"Two attacks instead of one" ?

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I'm not a fan of the "Two attacks instead of one" mechanism as it seems open to misunderstanding (hence this topic). That said it is in the official rules so...

I agree with Daedalus about the prohibition around "move then action OR action then move" is to prevent movement being split and allowing abuse of the turn system by, for example, stepping round a corner, shooting a crossbow at a now visible monster, then stepping back round the corner, denying that monster, even if it is armed with a crossbow, the chance to get a shot back at you.

So, I agree the attack – move – attack isn’t prohibited in the rules or on the cards

Although perhaps it should be as allowing attack-move-attack introduces ambiguity in the card text in certain situations, for example Potion of Battle states” . . . It grants him 2 attacks per turn as long as there are monsters in sight. . .” so, if you permit attack – move – attack and you have a situation when the Hero is adjacent to a monster in a corridor and around the corner is a second monster, already placed on the board, then you could drink the potion when you have a monster in sight (adjacent to you) attack and kill the monster, at which point you no longer have any monsters in sight, so the effects should end, then you move around the corner so that you are adjacent to the monster, and therefore you now have a monster in sight, can you then take your second attack?

In terms of the same or different weapons, that is a harder one to answer in the context of the official rules as I’m not aware of any official rules around switching weapons.

I have my own house rules, below so as far as I am concerned the two attacks could be with different weapons, provided that my house rule is not broken. I don’t agree with Daedalus around applying the “you may only attack with one weapon at a time” rule in this situation, as there are two distinct attack actions (must be if you can separate them with movement), so each attack can only be with one weapon, but nothing prevents you from switching as you move between attacks

You may switch carried items (weapons and shield) as a free action only if you don’t have any monsters in the eight squares surrounding you.
Note: This happens automatically if you are armed with a ranged weapon and a monster moves into one of the eight squares surrounding you.

But this is getting complicated, and I don’t like complicated when it comes to HeroQuest as part of its charm is the simplicity.

Perhaps modifying the text for clarity and standardising the ‘two attacks’ text across the various cards would resolve this situation.

You could state that ‘…you may attack twice as a single action…’ which would eliminate the attack – move – attack situation, the multiple targets and the switching weapons situation amongst others or ‘…you may perform two attack actions this turn instead of the usual one action and movement…’ which would do the same but still allow you to use that attack action on a different monster that is next to you?

[Farwatcher]

I'd say that Potion of Battle wears off the moment you don't have a monster in line of sight, so the attack-move-attack feels okay to me -- you're charging from one foe to the next.

Weapon swapping seems like the bigger question. I have a house rule that you can only change weapons at the start of your turn (and can't pass someone else the weapon you're using or the armour you're wearing) -- intended to prevent heroes buying one crossbow and passing it around, but this would also answer whether you can swap weapons between 2 attacks.

Personally, I dislike the ruling that a hero or monster that gets hit by 2 attacks only defends once -- not from a power level standpoint, but just because the wording feels unintuitive. If I was rewriting these cards, I'd go with something like "When you attack, you can either double your attack dice against one enemy or make one attack against each of two different enemies." (And make sure that somewhere in the rules, something clarifies that dice-doubling effects don't stack!)

...which, now I look at it, reads like you wouldn't be allowed to attack-move-attack, but I'm okay with that interpretation, too.

[wallydubbs]

Didn't the original Potion of Battle allow a hero to reroll his attack dice, in case the attack fails?
You guys must be referring to the Potion of Battle Rage from the Barbarian Quest Pack.
I have to agree on the line of sight rule. If the hero kills a monster and can't visually see the other monster around the corner, he cannot make his 2nd attack.
Under normal circumstances I don't see a problem for the hero to attack-move-attack, especially for a warrior with the calibre of Barbarian. I've allowed it for Orc's Bane in the past, so long as the 2nd monster attacked was an Orc.

I also need to agree with Farwatcher, I don't like the defend once rule for heroes or monsters. The Polar Warbear is much too ferocious and damaging to allow the hero only 1 defense. Frozen Horror is too difficult as is. By this I offer the same courtesy to Orc's when against the Bane or whomever the Barbarian attacks while under Battle Rage. Even in Wizard's of Morcar when the Orc Shaman casts Orc Berserk.
Some rules I think we're allowed to adjust for the betterment of game-play and I think this is one of them.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I also agree that restricting Heroes and Monsters to a single defend roll against multiple attacks on the same turn from the same attacker doesn’t play well.

I always took this as a special exception for the Polar Warbear in Frozen Horror and not generally applicable (and although I haven’t yet played that expansion, the comments that I have read suggest that is much disliked even in that Quest book)

In fact just thinking about that point has made me realise one of the reasons why I instinctively don’t like the ‘two attacks on the same foe in the same turn’ concept. When you roll your attack die we consider that as a single ‘attack’ but there is nothing that suggests that it couldn’t be multiple attacks, a flurry of blows, shoves, feints, shield strikes, headbutts, kick in the vulnerable areas, to create an opening to follow up with a weapon strike that we, for the sake of simplicity represent as a single attack roll (responded to by a single defend roll), so following that logic it makes more sense to me that these items give you an enhanced attack rather than two attacks.

Although I admit that I am trying to work through any unintended consequences about converting all ‘two attacks’ into extra AD attacks, especially around stacking…

And yes wallydubbs well spotted, the Potion of Battle does give you a re-roll not two attacks (although it has been pointed out elsewhere that a reroll is statistically equivalent to an extra AD…)

The Problem

The rules around ‘two attacks instead of one’ are not clear and are open to different interpretations

The Items
text is from the US version

• Heroic Brew - "If you drink its contents before you attack, you can make two attacks instead of one."
• Orcs’ Bane - "You may attack twice if attacking an Orc"
• Potion of Battle Rage - from Frozen Horror - "It grants him two attacks per turn as long as there are monsters in sight"
• Orc Berserker - Orc Shaman Spell from Wizards of Zargon - "That Orc may then move twice and attack twice during this turn only"
• (Elf's) Potion of Speed - from Mage of the Mirror - "The Elf also gets two attacks per turn"

Possible Interpretations
• Two attacks as a single action, same target, same weapon
• Two attacks as separate actions that can be against different targets
• Two attacks as separate actions that can be against different targets and split by movement
• Does two attacks against the same target mean they only get to defend once?

How do we resolve
• Agree on the best interpretation and amend the text to reflect this.
• Scrap the "two attacks" concept and just increase the number of attack dice but need to consider stacking

[wallydubbs]

Looking at the typical Potion of Battle, I don't actually see it as two attacks because that would make it synonymous with Heroic Brew. I think if the hero rolls the dice there's a moment before the monster gets to roll for defense when the hero can drink this potion and reroll. As the way I see it the Potion of Battle must be used against one monster alone.
Attacking twice gives the option of attacking two monsters: if the hero has Orc's Bane and is standing between two Orcs he should be able to stab one way and then the other in rapid succession. Or if one orc blocks the first attack, he may try again on that same orc (Same applies with Heroic Brew on any monster).

I agree that the rules aren't very specific on splitting up the attacks, but the rule book does explicitly state matters about splitting up movement. The fact that it doesn't do this in regards to attacks leaves it up for interpretation. In fact, the rule book states it doesn't have a contingency for every scenario and advices Zargon to be creative with his decisions on such matters. So whomever is playing as Zargon ultimately gets the final say. But I feel the other players should have an opportunity to sway Zargon's opinion in the matter of interpretation.

There are even some rules that are quite explicit that Zargon may choose not to adhere by. The singular defense against double attacks is one, and some play the one-search per room house-rule, which contradicts the rule book. Some of us play with an expanded Treasure Deck and disregard throwing Wandering Monsters back in the deck.
As a Zargon it's my job to make fair decisions and act upon what works best for the game and other players. If a spell card has a faulty or mixed interpretation (Courage, Clairvoyance, etc.) I gotta call it in a balanced fashion.

So when it comes to something like Potion of Battle Rage and the interpretation of two attacks in the Frozen Horror quest pack, I recognize how difficult this expansion is and have to call it in favor of the heroes. So for me: attack - move - attack is fine, so is twice the defense.
The rulebook doesn't take into account the extensive length of these quests too, so the Wizard is likely to run out of spells halfway through the quest. With the inclusion of Wizard of Morcar spells and the Elf Spells from MotM. I'll allow the Wizard 4 spell groups for this Quest pack.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Agreed – I think the earlier reference to the Potion of Battle was a red herring and should have referred to the Potion of Battle Rage

In terms of the interpretation of rules, the rulebook not covering every scenario and the creation of house-rules, I agree that falls within the remit of Zargon as alluded to in the original game material however the original game predates the internet and forums like this one, which have several functions, one of which surely is to facilitate groups of “Zargons” (maybe a ‘murder’ of Zargons might be an appropriate collective noun?) to discuss their own various interpretations and house-rules and perhaps sometimes agree on a “best interpretation” or failing that at least a couple of alternative better interpretations and possibly, one day collect these into some form of ‘living rulebook’ as has been done for other games including some of Games Workshop’s from a similar period (Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Space Hulk, Mordheim and so on).

In fact something like this has been proposed and discussed here: The Inn's Modular System for House Rules

In terms of your comment around the extensive length of later Quests and the Wizard potentially running out of spells I refer you to my post (currently the last post of a very long topic) in The Wizard Clearing House of House Rules

And finally, to the point of the topic itself…I don’t agree with the statement below about Orcs’ Bane

Attacking twice gives the option of attacking two monsters: if the hero has Orc's Bane and is standing between two Orcs, he should be able to stab one way and then the other in rapid succession. Or if one orc blocks the first attack, he may try again on that same orc (Same applies with Heroic Brew on any monster).

I think the text ‘an Orc’ implies a single Orc being on the receiving end of (both) the attack(s), so for this particular occasion of the ‘two attack’ rule I would certainly be in favour of interpreting that to mean two attacks on the same target as part of the same action and so would consider replacing that Orcs' Bane granting 4 combat dice in attack against an Orc

[Farwatcher]

Thinking aloud here, I wonder if this might be broken into two mechanics: one that improves the attack roll of a single attack, and one that grants an extra attack action. I'm going to call them Frenzy and Haste, respectively.

Frenzy: After you attack a monster, you may immediately attack it again. ["Immediately" indicating that you can't move, swap weapons, or do anything else between attacks; "attack IT again" indicating that you must attack the same target.]
Heroic Brew and Orcs’ Bane would be Frenzy effects.

Haste: On your turn, you may either take one action as normal OR take two actions. If you take two actions, both must be attacks. [OK to move-attack-attack, attack-attack-move, or attack-move-attack. OK to attack multiple targets or one target twice]
• Potion of Battle Rage, Orc Berserker, (Elf's) Potion of Speed would be Haste effects.

The Polar Warbear's ability would be a Frenzy effect BUT with the special modification that allows it to immediately attack either the same opponent or a different opponent.

Finally, I still prefer letting heroes (and monsters) defend against each attack, but if the "one defense" rule sticks, I had a thought for a radical reinterpretation: A hero only gets one defend roll BUT that roll applies to each attack made against him. For example, a Polar Warbear attacks a helm-clad elf. The bear rolls 4 dice, twice: 3 skulls on its first attack and 2 skulls on its second. The elf rolls 3 dice, once: 1 shield. The bear inflicts 2 BP on the first hit and 1 BP on the second. How would that feel?

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I think you are right to consider a two-pronged approach to this.

I agree that Orcs' Bane for me definitely fits into the first category of an enhanced single attack based on what I think is the correct interpretation of the card text and I think that category, to keep it clearly distinct for the other category is best delivered as extra attack dice rather than an extra attack (although I'm still mulling over Heroic Brew but I think you are probably correct including that in the same group)

The second category, which funnily enough I was thinking more along the lines of that being 'frenzy', is an interesting one…

For various reasons, that are discussed in the Advancement - how to do it? I, long ago, created a 'Battle Rage' mechanism, for the Barbarian.

I think that the Potion of Battle Rage and possibly the Orc Berserker align with that idea so I reuse that mechanism for those with Potion of Battle Rage, if used by someone with that ability already it would double the effects i.e. two extra attack dice, two less defend dice.

The Elf's Potion of Speed is different as that effectively just lets you have two turns instead of one.

We are agreed on the letting heroes (and monsters) defend against each attack, so I don't think we need anything changing there.

[Anderas]

Both questions are open pain points in the rule book, the one with two attacks and the one with two weapons.

Most house rules have something to say here, so these are indeed good points.

In my rule set I don't let someone attack twice in his one action. I just give an additional attack action. That way it's clear and simple.

It theoretically opens the possibility that a 1000 heroic brews are used in the same turn, but that's really just theory... After all, there is just one brew in the treasure deck and buying potions doesn't happen often.
I use the exact same words on Orc's Bane, only with the restriction to Orcs and Goblins. Like that a heroic brew doesn't give you an additional set of two attacks with it, but just one attack more.

For the other question, I ruled that you may decide what you use at the beginning of your turn, but then can't change it anymore until your next turn.

Both my rulings have nothing to do with official rules, it's just my personal solution to your questions.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

It is good that we have some common ground to start on as my ruleset also doesn't let someone attack twice in his one action however your method of smoothing that out by giving an additional attack action, as opposed to my method of boosting the existing single attack action, in my opinion isn’t so clear and simple as it opens up a possible (mis)interpretation.

If on my turn I normally get one action and one movement, that can be done in either order but the movement cannot be split by the action, but I now as a result of this potion or weapon, I get an additional (attack) action, i.e. two attack actions and one movement, then I don’t see anything in the rules or on the card that resolves the question “can I attack, move and attack again (or move, attack twice or attack twice then move)?”

In terms of stacking and keeping it fairly plausible, am I correct in thinking that quaffing Heroic Brew whilst wielding Orc’s Bane and assuming that suitable monsters are configured as needed would mean that you get two additional attack actions, so one movement and three attack actions.

In terms of the movement, you could then either move into position and launch your attack actions or vice versa.

In terms of the attack actions, to get the first additional attack from Orcs’ Bane would you have to attack an Orc (or Goblin) first, or could your standard attack be used against any monster type, which would activate the additional attack from the Heroic Brew’s, which if directed at an Orc or Goblin would activate the additional attack from Orc’s Bane that could only be directed at an adjacent Orc or Goblin (either the same one as the second attack or a different one)?

I feel that my interpretation (accepting for the moment that my Heroic Brew grants the drinker +2AD for the next attack action only, I know that raises questions, but we can handle that separately) is simpler and clearer…

Quaffing Heroic Brew whilst wielding Orc’s Bane would mean that your next single attack action would give you an extra 2AD and if the target is an Orc or Goblin then those 2AD would be on top of the 4AD granted by Orcs’ Bane for a single 6AD attack (any subsequent attacks would drop back down to 4AD)

Any thoughts?