Defending against the Orc's Bane

[The Admiral]

I know the intention of the rules is that two attacks only gives the defender one defence of their choice, but I just play that every attack gets a defence. It just seemed odd to me that you could make a separate attack against two different targets and each would defend, but not when you attack the same target.

I'm sure someone will give me a rationale of why it works, but It won't change my mind, and as it's the same for Heroes and monsters, it all works out for me anyway.

[wallydubbs]

If only we had an upvote feature on this forum, instead let me reward you

Well we can make a vote of it, can't we?

[Kurgan]

Originally we assumed it was each attack the victim rolls defense each time. No reason to think otherwise...

It wasn't until the Frozen Horror that people started wondering if it was different, even though only the Polar Warbear monsters were given a special multi-attack rule. However the draft notes from 1992 reveal that the designers of that pack (and the other "Hero" themed packs for the NA region) were considering making it so that if multi-attacks were targetted at a single character, then it was like you were combining your dice into one LARGE attack that the defender rolled one defense at the end of. These changes were not, for whatever reason, printed in the "final" release into retail of course.

THIS Is what I read in the draft notes and for a long time I didn't know where I read it because I didn't take note of the page, etc. so I started to wonder if I had only dreamt it. But it's real. We were going to get a quest pack themed for each of the four heroes in '92-'93, and multi-attacks were going to appear in each one, with that intended rule revision but either due to lack of organization, play testing (or more likely time crunch and budget cuts, with the HeroQuest project winding down to a close) we didn't see more of it, much less a more detailed explanation.


So in the actual 1992 released version of FH (and the remake edition of 2022) simply take it as one of those attacks is unblockable (the originally probably assumed it was the second attack, sucks to be the hero who takes that one!) but the Remake (whether in the print version, Into the Northlands digital supplement or the Companion App) amended it to say that the monster has his two rolls and the victim chooses WHICH ONE he rolls defense against, and the other one is unblockable.

With the Rogue Heir of Elethorn expansion, THAT reveals the intention of the AH guys that they intend that the above rule should apply to all instances of multi-attacks, including all the ones used by heroes against monsters as well. Now if you didn't buy Rogue Heir, you might not realize this (the cards aren't actually displayed in the Companion App, and you'd only see the action happen if you were using this character, not if you were using Orc's bane or the various expansion potions that trigger multi-attacks). So there you go.

Using the "big roll" thing kind of nerfs the Rogue's attack, but otherwise I prefer it, and use it instead of this "canon" official explanation from the AH team.

So when I play I use the "big combined attack" interpretation of all multi-attacks EXCEPT the "ambidextrous" mode of the Rogue, which I take at face value the way AH describes it. But that's me.

Clearly today they intended all of them to behave the same way as the Polar Warbear for all monster multi-attacks against same target and like the Rogue for all hero vs. monster multi-attacks against the same target. Not too hard to understand.

Now the attacker is supposed to declare WHICH targets they are going for before they roll their dice, so no deciding after the fact that they should apply the attack to the same target because the first one failed even if they were originally going to go for the second target. But what if they kill the target they intended two attacks for and have one left over, is it wasted or do they get to pick another target? Zargon should decide ahead of time and let the heroes know his choice and also do the same when they start to have the ability to do multi-attacks (even before Orc's Bane is found, Heroic Brew can be found in the Treasure Deck each quest!) so as to avoid arguments or confusion at the table is my suggestion.

It can be a great weapon, so I wouldn't seek to nerf it without a really compelling reason. If people like to retroactively apply rules from later expansions into the original, they can do this and it does potentially strengthen it if you take one of the other two interpretations (big attack or one unblockable attack) especially against 1 BP Orcs!

And yes I would treat ALL Orc type characters as being equally susceptible to the Orc's bane, if anyone wants my opinion. (But Goblins, Fimir/Abominations are not "Orcs" in this game either!)

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I don't think that summary is quite right, but it is confusing due to the HQ designers using the Quest Books to publish "rule clarifications" some of which were rule clarifications, some of which were rule changes, and some were special quest or quest book rules and rule exceptions and not being clear on which was which. I appreciate that "back in the day" they had no real choice but to publish rule mods in expansion packs although they could have been much clearer and put quest and expansion specific stuff in the Quest Book and used a separate sheet, an errata or addendum to the rulebook, for rule mods. These days they really should have a Living Rulebook but that is a separate debate.

Originally we assumed it was each attack the victim rolls defense each time. No reason to think otherwise...

This wasn't an assumption, it was the rule, you roll defend dice against each attack. Multiple attacks from different or the same character each get defended against.

However the draft notes from 1992 reveal that the designers of that pack (and the other "Hero" themed packs for the NA region) were considering making it so that if multi-attacks were targeted at a single character, then it was like you were combining your dice into one LARGE attack that the defender rolled one defense at the end of. These changes were not, for whatever reason, printed in the "final" release into retail of course.

Bearing in mind the poor level of editor oversight and playtesting in some of the official published material, I would be very wary of using unpublished material as anything other than a source of ideas for homebrew modifications, which would then need to be playtested thoroughly before being adopted.

It wasn't until the Frozen Horror that people started wondering if it was different, even though only the Polar Warbear monsters were given a special multi-attack rule.

The actual relevant text from Frozen Horror is below...

5. Rule Clarifications

Multiple Attacks: A Hero rolls defend dice once for each attacking monster. For example, a Hero attacked by 3 Zombies gets 3 separate defend rolls. A Hero attacked by a monster with multiple attacks (such as the Polar Warbear), however, gets only 1 defend roll against that monster per turn, no matter how many of the monster's attacks are directed at the Hero.

And

The Polar Warbear attacks once with its mighty paw and once with its spiked mace. Two attacks can be made against one opponent or one attack can be can be made against each of two different opponents

Reading this through you can see that

1) it is labelled as a "Rule Clarification" (even though it is actually a rule change and a change to a rule that was clear that results in a new rule that is NOT clear and itself had to be subsequently "clarified") so it is clear, to me, that the intention is for it to be applied to the general game rules and not just this specific Quest Book

2) it clearly uses the Polar Warbear ("such as the Polar Warbear") as an example of a character with multiple attacks and does NOT state that this is a special rule solely for the Polar Warbear

3) the established principle in HQ is that rules apply equally to Heroes and Monsters unless stated otherwise, take a look at the Rules of Play where there are plenty of examples of Monster specific exceptions to otherwise general rules "Monsters never search", "Monster cannot open doors", "Monsters do not set off traps", "Monsters may not move treasure chests", "Monsters may never land on the stairway tile" and "Therefore, the dice need not be rolled when moving monsters." There is no monster or hero specific exceptions stated here so my assumption, and it is an assumption, is that this rule change (sorry, clarification) is applicable to all characters, heroes and monsters (and henchmen/man-at-arms/mercenaries).

What isn't clear is how you are supposed to handle this new rule, either...

A) The attacker with multiple attacks must declare in advance whether he is combining his attacks into one single large attack against a single target who then gets to defend (once) against this single large attack

OR

B) The attacker attacks an opponent once, who defends against that attack as usual. The attacker then chooses an opponent for his second attack and if that is the same opponent, then that opponent cannot defend against this second attack

OR

C) The attacker attacks an opponent once, who chooses whether to defend against that attack. The attacker then chooses an opponent for his second attack and if that is the same opponent, and that opponent chose to defend against the first attack, then that opponent cannot defend against this second attack, if however they chose not to defend against the first attack then they do get to defend against the second attack.

Whilst A) works it takes away one of the key advantages of multiple attacks, the ability to attack once against an opponent with limited dice and then depending on the outcome of that attack, make an informed choice whether to attack the same or a different opponent with the remaining dice (particularly useful if the first opponent is killed by the first attack as it means you don't waste the extra dice).

B) Works but seems illogical, why would an opponent's ability to defend be based on whether he had previously been attacked by the same monster but not on whether he had previously been attacked by a different monster. Imagine if you had a monster that was a composite entity like a swarm of rats represented by a single figure, would that count as one attacker potentially with multiple attacks, or multiple attackers with one attack each? HQ as a simple game rally shouldn't have to delve into such complexity.

And C) just doesn't work, it is as illogical as B) AND if the opponent chooses to not defend against the first attack and then the second is directed elsewhere, then he has lost his chance to defend against a single attack, which breaches its own rule that states you only get to defend once, as in that situation you don't get to defend at all.

So in the actual 1992 released version of FH (and the remake edition of 2022) simply take it as one of those attacks is unblockable (the originally probably assumed it was the second attack, sucks to be the hero who takes that one!)

The 1992 released version of FH doesn't state this, this is an assumption on your part.

Subsequent publications and "rule clarifications" appear to cycle through these options repeatedly, without sticking to any individual one, almost as if they can't decide because none of the 3 options are as simple or logical as the original, with the draft notes and HQ2021 version(s) which, and I'm basing this on your opinion as I haven't read them, appear to cycle from option A (1992 draft notes), the Rogue Heir of Elethorn expansion appears to confirm the original interpretation of the Frozen Horror (1992) but doesn't explain how you handle it, A/B/C, and the Remake (whether in the print version, Into the Northlands digital supplement or the Companion App) amended it to say that the monster has his two rolls and the victim chooses WHICH ONE he rolls defense against, and the other one is unblockable, which equates to option (C) which if it is actually as you have stated, then that is a cracking cock-up as it leads to a situation where following the rule actually breaches the rule that you are following. You choose to defend against the second attack, the second attack is directed elsewhere so you haven't defended against the first attack, and the rules state that you must defend once.

Personally I am sticking with the original clear rule, but I could be persuaded to accept allowing a character with multiple attacks to be able to CHOOSE to combine them into a single double-strength attack that would allow only one defend roll as it is only one attack (so standard original rules still apply).

[lestodante]

Same rule was in WQP draft (notes 2, page 6) sayng: "...However, if a creature gets multiple attacks then the hero only rolls his defend dice once against the combined hits of that one monster."

The words COMBINED HITS let me think the authors intended the monster (or hero) should declare BEFORE attacking the target or targets of his attacks.
If the Polar Warbear wish to attack the Barbarian twice, then rolls its attack dice twice and the Barbarian rolls his defense dice once.

Anyway, the best way to avoid any mistake, debate, or problem (regardless of whatever it is written in the rules) is to totally ignore this rule and allow a figure to roll defence dice against every attack.
The skill of a multiple attack is already a bonus, denying defence to the target is a mess (and frustrating)!

[Kurgan]

HeroQuest is a work in progress that changes and evolves through versions, regional editions and remakes. I think the unpublished draft notes from the 90's show us the intentions of the creators of those expansions. Granted, the overall perspective is that these developers (who are no longer in charge of HeroQuest) lacked the resources to fully realize their vision in print, and if they had a chance to do it again it probably would look quiet different. I'm certainly glad we got those expansions rather than not, and I'm glad they were remade even if most of the issues present in those released versions were included for modern players to puzzle over (and each comes up with his own tweaks and resolutions... or gives up after too many TPKs!).

To me Orc's Bane was fine to begin with. Some have said on here more than a few times that as you progress in the NA campaign (the EU wizard can use it, so it would remain useful for him), what was once a very useful weapon gives way to more powerful combinations and becomes less and less valuable in combat (especially in a campaign where there are few Orcs to fight). Perhaps this is another angle as people look for a way to improve or buff the weapon, and the discussion about the 1992 modifications gives an opening for that. Multi-attacks have always been part of HeroQuest, but these were some radical changes (they were not afraid to make radical suggestions like this at that designer table, similar to the questions about walking up to individual furniture to search them). People who didn't own those packs wouldn't have known about them, and I agree it's kind of a clunky way to introduce rule clarifications... yeah, you've got to buy this one particular expansion that clarifies something in the original rules (rather than having it as a quirk or feature of that expansion only which is built around the new mechanic). I agree you could say Avalon Hill is in a similar position in that they are either going to have to reprint the rule book every time they come across a clarification like this, or else slip it into an expansion, and offer it on the internet to people in the hopes that they will incorporate it into their games (you may not purchase every expansion but with the ubiquity of the internet today, much different than in 1992, you could download the PDFs or look up the app, even if you didn't want to scroll twitter or hop onto discord, to learn what you "missed"). Short of issuing "new editions" every couple of years, this is probably the most painless way they could do it with a physical game. Or is there an easier way? Maybe they send out mailings to each person who bought a copy with an errata sheet? (misses people who bought aftermarket copies).

I realize from my earlier comments someone could draw forth the idea "well the developers thought about these various ideas but ultimately rejected them as unworkable [hence so should we]" but that is not the case. Frozen Horror was the first of the "hero themed" packs completed, in my understanding, followed soon after by Mage of the Mirror. The Wizard Pack was close to finished and the Dwarf pack was only about half finished (and had a rough re-write, so had a long ways to go compared to the others). The fact that if the project hadn't been shelved indefinitely they would have continued on with the Wizard and Dwarf packs and those packs contained the clarifications of the multi-attack rules. Yes, it would have been messy to see a pack come out the next year that explained in more detail what was already in a previous pack, but the same could be said of all of the rule clarifications that were intended to be buried in these packs. It's the closest thing we have to a "what they really intended."

I think it can be tempting to imagine there is this pure kind of "mind of heroquest" that knows how the game is supposed to be, a kind of golden canon, and Avalon Hill, being placed in charge of the franchise and given freedom to work with it, know this better than everyone. However their public statements, their actual releases, all work against any such notion. It reminds me a little bit of how so many Star Wars fans used to believe the idea (admittedly, encouraged at one time, then utterly exploded by George Lucas himself) that there was this grand notebook that outlined everything from the beginning that was simply being expanded upon as time went on (rather than the real truth, later proven by leaks and then officially published drafts) that many ideas were rejected in the process, many false starts, and changes, and it was "made up as it went along."

What Avalon Hill has been trying to do is retain as much of the legacy of HeroQuest that they think the fans want as they can, while flexing their own creative muscle when possible (now especially as they are running out of legacy material to remake, and we are talking material with the lowest amount of nostalgia for it compared to what's already come out, hence they feel more free to tinker and improve). Yes, a lot of that tinkering has more to do with filling boxes with pretty objects than actually tweaking rules and altering quests, but they will do it. Their reluctance to pursue unrestrained into clarifying every little thing tells me some of these things will never really be "resolved" to anyone's satisfaction (and that's okay). Twenty years from now people will still be "arguing" about Borin's Armor, Crossbows, Courage, roll to move, line of sight, character death, shopping between quests and the connection to Warhammer Fantasy world lore.

Yes, it helps to know that stuff if you are trying to homebrew things, but you could say that about anything. Some random post on here may inspire me to homebrew something, even if it's based on that person was just stating their personal preference on something. It doesn't have to have any basis in any actual developer diary. However, I do hold that kind of thing with a certain level of respect, and I am always curious to hear about it and if I like it, I'm inclined to use it. I'm sure not all of Stephen Baker's early ideas "worked" but I'd still like to know them. What if it turns out he really wanted people to walk up to treasure chests to open them, does that mean I'm now required to do that in my games? No, but if I want to, I always could, and I could also tout that as my reason for doing so.

So as I see it using the official rules you have a few choices when it comes to multi-attacks:

1) Do nothing special. Each attack roll gets a defense roll unless the card text specifically disallows it.
2) Do what Avalon Hill suggests via Into the Northlands and the Companion App (for Frozen Horror) then further clarified in Rogue Heir of Elethorn Hero Collection. Victim of multiple attacks has to choose one to roll defense against and the other(s) are unblockable.
3) Do what the somewhat vague 1992 Frozen Horror gave for Polar Warbear and retroactively apply it elsewhere, so that the first attack has a regular defense roll and other attacks are unblockable. You could still argue this only applies to multi-attacks against Heroes by monsters (Polar Warbear being the sole example) and not the other way around.
4) Do what the draft notes from 1992 say (and what they were intending to include in future packs had they not been shut down): multi-attacks against the same target are combined into a large attack, victim rolling defense at the end, regardless of if it's a monster or hero doing the attacking. Apply to all instances of multi-attacks. Whether you retroactively apply it to other packs outside of those "hero" themed expansions is up to you. But it would mean the Elf and Barbarian potions, Orc's Bane AND Heroic Brew in those packs would function this way.

Or simply ignore all that and handle it whatever way you want, like everything else in this game!

Why bother with all of this? What was the intention behind the "multiple attacks"? Clearly the writers of the Frozen Horror wanted those monsters to be extra powerful. They wanted them to be able to take on more than one hero at a time, or else really stick it to one character in battle (perhaps making them "OP" to some). Is there any logic behind two attacks being stronger than one? You could argue that the victim is exhausted defending the first attack and has a harder time defending against the second. Then again you could also argue that the attacker is going to be more tired from launching the first attack (that is deflected) so the second wouldn't be as strong. I think as kids we more often than not at our table opted for hitting two targets as that seemed the biggest utility with something like Orc's bane. You have the chance to wipe out TWO MONSTERS AT ONCE, WOW! It made the weapon really seem cool. Or we thought you attack an Orc, and if he blocks it, you just try again... in that sense it was treated like a "re-roll" (normally you don't defend against an attack and then your opponent re-rolls... either you failed and so you re-roll to get something then they defend, or you are just saying that was a weak roll so I'm going to try again and then they roll defense, but this is like both are legit attacks with a legit defense in turn). Unlike in some other games, there's no risk for the hero attacking a monster again and again, so it's another chance to defeat the monster rather than waiting for the next round of turns (and a chance for that monster to hurt them).

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Lestodante, I agree with you and others and I just play that each attack is defended against and ignore the rule variants and clarifications that followed, and may continue to follow.

My previous comments were around trying to understand the official rule which was confusing me, as it appears to have been radically changed from a clear and simple rule via an unnecessary rule "clarification" into a different and less clear rule with at least 3 different interpretations (it isn't confusing me any more as I have just given up and decided to stick with the original rule!) but one question still remains...does the Polar Warbear have two 4CD attacks or one 8CD attack (I assume the former!)

[Malcadon]

I always liked the Orc's Bane for its ability to clear a room of its orcy rabble. Shame they never made equivalent weapons for Skeletons.

I know the rules assume that you have to attack the same Orc, but I allow players to attack a second Orc if the first Orc hit dies.

While I dont use the One Defense Roll rule, if I was to use it, I would apply it so that you can only make one defense roll from a single attacker. If a Polar Warbear attacks an Elf and Wizard at once, both heroes can make a defense roll. If on the same turn, they are attacked by other normal monsters, they can still make a defense roll. Only if the Polar Warbear attacks one of the heroes with both attacks, would that hero make a single defense with one of the two attacks.

[The Admiral]

The best way to avoid any mistake, debate, or problem (regardless of whatever it is written in the rules) is to totally ignore this rule and allow a figure to roll defence dice against every attack.
The skill of a multiple attack is already a bonus, denying defence to the target is a mess (and frustrating)!

Totally agreed.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Agreed also, but does this mean that the Polar Warbear has an attack value of 4CD and can attack twice?