Ye Olde Inn

I'm not sure that works, but I will need to re-read it when I'm a little less tired. I may regret this and have to go back and edit my post later...

I can understand wanting to read the text (the Instruction booklet + Armory board/Equipment card) in such a way as that our favored interpretation comes out and I think as is, it is vague. I can appeal to the Japanese version, but realizing a year, a language and an ocean separates them still leaves wiggle room to say it was a revision or simply a difference not a clarification. I can appeal to game balance, but not realism (there's no realistic reason why a crossbow, especially one that can be wielded one-handed, couldn't be fired at point blank range) as to my favored interpretation.

The "arrow" drawing has that one anomalous arrow that doesn't follow the "exact center of the figure" "good rule of thumb."

I guess the reason why I think the "one diagonal square" thing doesn't work is that if you took a figure and placed another figure one square above it, so they are adjacent, and then pivot the "top" figure 45 degrees to the right or thereabouts, he falls into the diagonal square. So to me that's still touching. But if you move him a full square away, then he's within "range" of the crossbow according to the limitation suggested by the Armory text.

I see the Longsword's strength in that it can basically hit "all" of the squares that the Crossbow can't hit. I see them as being complementary weapons. But that requires me to reject the possibility of the near diagonals thing. If I accept the latter, then the problem is introduced, and that tempts me to ponder all these house rules to try to re-balance them (adjusting prices, making one of the weapons 2 handed, etc). The Longsword was the new factor, being introduced in the NA rules, but the Crossbow's range (and all ranged abilities) were limited in this version as well, so it's not just the longsword's fault. Maybe if they had left out that one arrow in the drawing, that would have made it more clear.

I wonder what Hasbro would say? Probably that Zargon doesn't like Crossbows except when they are in the hands of his minions to shoot heroes (in all caps).

A clarification after all this time I think would be nice! Somebody with twitter want to pose it to them? Then at least we could decide which half of us want to houserule it the opposite way.

Kurgan wrote:I'm not sure that works, but I will need to re-read it when I'm a little less tired. I may regret this and have to go back and edit my post later...

I can understand wanting to read the text (the Instruction booklet + Armory board/Equipment card) in such a way as that our favored interpretation comes out and I think as is, it is vague.. . .

Yes, it is vague, and yes, I cobbled together an interpretation to meet a satisfying outcome. I am a Dread Rules Lawyer, after all!

Kurgan wrote:The "arrow" drawing has that one anomalous arrow that doesn't follow the "exact center of the figure" "good rule of thumb.". .

. . . Maybe if they had left out that one arrow in the drawing, that would have made it more clear.. . .

I assume you're referring to the EU/NA diagram where the arrow from the Elf to the Orc on the right, second down, isn't blocked by the Wizard. The sloppy presentation of that not-centered arrow bothers me, as well. Fortunately, Avalon Hill has fixed that with circular bases and a more accurate diagram in the new Instruction Booklet.

Daedalus,

There is a whole thread elsewhere (probably many) on LOS and “seeing” which I’m warming myself up to post to, so I’ll keep in minimal on here.

Also bear in mind that I like to keep behind the curve and allow a rules version to mature for a few decades before embracing it so I’m not yet onto the shiny new HQ with round bases (stone them all!)

But, disclaimers done, I don’t see your point reading between the lines…certainly not lines of sight, in the example below

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.

As you say yourself, above, the conditions for being a valid target for a ranged attack apply as long as a minimum of 50% is visible but I can still see something if it is less than 50% visible (by definition I can still see less than 50% of it) so the rules for “seeing” cannot logically be the same as the rules for being a valid target for a ranged attack.

The being a valid target for a ranged attack MUST be a subset of the wider “seeing” set.

A line passing through the centre of two diagonal squares must by definition go through the corner(s) – so the square is 50% visible - so if the two squares are diagonally adjacent then there is no intervening square for anything else to be in so if there is no wall or closed door on the line running between the squares) then how can LOS not exist?

I’ve just had the pleasure of reading this whole thread again from start to finish to try and remember what we (or possibly just I) agreed on as the conclusion, so for the sake of anyone else trying to do the same, my conclusion is outlined below.

In the base rules no monsters are armed with “reach” weapons that can attack enemies on diagonal squares or ranged weapons, but many homebrew additions do allow this, such as equipping Goblins and Skeletons with Spears or Bows, and rightly so as Zargon’s tactical combat options do need a boost.

However, the rules then become murky as it is clear what you can and can’t do if you have an enemy adjacent and what you can and can’t do to an enemy who is not adjacent i.e., at range, but which camp do diagonals fall into?

For example (examples for Crossbows and Daggers are already liberally given above)

A Hero can pass a potion, artifact, weapon, or any other item to another hero only if the two heroes are in adjacent squares and neither hero is adjacent to a monster.

I think in summary I would suggest the following;

A Hero can pass a potion, artifact, weapon, or any other item to another hero only if the two heroes are in adjacent squares and neither Hero has a monster in a surrounding square.

And with regards to ranged and thrown weapons

Ranged weapons cannot be used when you have an enemy in any one of the squares surrounding you (this includes diagonals and applies whether the intended target is in one of the surrounding squares or not).

Throwing weapons count as ranged weapons when thrown, but close combat weapons when not being thrown

Rational for above is two-fold
1) You need space-time to stow your ranged weapon and draw your close combat weapons before you get attacked
2) With an enemy in your vicinity, you can't afford to pay attention to anything other than defending, or preparing to defend yourself

Ranged (and diagonal hitting) monsters exist in quest notes (we see them in official Quest packs as well) so they are going to work the same way as the heroes even if they're much rarer than the hero.

I have been playing lately with excluding the 8 surrounding squares from crossbow (or any bow) firing ... and those are the explicit squares the Longsword can hit... and it feels right to me, so that's how I'm doing it. But at some other GM's table, if they say otherwise, I respect that.

When I used to play with my Dad, we house ruled that you could attack (or be attacked) through an open door via the diagonal squares in melee combat, but if using a ranged weapon (fired or thrown) you could only target the squares straight in front of you through the door.
Other wise it just got silly when Hero's all had a Crossbow!
Walk up to door and open it
Shoot and kill a monster
Next two Hero's move to the two squares adjacent to the first and take out two more baddies in the room from the diagonals.
Wiz stands by to buff the first Hero for the inevitable attacks to come.
Repeat!
But then what do I know. When we first got the game we thought once combat was started, combat just continued with attack and defence backwards and forwards until one of them was killed, all in the same turn phase!!!!
We didn't realise you attack once then your turn is over, giving EW (usually me) a chance to move his monster again to bring in another to attack!
No wonder. I struggled to make a dent on my Dad's hero's!