start allowing it, then it should apply to monsters as well and starts to get more like the EU version where LOS isn't so strict.

"Visible but not you can see for purposes of targeting" perhaps.

Short characters: Dwarf, Goblin, Ice Gremlin (?).

Tall characters: Gargoyle, Ogre.

If we're going to allow that then it would be good for Morcar/Zargon to announce ahead of time if it wouldn't work "Dwarf, while wearing those super special boots you're now as tall as the other heroes" "This particular gargoyle I'm placing on the board is shorter than average so he's the same height as most monsters."

Kurgan wrote:. . . So a Couraged hero could kill the last monster on the board, let's say (to make it unambiguous) and then with his movement phase remaining, step on a "Wandering Monster Trap" and be attacked. Would the spell be doused in that case? It would seem unfortunate, of course, but these instances are a very real possibility in later quest packs.

Under the NA rules I play with (granted, I use a hybrid, like many of us do, but I try to follow those as much as possible), I take the stricter approach of "see" meaning an unobstructed line of sight from the Couraged hero to his target but place "the check" (if you want to call it that) at the end of his turn (run back into LOS of some monster to keep it active) and would tend to say that in the above circumstance, since it's still on his turn that this occurs (Wandering Monster trap doesn't end a Hero's turn, if memory serves), the spell would still be active.

The loosely defined rules of Hero Quest and the Courage spell card afford Morcar/Zargon some discretion as to when to check. As you have chosen the end.of the Courageous Hero's turn, you're description sounds correct.

Being Daedalus, I gotta interpret/complicate the "see" rule in my own fasion as I try to match the example of the Rules of Play/Instruction Booklet. For me, "see" is a momentary position check of static figures. This snapshot can occur before, between, and after the movement and action of a Hero's turn.

Using your Wandering monster trap example, Courage would be broken in my game after the Hero killed the first monster, but before he moved to activate the trap. It's a your-mileage-may-vary thing.

Kurgan wrote:. . . But let's say the Courageous Hero kills the last monster in the room and the next Hero after him searches for treasure and finds a wandering monster, I would tend to say no, sorry, it sucks for the hero who had courage, but it's no longer active, so he doesn't get the bonus when his turn comes 'round again to try to attack this new enemy.. . .

I agree.

Kurgan wrote:If the Hero falls into a pit, can he still attack monsters with the bonus? That gets trickier, but if he can still shoot them with his crossbow or toss daggers at them, then I guess it's reasonable to say he can still "see" them, hence Courage would still be active for that purpose. A little bit more of a stretch, but it depends upon where you come down on it. I would certainly say he can still engage in melee combat with adjacent monsters with the bonus since they can also attack him, though with the usual penalties for being in a pit.

As a Dwarf can fight from and move out of a pit trap unaided, they can't be much more than five feet deep. I rule that other LoS from a pit depends on vertically, so that's from the Hero's head to half of the monster's height (adapted from "A Good Rule of Thumb" of the NA rules.) That should make a man-sized monster visible up to two squares away.

Kurgan wrote:. . . That's all talking about Courage, but think of another scnario. Let's say you have a bunch of heroes lined up in a corridor. The Wizard or Elf wants to heal another hero, but there is another hero standing between them and the one they are trying to heal. Would you allow the intended target to be healed in that case?

Not I, but a once-per-Quest Artifact that allowed a spell to be cast on a visible figure that was out of LoS would be cool.

And back to the original great question...it is a biggie partly because there are a number of different issues that all get wrapped into one, so let me try and unpack a little

The first, is that the text of "A Good Rule of Thumb" isn't reflected in the accompanying diagram. The dodgy line of sight crosses the Wizards square halfway along the top edge of the square. I would consider that LOS to be blocked. The diagram, which I assume was added to provide clarity, doesn’t!

The second is that the general text within the book seems to use the term “see” to sometimes refer to things that can be seen but at other points to use the term “see” to refer to “line of sight” - things that can be targeted by a ranged weapon

The third is that there is no mention of the effects of furniture on seeing and/or line of sight

So, where to start with this one, the rule of thumb.

A Good Rule of Thumb: Draw an invisible straight line between the centre of the square that the spellcaster is on and the centre 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.

We can deduct from this, that a clear line of sight exists provided that the square that you are targeting is at least 50% visible (as a line drawn from the centre of your square to the centre of the target square is permitted to just touch a corner or wall edge, which would give exactly 50% visibility, which is the minimum required).

This means there are three possible categories, that I will refer to for clarity as
a) “Not Visible / Can not be seen” – 0% visible
b) “Visible / Can be seen” – 1-100% visible
c) “Clear Line of Sight” – at least 50% visible

Set a) and set b) are clearly a mutually exclusive pair of sets i.e., something is either visible or not visible

Set c) is a subset of set b), everything that you have a “clear line of sight” to must also be “visible / can be seen”, but not everything that is “visible / can be seen” has a “clear line of sight” draw to it, anything that is less than 50% “visible / can be seen” does not have a “clear line of sight”

So, to apply this logic to clear up the rules…

Ranged weapons like crossbow, including thrown weapons, dagger and hand axe need a clear line of sight to the target

Spells under the official rules need a clear line of sight exactly as per ranged weapons (although under my rules spells can be used against any target that you can see rather than line of sight – that is a deliberate change to increase the opportunity to use spells – after all if you can use magic to create and hurl a ball of flames then you can use magic to guide it to the target)

In every other instance, that I can think, of the rules are around seeing i.e., visible NOT line of sight, our category b) above.

For example; you can only search if no monsters can be seen (presumably if you can see a monster then your priority should be to deal with it), stuff is laid out on the board when you can see it.

Blocked square spaces and tall furniture – bookshelves and cupboards block line of sight i.e., the squares that they are in are occupied same as if they were occupied by a monster or Hero, any other furniture doesn’t block line of sight.

So, in summary you can see the following.
• A Hero in a room can see everything in that same room
• A Hero in a corridor can see everything in that corridor (corridors are straight so two separate corridors met at a corner or T-junction)
• A Hero standing on a corner or T-junction or on a square adjacent to a corner or T-junction can see everything in both corridors
• A Hero standing on a square adjacent to an open door can see (and can be seen by) everything in the room or corridor that he is adjacent to
• A Hero can see anything that he has a clear line of sight to (ignoring the ‘another Hero or monster’ clause)

And you have a clear line of sight when the following criteria are met.

Draw an invisible straight line between the centre of the square that the Hero or monster is on and the centre of the square the target is on. If the line crosses a wall, closed door, cupboard, bookshelf, blocked square, or another Hero or monster, then the line of sight is considered blocked, otherwise the line of sight is considered clear, even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge.

Does that help, or just confuse matters further?