Crossbow Argument

[Bareheaded Warrior]

In response specifically to Kurgan's point about crossbows and the diagonal squares...and the more general question "can ranged weapons be used to target (and can throwing weapons be thrown at) a Hero or monster on a square that is diagonal to the shooter?" may I chip in the following...

Clarification: Adjacent, orthogonal and diagonal term usage
Logically on a square grid there are 8 squares that can be considered as adjacent to any square, four that are orthogonally adjacent (North, East, South, West) and four that are diagonally adjacent (NE, SE, SW, NW). However, the HeroQuest rule that restricts diagonal movement below means that squares that are logically diagonally adjacent can only be moved to via an orthogonally adjacent square i.e., they effectively have a square between them for the purposes of movement and so within the world of HeroQuest they are not considered to be adjacent.

From the US rules, pages 12-13

When moving, however, you cannot pass over monsters, move through walls or move diagonally.

From the US rules, page 21

Monsters may not move or attack diagonally

For clarity throughout the rules (and related discussions on this forum) the term adjacent should be understood as referring to those squares that are orthogonally adjacent only (N,E,S,W) and the word diagonal should be understood as referring to those that are diagonally adjacent (NE,SE, SW, NW) in the logical sense but are NOT adjacent in the World of HeroQuest.

From the US rules, page 13

[H] Action 1 – Attack
As a Hero, you may attack any monster that you are adjacent to. You are adjacent if you are directly to the side, front, or rear of another square. You may, however, only attack once per turn. Your attack strength depends on your attack weapon. The stronger the weapon, the greater the number of Attack Dice used. Some weapons allow you to attack diagonally or from a distance. Most weapons, however, do not.

The precise interpretation of the phrase "to attack diagonally or from a distance" implies that one or the other is true i.e. those weapons that can attack from a distance cannot attack diagonally but I'm not convinced that this precise interpretation was intended.

From the US rules, page 15

For instance, daggers and crossbows are special weapons due to their ability to hit a monster from a distance.
Some long weapons, like the staff and the longsword, allow you to attack diagonally. The attack is made and defended normally.

Relevant text from the US Armory entry under "Crossbow"

This long-range weapon gives you the attack strength of 3 combat dice. You may fire at any monster that you can "see." However, you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you.

Relevant text from the US Armory entry under "Dagger"

This sharp knife gives you the attack strength of 1 combat die. A dagger can also be thrown at any monster you can "see," but is lost once it is thrown

Taking into account the above material;
1.Ranged weapons in general, and crossbows specifically, cannot be used to attack an adjacent opponent
2.Throwing weapons in general, and daggers specifically, can be used to attack an adjacent opponent but cannot be thrown at one.
3.Ranged weapons in general, and crossbows specifically, can be used to attack an opponent who is NOT in an adjacent square which includes diagonals as these are not considered adjacent
4.Throwing weapons in general, and daggers specifically, can be thrown at an opponent who is NOT in an adjacent square which includes diagonals as these are not considered adjacent

However, in my opinion the intention of the rule above that states that you cannot fire the crossbow at a monster that is adjacent to you is to maintain a clear distinction between close combat (target in adjacent square) and ranged combat (target not in adjacent square).

The diagonal “reach” weapon capability blurs the line here as it means that under certain circumstances diagonal squares can be considered as within the range of close combat.

As far as I am aware in the base game (feel free to correct me if I am wrong here) monsters are never equipped with ranged, throwing or reach weapons so there is no amendment necessary in the official rules as there is nothing that I can see that clearly states that a crossbow cannot be fired at a target in a diagonal square (with the possible exception of the bit I mentioned above)

However in later expansions and indeed anything home brewed, a situation could occur where either a monster armed with a ranged/thrown weapon is attempting to diagonally target a Hero armed with a ranged weapon OR a Hero armed with a ranged/thrown weapon is attempting to diagonally target a monster with a reach weapon and in those scenarios there is a contention.

In keeping with what in my opinion is the intent of the original rules above, I would suggest that this contention could be avoided by inserting the following rule clarification text into the relevant Quest Books

"Ranged weapons can be fired and throwing weapons thrown at a target in a diagonal square ...unless that target is armed with a reach weapon."

In thinking this through another question has arisen in my mind ... if reach weapons can target diagonal squares (which as we have previously established are not adjacent but have an intervening square) then why can't reach weapons be used to target squares that are orthogonally two squares away? ... but this may be a bridge too far at least for now.

[Kurgan]

If they just came out and said their original intentions from 1990, that would satisfy me. Although if they took the "yes it can" approach that raises the other question... does this diminish the longsword's value (a unique weapon added to the NA edition, that is the same price in gold and simply adds a diagonal attack ability to the broadsword's stats)? Hence people have tried to homebrew new rules like making the longsword (or crossbow) into a two handed weapon that can't be used with a shield. Creating extra rules to compensate for the first interpretation.

By default weapons (and spells) in HeroQuest can either just hit a touching square or have unlimited range, there's nothing in between but many players have homebrewed their own rules there.

It seems easiest to just say the crossbow can't hit anything that doesn't have at least one square in between the target and the shooter (this is quickly becoming my preference once again, despite having played many quests now with the "can hit those squares" interpretation), but maybe they didn't intend that. I'm not sure Stephen Baker would even remember what they were thinking, since he may not have had much to do with the North American adaptation of the rules that is now being used for the game, but maybe he would.

Yes at a certain point the Heroes will have enough gold to buy everything (making the point moot, that is until a rust spell turns a longsword into powder), and there's no rule limiting carry capacity or the ability to switch weapons on every turn without using up an action (players have homebrewed those as well, in varying attempts to re-balance). There are some things that do make the game much easier if you take a certain interpretation.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

In response to the more general thrust of this thread, I agree that ranged weapons are overpowered but I disagree with some of the solutions suggested and would offer my own.

Disagree

There is much debate on this forum and elsewhere on the need for an "advancement system for HeroQuest" but I think that it already has a good one, it might not be perfect* but it has the major virtue of being very simple, which alone might be considered sufficient to retain it.

*more thoughts on this elsewhere

Treasure gained from within the dungeon, gold coins or valuables with a gold coin value on treasure cards or specific treasure in the Quest Notes that is gold coins or has a gold coin value and rewards of a similar ilk gained as a reward on the successful completion of a Quest are the direct equivalent to gaining experience points (XP) that we are familiar with in many other similar games (the virtue of simplicity here is that you don't have to record and total up a number of experience points each time you kill a monster or swing your sword, cast a spell, disarm a trap, search for something etc which would be very laborious as this isn't a computer game)

This gold "our XP equivalent" can then be used, between Quests, to buy weapons and armour (or a tool kit) which in turn improve our existing stats and/or add in new abilities - attack at range, attack diagonally, disarm traps which is the direct equivalent to "to spending experience points to purchase an upgrade/new skills” in other game systems.

Magic items found, especially ones that have permanent benefits, also perform the same function, short cutting the between Quests part, as do weapons and armour found within the dungeon

The reason why this is relevant on this thread, is that there is (and needs to be in my mind at least), a clear distinction between this gold coin / experience points logic and any mundane earning/expenses aspects of Heroes lives.

Presumably our Heroes need to feed and clothe themselves between Quests, quaff ale, pay for accommodation and medical expenses, repair/replace weapons and armour, restock empty quivers, obtain supplies and hire mules to transport these supplies to and from the next adventure site, visit and make donations to houses of disrepute and places of worship (the lines between those two may be blurred) and so on which I class under the general category of “expenses” and equally they may also be gainfully employed whilst between Quests, beating up locals (mercenary/bodyguard/footpad), plying their trade, sharing their skills and experiences, using their healing spells, selling of unwanted equipment and so on, all of which activities which I class under the general category of earnings.

For me one of the beautiful things about HeroQuest is its simplicity and that includes the fact that all this mundane earning/expenses activities happens entirely under the radar and we don’t have to consider it – no dice rolls to determine how long your Barbarian is laid up for following a three day bender, no dice roll to determine whether the Elf is able to take part in the next quest due to his pressing circus commitments, no worry as you reach for an arrow in your quiver to take down a stampeding monster that due to increased interest rates and problems affecting supply of chicken feathers you are 3 short of your usual quiver quota.

This is a very longwinded way (but I enjoyed the ramble) of explaining why I disagree with trying to counter the overpowered ranged weapons by making the Heroes pay for ammunition or repairs between Quests, after all that doesn’t change the fact that they are overpowered within the Quests.

Also disagree with the suggestion of introducing the concept of having to reload ranged weapons mainly because this would also introduce a load more rules and complexity around under what situations you can and cannot reload a weapon (for example, can you reload a crossbow if you have a dagger in your other hand and no adjacent monsters but there is a monster to your diagonal and does it depend on whether that monster has a reach or ranged weapon also, and does this count as an action, or a “free action”?) and also the need to introduce and track the loaded status of a weapon (I raise the crossbow to shoot the charging Orc in the face but then realise that I may not have reloaded it since I shot a Goblin three rooms ago..., is my crossbow still loaded or not if I have stowed it on my back, what happens when I’m surprised by a Wandering Monster?) feels like a lot of hard work for little gain.

Sort of agree and disagree with…

Introducing a range limit (effective range) which I would imagine being more based on the visibility conditions in the dungeon or lack thereof, as opposed to the maximum range of the weapon itself, a corridor depicted on the gameboard as straight may well have an uneven floor walls and ceilings (roof?), a degree of twists and turns and that combined with the intermittent and flickering nature of torch illumination means that you might well be able to see sufficiently to detect something moving towards you from down a long corridor, and possibly enough - maybe utilising sound and smell to supplement your limited sight - to identify what manner of beast lurks but that doesn't automatically mean that you can put an arrow through its heart even if your weapon can shoot 200 yards in the open on a nice clear spring day with the wind behind you and all the time in the world.

However a range limit that is less than 12 squares or at least the maximum monster move will lead to a situation where a monster can appear in a corridor on its turn and be able to saunter 10 squares towards you and bash you on the nose whilst you are standing there staring at your crossbow (this can happen today but it will make it more likely) and a longer range will rarely have any effect. Also introducing a range limit does bring into question (to be fair they were always questionable) rules that allow you to search for and find concealed traps and secret doors at the opposite end of the same corridor that you cannot now even shoot down!

Suggestion

Might a better of counteracting overpowered ranged weapons be to simply reduce the power.

Reduce the attack dice of a crossbow to 2, bow & shortbow (if you use them) to 2 and 1 attack dice respectively. Yes that puts them on the same level as the equivalent thrown weapons – hand axes (EU) and daggers (EU rules) but at a higher cost but then you don’t risk losing your crossbow each time you fire it

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Kurgan,

If they just came out and said their original intentions from 1990, that would satisfy me

- but then what would we spend our time doing!

I think my suggestion around reducing the crossbow to 2 attack dice handles your longsword question

Carrying capacity / two handed weapons / combine with shield are all big topics in their own right, that I will return to but I don't think they are needed here to solve the problem of a crossbow being overpowered (and the crossbow is still overpowered whether you include or exclude diagonals).

By default weapons (and spells) in HeroQuest can either just hit a touching square or have unlimited range, there's nothing in between

Mmmh, a broadsword is a weapon and that cannot hit all the touching squares (unless you don't count diagonals as touching) but I agree with the principle of keeping it simple by not introducing more "states" than already exist in the HeroQuest world. I think there are three states already - orthogonally adjacent only, adjacent & diagonal only (reach), unlimited (including diagonal) and I don't intend to add any more - hence my soft opposition to a range limit

It seems easiest to just say the crossbow can't hit anything that doesn't have at least one square in between the target and the shooter

Careful! A diagonal square does have square between it and the target, the orthogonal one as you have to move there first in order to get to the diagonal!

[Kurgan]

Clarifying the original intentions doesn't stop us from homebrewing our own rules when we think we can "do better," I would say.
It may be some time before I get into the habit of using the term "orthogonal adjacent." For years I "played it wrong" and treated targeting in HeroQuest much like the movement in Chess (with the exception of the knight)... without resorting to drawing the straight lines wherever they would go as the instruction booklet illustration suggests we do.

The situation with the crossbow really only comes up with the door blocking thingy, because yeah, you can just use one square of your movement to "get into position." I guess in a few cases where the rooms are really crowded it might otherwise.

I don't mind the crossbow being powerful. I don't really have a problem with some weapons being objectively "better" than others as well. It's that we have these two things that are the same price and yet the Crossbow seems far more useful, hence it's like the longsword becomes a joke or trick instead of another legitimate option. In the Japanese edition, only the Elf could use the crossbow, but then they didn't have the longsword and a lot of other things are different so maybe a bad example.

It matters a lot less than if there was limited carrying capacity or some kind of restriction on weapon switching, but it seems the new longsword is quite superfluous (IF read that way). In general diagonal weapons seem to lack any value offhand (except that monster was just out of reach on your crappy movement roll) but the rulebook tells you to use the hero screen and door blocking techniques making close diagonal attacks rather valuable strategically.

Consider the Staff. Why is the staff useful (under NA rules)? It only hits with 1 die, just like a bare-handed hero attacking or a dagger. Sure, it can strike diagonally, but so can a dagger. But, because to hit diagonally, the dagger must be thrown (and is lost when thrown) and because the heroes can't barehanded strike diagonally, the Staff has a unique ability, for the cost of four disposable daggers. The Staff pays for itself in just four strikes! But daggers could still be useful for (say, the Wizard, who can't use much else) to buy, because they can hit squares farther away than the staff at the loss of one dagger per attempt. And once you find the rare Artifact known as the Wizard's Staff, there's little reason to buy the Staff anymore. While the Longsword would seem to be even better still, the Wizard can't use it, and as a non-Artifact, the LS can be rusted and destroyed (while the crossbow cannot).

I guess my thought is the fewer homebrew rules we have to add to make something balanced, the better. I prefer the simpler solution. But I'm trying to play it more or less as written. People are obviously free to overhaul the whole game (and many have, to great effect) to their liking, including layering on the complexity.

Side note: I realize many of these arguments about a superfluous weapon could be applied to the shortsword. Why bother? The shortsword exists in the armory because 1) you want to know its re-sale value, and... 2) in case your weapon gets destroyed and that's the best you can afford. Simple as that.

I too like to mix and match rules from different versions, but once you depart from what's on the page you're homebrewing either way. Still, since it was left vague by the original text, what else is a GM to do? "Zargon's call" is also part of the official rules, in the end.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I think that for me there is a distinction (although there is a lot of overlap) between adding, removing or changing text in the rulebook in order to clarify the existing rules (I would term this ‘clarification’), creating new rules or changing existing rules to handle problems that arise during gameplay that are not covered by the existing rules (‘problem resolution’) and creating new functionality not in the original like new potions, monsters, heroes, weapons, spells, new game mechanisms and concepts (‘homebrewing’).

I know that we have both flip-flopped over this crossbow diagonal question for a long time – perhaps too long – but it is an interesting symptom of a broader question of reach weapons and diagonals summarised below

If the concept of reach weapons that can attack diagonals in “close combat” (as opposed to “ranged combat”) had never been introduced, then I would imagine all close combat weapons would be able to attack across all eight squares and ranged weapons would be able to attack all the squares excluding those 8 and we would all be happy

However, that isn’t the case.

So we could scrap it but…without the diagonal attack reach property there are not enough properties (without reach we have only number of attack dice) to support a diversity of weapons that is needed for interest, variety and to support the advancement through weapons and armour quality of HeroQuest so if we scrapped this we would have to introduce a whole new weapon property to replace it, for example a weapon property that gives a bonus to a hit roll (but then we would have to introduce a whole new hit roll mechanism which is
a) lots of effort
b) is a wide ranging change that is likely to create exactly the type of situation that caused us to consider scrapping this rule and
c) it forks (in the code sense rather than the similar sounding sense – although both are applicable) our rule set so that making it backwards compatible with any other fan created or new official material becomes a mission

So, if scrapping reach weapons isn’t a palatable option let’s explore it further…

The challenge (without recapping too much ground from previous posts on this thread) is that weapons with the ‘reach’ property can attack on orthogonally adjacent squares like other close combat weapons AND can attack on diagonally adjacent squares unlike other close combat weapons (diagonally adjacent squares are physically adjacent on the gameboard, their corners meet and there is no intervening squares but due to the no diagonal move rule they effectively have an intervening square as you cannot move from a square to its diagonal without going through another square to get there) BUT despite the fact that attacking on diagonals is effectively in gameplay the same thing as attacking across an intervening square these reach weapons CANNOT actually attack across a real intervening square i.e. attacker - empty square – attacked.

Whilst that is probably a good thing - allowing reach weapons to attack across an actual intervening square would extend the problem between reach and ranged weapons from 4 to 8 squares and would introduce a whole host of new problems around handling what you do if there is a figure in that intervening square – an ally (can you attack round them or hit them by accident), an enemy (can you attack passed them), an allied Dwarf (can the Barbarian use a spear to reach over the Dwarf and attack a Chaos Warrior behind the Dwarf) or even a treasure chest (can you attack over a chest using a spear) – it does leave us in a logically inconsistent space where reach weapons can attack across “in game” intervening squares but not across intervening squares that are both actual and in game which means instead of the simple two state solution where you can attack all 8 adjacent squares but no others (close combat) OR are able to hit all squares apart from those 8 adjacent (ranged combat), we have in HeroQuest a more complex and problematic 2 ½ state solution where some weapons are either able to hit 4 adjacent squares (close combat), weapons with the reach property all 8 adjacent squares (close combat) and other (ranged combat) weapons can possibly hit diagonal squares and can definitely hit all other apart from those 8.

If you are diagonal to an opponent then depending on your weapons you may either be able or unable to engage in close combat (depending on whether you are equipped with a reach weapon), able/unable to engage in ranged combat (depending on how you interpret the rules)! You may also be in that magic space where you are too far away from the monster for them to attack you with their close combat weapon, but too near for them to attack with a ranged weapon.

Solutions

Scrap the diagonal move restriction – this would severely restrict the ability to use furniture in Quest Design to change the internal shape of a room which is bad especially as it would impact on Quest already published AND it would make implementing tactics for Heroes and monster alike of protecting valuable Sorcerers and the Wizard behind a wall of tougher fighters or at least cannon fodder (I had the Sorcerer in mind when using the term cannon fodder but I suspect the Wizard may secretly view the Barbarian in the same light but is bright enough not to say it out loud) almost impossible in most situations.

A bit of a bind

I reached my current position (outlined in detail in previous posts but basically “You can use a ranged weapon on a target in a diagonal square unless that target is armed with a reach weapon.”) whilst considering a different problem that ends up running into the same challenges due to the diagonal/reach weapon logic.

Whether you agree with the need for a ‘free attack’ rule to fix a problem in HeroQuest or not – a debate for another day – I’ve included it here as if you follow my logic, you can see why I arrived at an “Ah Ha!” moment relating to crossbow diagonals.

“Free Attack” rules

Scenario: A Hero has one single monster next to him and on that monster’s turn it decides to wander out of combat. The Hero should get a free shot at the cowardly monster as it turns its back and leaves the combat.

I was considering this when I realised that ‘next to’ in the above text could include adjacent and diagonal (in the HeroQuest sense) squares but should it?

The conclusion that I came to was that it would have to be conditional and would depend on the Hero’s weapons, it makes no sense to allow the Hero to attack a monster retreating from a diagonal square if the Hero’s weapon does not allow attacks on diagonal squares, but equally it doesn’t make sense to not allow the Hero to attack a monster retreating from a diagonal square if the Hero’s weapon DOES allow attacks on diagonal squares.

I then simply extended that “conditional based on the weapon properties” to the crossbow diagonal problem and applied the same solution and arrived at a consistent conclusion – You can use a ranged weapon on a target in a diagonal square unless that target is armed with a reach weapon.

[Kurgan]

Thoughtful posts, interesting stuff. The cowardly retreating monster is shot in the back by the cowardly hero? I know, still an interesting thought.

I'm now imagining the Crossbow suddenly attacking like a Rook rather than a Queen here and thinking about whether I like that or not. It would certainly make it a much weaker weapon to attack with, while still retaining its primary strength... 3 attack dice at any range (other than point blank adjacent). But "see" (implying "Line of Sight") seems to go against this being any closer to the intention of writers of the NA rules. After all Heroes can "see" many things, whether they are able to reach them with an attack/spell or not.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

On discussing this issue elsewhere, it has been pointed out to me that there is a flaw in my theory of applying the "Free Attack" logic to the "Diagonal Crossbow" discussion

In many games similar to HQ, you have the concept of close combat (takes place between you and an opponent located in one of the 8 surrounding squares) and ranged combat that takes place outside of those squares (usually to the extent that if you are in a close combat situation then you cannot use a ranged weapon at all - whether the intended target is the opponent in the surrounding 8 squares or is a separate target located elsewhere, on grounds that you are too busy attacking/defending yourself to be aiming and shooting a ranged weapon)

In HeroQuest you have the additional complication of working out whether you are in a close combat situation when an opponent is in a diagonal square as it isn't a simple yes/no situation

If neither of you have a reach weapon, then are you in close combat? probably not

If one but not the other has a reach weapon, then are you in close combat? Don’t know, maybe depends on whose turn it is

If both of you have a reach weapon, then are you in close combat? probably yes

My logic for the free attack situation makes sense, why would you get a free attack on a square that you cannot attack, equally why wouldn't you if your weapon could attack that square but the logic in that situation really boils down to an enemy retreating from any of 8 surrounding squares grants you a free attack but if it is a diagonal square and you don't have a weapon with the reach to take advantage then tough.

Not the same as our diagonal crossbow dilemma

Let’s try and approach this problem from a different angle, what are our options

1. Allow crossbows to target diagonal squares, if you also have a reach weapon, or your opponent has a reach weapon, or both
No - breaches the principle of keeping close combat and ranged combat separate

2. Never allow crossbows to target diagonal squares
Pro - weakens crossbows
Pro - simple
Pro - potentially in line with official rule
Con - leaves a gap between close and ranged combat if neither party has a reach weapon

3. Allow crossbows to target diagonal squares only if neither party has a reach weapon
Pro - leaves no gap between close and ranged combat
Con - strengthens crossbow in limited scenarios
Con - less simple
Con - potentially in breach of official rule

On balance it looks like option 2 (the one I think you preferred) looks like the best option - I still don't like "the gap" but I'll just have to learn to live with it as it is the least bad option!

On other matters

"see" and line of sight is a whole different debate, I'll see if I can dust off that on another thread and add some new thoughts

The shortsword is in the armory as it is a weapon that exists

I'm considering the Staff (under NA rules) and your comments and I'm wondering why the Wizard's starting weapon isn't a Staff instead of a Dagger. As you say effectively being armed with only a single dagger is basically the same thing as being unarmed, but you get a bonus one-shot ranged attack with 1 AD (you already have that, it’s called a "Fire of Wrath” spell which incidentally needs to be upgraded – at least in the EU version it didn’t need LOS, perhaps US “Fire of Wrath should just be an automatic 1BP loss after all armor is of limited effect against fire).

As you point out the Wizard's Staff, will find its way into your hands, relatively soon, annoying if you have recently spent your hard-earned 100gc on a now obsolete Staff that no one else will want, better if it was an upgrade to the Staff that you got for nothing!

Finally, you mention being able to attack with a dagger diagonally, at least in the sense of throwing it, surely if you oppose crossbow being able to hit a diagonal square then surely thrown weapons shouldn’t be allowed to target diagonal squares either.

[Kurgan]

You can re-sell the staff for 50 gold, yeah you still lose some, but still.

Actually I don't oppose the dagger throw argument, because unlike the Crossbow there's no mention of any inability to hit at point blank range. I say this because the Magical Throwing Dagger, which I realize is an artifact, can ONLY be thrown. It can be thrown at point blank, diagonal, etc. as long as you can see them. This makes me think you could ALWAYS throw the dagger at a close range opponent... the question is WHY would you ever do that since you lose it? Instead you'd simply strike adjacent and throw diagonal (and lose the dagger). Thus barehanded strikes with 1 combat die would differ from the dagger's (one time ability) to hit the diagonal squares, or the Staff's ability to always hit diagonal. Plus the Dagger can be thrown unlimited distance, like the Crossbow, but for only 1 combat die.

This could be a reason to stock a dagger (or two) to throw, even if you had the Crossbow already as well.

See what I'm saying? I'm just trying to preserve the logic laid out by the designers as much as possible here, judging by the Armory text.

It's a little off topic since it's a houserule of mine, but I've decided that the dagger has another perk, if you use it in combination with a Rapier, that a missed adjacent enemy attack give you an opportunity to counterattack with 2 dice (for up to 1 unblockable skull). If you throw the dagger away, that bonus opportunity disappears...

But yeah the "you can throw it at any enemy you can see, at the loss of the weapon" ability of the Dagger could also be applied to the Hand axe (which is in the Remake under the NA rules) or the Spear (which was intended to be included, but left out due to an error). Due to an oversight, the Hand Axe is usable by the Wizard, so there is his 2 dice throwable weapon (but an expensive one to throw!).

The crossbow has the no close range limitation, so I'm treating it differently than these other missile weapons. The advantage of the Crossbow is that it never runs out of projectiles.

[Daedalus]

If they just came out and said their original intentions from 1990, that would satisfy me. Although if they took the "yes it can" approach that raises the other question... does this diminish the longsword's value (a unique weapon added to the NA edition, that is the same price in gold and simply adds a diagonal attack ability to the broadsword's stats)? Hence people have tried to homebrew new rules like making the longsword (or crossbow) into a two handed weapon that can't be used with a shield. Creating extra rules to compensate for the first interpretation.. . .

Yes, given the rules presentation of what is visible for ranged attacks and what is available for diagonal attacks, the longsword doesn't measure up to the crossbow. However, the longsword does possess a significant advantage over the crossbow, but you need to read between the lines. The short of what's there in the rules: the diagonal attack of a longsword works with door-blocking but the ranged attack of a crossbow doesn't. Let me explain how to "see" it.

There are four things to consider, all conveniently clustered together on p.15 of the NA Instruction Booklet. First, the illustrative picture and text of the diagonally attacking Wizard effectively establishes how weapons such as the staff or longsword function. Second, the "SEE" text primarily establishes the condition of what is visible: ". . . if an unobstructed straight line can be traced from the spellcaster to the target." Third, A Good Rule of Thumb expounds with center-square-to-center-square LoS that can just touch a corner or wall edge. Fourth, the diagram illustrates what targets are visible to the Elf.

OK, that's the set-up, now here's the concept: LoS is more than center square to center square. It is also necessary to combine that practical usage with the more open but complete meaning of the earlier, primary "SEE" rule: LoS is traced from spellcaster [or ranged-weapon weilder] to the target. The point of both text descriptions indirectly but critically requires that at least half of a figure (now recognized as a semicircle or more of its circular base) can be reached by an unblocked line for the target to be considered visible. That's at least 50% unblocked, or it's not a target. If a line connecting tangentially from the circular base of the target to the center of the spellcaster's/attacker's base crosses a monster's base, then it isn't visible. The ranged rules in sum actually call for cone of sight/CoS.

Unfortunately, the Elf diagram failed to provide a visual example. Had the Orc below the Elf instead been blocking the doorway, then the other Orc in the room positioned diagonally would have had a blocked-line-of-sight line drawn to it.

The Elf diagram does show a key example of LoS just touching the upper-left corner of the corridor, however. The targeted Orc is clearly just 50% visible--the minimum. The mirroring Orc in the upper-right corridor shows what wall-blocked LoS looks with less than 50% visible. But had a LoS line been connected from the Wizard to the same upper-right Orc, it also would have shown as blocked because of the Orc under it.

Now back to the crossbow not working with a door-blocking tactic. Consider the Wizard with staff example already provided, but let's substitute a Dwarf with a crossbow in the Wizard's position. He is prevented from shooting the Orc because the Barbarian’s circular base blocks about 5-10% of the Orc's base from the view of the Dwarf. Combined with the doorway/wall which blocks 50% of the view, that clearly leaves less than half of the Orc visible. The Dwarf needs a diagonally attacking weapon such as.the longsword, or else the Barbarian is on his own.

All that said, the crossbow may still be used to attack a monster in a diagonally adjacent square, so sniping or spellcasting at a 45% diagonal from between figures with circular bases is still possible. But the longsword remains the weapon of choice for up-front combat, whether that be from an adjacent square, or else in a door (or corner) block tactic.