Crossbow Argument

[CavemanLogic]

Hello Bareheaded Warrior. Thanks for replying! Sorry, I didn't see your reply until now. I really do need to get on the site more often...

Several different "Crossbow arguments" here, but focussing on the one that ironically isn't about crossbows, then I agree that limiting throwing weapon range makes sense but that opens up two follow-up questions.

1) If you limit based on BP (starting BP) then there is a problem as heroes and monsters BPs are deliberately NOT balanced in the game (so Heroes can kill lots of monsters which is fun), how would a physically weak Wizard with virtually no weapons training be able to throw a hand axe accurately at a distance of 4 squares (or even at all, but that is a different question) but a battle hardened Orc would risk losing his toes with a measly 1 square effective range which makes it unusable, or a mighty muscle-bound Fimir with a range of two squares... Incidentally Olympic Javelin throwers aren't built like the World's Strongest Man entrants which suggests skill and technique might be more of a factor than strength alone...

This is why I clarified the limits based on multiples of their BP in my post above. Heroes have a thrown weapon range of *twice* their current BP. They are "heroic" after all, and even the Wizard is trained in throwing knives. As they become injured, their range goes down... But a fully healthy Barbarian would have a range of 16 squares. A fully healthy Wizard would have a range of 8 squares.

Monsters, because I know their BP are deliberately not balanced in the game, I give a thrown weapon range of *five times* their current BP, with a cap of 15 squares (because of the physics in relation to ceiling height I mentioned in my previous post, *and* because 15 is a multiple of 5). So a Goblin or Orc would have a respectable range of 5 squares. A muscle-bound Fimir would be able to throw up to 10 squares. And a massive Chaos/Dread Warrior or a Gargoyle could reach 15 squares. Any named or Boss Monsters with a larger starting BP would simply have a max range of 15 squares.

Yes, I realize the Barbarian's range is one square farther than any Monster, but I think it is just simpler that way to say 2x current BP for all Heroes. But it might be better to hard cap everyone at 15 squares to keep it consistent. I could go either way on this point though.

You are correct, regarding your Olympic javelin thrower comment, that skill and technique are also important factors. But for simplicity's sake, and in keeping with the simplicity of the HeroQuest rules in general, I think the asymmetric ranges based on BP (2x for Heroes, 5x for Monsters, 15 squares max) is a good rule. HeroQuest only gives us two main stats to work with: physical (in the form of Body Points), and mental (Mind Points). In that respect, I guess we can say that BP represents the combination of strength, agility, dexterity, etc. If you were to port your favorite D&D character over to HeroQuest, the combination of your Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution stats would become your HeroQuest Hero's BP. Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom would all be combined into MP.

2) How do thrown weapons move? In the World of HeroQuest movement does not include diagonals, so do thrown weapons count squares in the same way as characters move, you would assume so, but it feels odd...

Yes, I suppose only counting orthogonal squares is the way to go. Once you have determined that you do indeed have Line of Sight to your target, even if that is just squeezing through the diagonal space between two occupied squares, then you orthogonally count those squares for range, *regardless* of what may occupy those squares. Think of a Knight chess piece. He moves two squares in one direction, and one in another. That would translate to a range of three for HeroQuest thrown weapons.

EDIT: After re-reading my previous post just now, I did mention towards the end of it that, to keep things simple, it may be better to base thrown weapon ranges on *starting* BP instead of *current* BP. I guess I didn't explicitly state it, but I did mean that the 2xBP range for Heroes and 5xBP range for Monsters was still in effect. So it could have been that part of my reply that you were replying to when you said Goblins would only have a range of 1 square?

Cheers!

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I think I understood what you were proposing, which I’ve summarised below.

1. Heroes have a thrown weapon range of twice their current BP.
2. Monsters have a thrown weapon range of five times their current BP, with a cap of 15 squares.
3. Option to cap max range at 15.
4. Thrown weapons move as characters move, orthogonally.
5. The Wizard is trained in throwing weapons.

And simpler variant
• Use starting BP rather than current BP.

My counterargument was that assuming we want/need a range limit on throwing weapons and that we want to keep things simple then surely the suggestion below is sufficient, anything else is just complications.

Throwing weapons are limited to a maximum range of 15 squares and move like characters move, orthogonally.

The bits I didn’t understand were:

Why choose to map the maximum range to the current BP, causing the weapon effectiveness to drop as you weaken, as that introduces inconsistencies as your other hand-to-hand combat attacks, your movement, your ability to jump or shoot (and reload) a crossbow don’t diminish as you weaken so why choose to introduce this inconsistency (unless you go for the simpler variant that you mentioned)

Why choose to map the maximum range to the starting BP characteristic, bearing in mind as we both know that is “rigged” for game purposes, making that choice then means that you have to introduce further complications, your rules 1 & 2, introducing complications and new rules to compensate for your choice to base it on BP. Simpler just to choose not to base it on BP in the first place.

Hence my proposal which is basically just your rules 3 & 4

Point 5 is a weird one (and not your fault!) as under EA rules, the Wizard doesn’t have the ability to use throwing weapons, and why would he, the whole point of the Wizard and his weapon restrictions is based upon the premise that he has (mis)spent his youth learning magic arts rather than martial arts, so I never understood why the NA edition decided that he had taken time out from his magic studies to learn the skills required to throw weapons. If you accept that premise then could have also taken time out to learn the skills of missile weapons so can use the crossbow, and perhaps unarmed combat, advanced weapon training – so he could use the longsword, trap disarming and everything else…I never understood that change.

Personally I have the Wizard equipped with a Dagger (that cannot be thrown) and have a separate Equipment type of "Throwing Knife" that, unsurprisingly, can be thrown and isn't accessible by the Wizard.

[CavemanLogic]

I think I understood what you were proposing, which I’ve summarised below.

1. Heroes have a thrown weapon range of twice their current BP.
2. Monsters have a thrown weapon range of five times their current BP, with a cap of 15 squares.
3. Option to cap max range at 15.
4. Thrown weapons move as characters move, orthogonally.
5. The Wizard is trained in throwing weapons.

And simpler variant
• Use starting BP rather than current BP.

My counterargument was that assuming we want/need a range limit on throwing weapons and that we want to keep things simple then surely the suggestion below is sufficient, anything else is just complications.

Throwing weapons are limited to a maximum range of 15 squares and move like characters move, orthogonally.

I agree. Simplicity is better. You are right about not needing the range to be tied to BP. The houserule I use now is Crossbows have an unlimited range. Thrown Weapons have a range of 15 squares. Thrown Weapons count spaces orthogonally as they move.

Or sometimes, if it is close to the range limit, I don't even bother enforcing the limit.

Cheers!

[Kurgan]

A little internet physics...

... Such an arrow could pierce the thickest armor."
...

Thoughts?

Small nitpick, but this quote I would take as poetic. Otherwise it's a blatant example of the "no limits fallacy." So no matter how thick the armor is, this arrow could "pierce" it?

Many youtubers "test" armor with various ballistics. Granted, these tests are difficult because getting high quality medieval style armor is expensive (you're buying it just to ruin it on camera to prove a point!). Also finding individuals skilled with medieval type weaponry is not as easy as it was a thousand years ago. There are lots of armors you can buy out there that are not even meant to be worn (just display), or are more like halloween costumes. Then there are those that are actually protective but built to modern standards and thus of higher quality than anyone in the 1300s could have built or had access to.

Now of course the bottom line is that this is a fantasy game, and so all these considerations can inform your game but don't necessarily settle anything. Perhaps they have techniques and/or materials in this HQ world that didn't exist in our earth's history. Perhaps these guys are magically inclined or just truly blessed by Heaven such that they can do things even earth's mightiest heroes from history could do. The game doesn't exactly tell us what type of armor it is beyond the generic description of plate mail that slows you down (which real medieval plate didn't do, at least not to the degree we're talking about here even the heavier jousting armor, at worst if it didn't fit well it might be cumbersome or could be hot and sweaty or cold depending upon the weather, but real knights wore padding underneath it wasn't just tossed on over your bare skin like a t-shirt). Is the art accurate and complete or symbolic? (the old NA Armory board made it look like Plate Mail was just a chest plate and some wrist guards vs. a complete suit of armor, there's that open faced helmet and the kite shield with the metal bracing... all this is inspired by the Equipment card art of the earlier EU edition but even that artwork is slightly different).

But a lot of movies put forth the idea that medieval Plate Armor is little more than a costume or uniform, and a single arrow or bolt is like a rifle bullet against naked flesh. Of course if it's an important character they don't die right away, but if it's a poor bad guy minion, it kills them instantly which is pretty unrealistic.

Back to the video tests. High quality medieval style armor (here I'm thinking of the videos Todd's Workshop did about the Battle of Agincourt, 15th century) can resist, deflect, etc. warbow arrows fired by a strong, expert archer. Of course as the range decreases and if the archer gets a lucky shot (or the splinters fly up into an open spot in the visor) a hit could be scored. The strongest arrow hits (like from crossbows with tempered steel bolt heads) tend not to puncture quality armor, but will leave dents. Eventually you can weaken the armor in spots and perhaps cause a breach (this is how melee fighting worked as well... you're not going to cut through someone's plate, more likely you are going to bash the guy to try to do internal damage or get into the joints or tire the guy out until you can get his helmet off and force him to surrender or kill him). But the parts that aren't covered by plate are covered with chainmail (real, riveted mail was very good but the crossbow bolts could go through the rings and penetrate... "butted mail" which is common in costumes meant for fashion rather than protection is virtually useless against these types of projectiles). But even butted mail in sufficient layer can provide some protection even from modern small arms fire! (see other tests like the gun range guy who got poked fun at by by Shadiversity and Skullagrim). And yes, firearms did exist in the time of the knights, and varied in many ways (you might survive being shot by a gun or two in those days and still beat your opponent, but try getting blown off your horse by a cannonball).

So plate armor, despite what you see in the movies, when properly worn, was excellent protection in most cases from projectiles of the time. And yet, as powerful as they were, knights did get killed, though mostly in other ways than getting pierced through their steel by a crossbow bolt (that seems pretty rare, a truly lucky shot or on already badly compromised armor). Then again games like HeroQuest may be more trying to simulate the kind of things you see in movies more than it is trying to capture real world ancient history combined with a good understanding of physics.

Still, I like the idea that it is certainly "plausible" (without recourse to magic, divine intervention or dramatic tropes) that individuals imagined to be as good at what they do as these four heroes, could nail an opponent across the hall with a throwing dagger/axe or crossbow shot and score a debilitating hit. A lot of things are taken for granted in these games, like the porters that are carrying your extra gear, and the lanterns or large torches that are illuminating the "pitch black dungeons" (to be fair, not every or even most adventures in HQ take place inside pitch black dungeons, tombs or underground treasure vaults).

[Daedalus]

Mention of reloading a crossbow as an action got me to thinking about this less restrictive house rule:

A crossbow must be loaded before firing. A Hero may not move, attack, and load a crossbow in the same turn.

The idea is now Zargon may reposition a monster out of LoS so as to limit uninterrupted attacks from a a Hero sniping safely with a crossbow. It also insures two adjacent Heroes in a corridor cannot share a crossbow and both attack before a monster can react.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I get what you are trying to do here but to prevent two heroes from exploiting the flawed "giving items" rule by sharing a crossbow it might be better to revise the "giving items rule" and make that an action for the giver, so that you resolve the exploit not just for crossbow sharing, but for any similar situations that might pop up if you were to introduce a Short Bow (for example).

Also your suggestion seems to open up the possibility of characters loading their crossbow on one turn, moving with their loaded crossbow for a number of turns and then shooting it - so you'd need a method to track whether characters are moving with loaded or unloaded crossbows, sounds too complex for my tastes.

Apart from the flawed giving items rule what problem are you trying to address with the "reload a crossbow takes an action" idea?

[Daedalus]

Just to be clear, my proposed reload rule doesn't work as "reload a crossbow takes an action." Nor am set against others implementing this as their mechanic--to each his own. I am about sharing an idea and appreciate the criticism as it pushes me to further contemplation and sometimes better ends. So thanks for that.

I'm not concerned about tracking the bolts unless the Crossbow was just fired the turn before. I'm OK with assuming that the Crossbow will be reloaded as soon as possible by a Hero, which works pretty much as the standard Crossbow anyway. In the case of your example, this would automatically happen during any one of the previous movement-only turns. The same auto-load default applies to action-only turns. Had the Crossbow just been fired (and emptied) in the previous turn, that matters as defined by the house rule and is easy enough to recall without a tracking mechanism in an HQ game, in my opinion.

As I mentioned in my post above, I primarily wrote my house rule to make repeated sniping from a single space more difficult. It won't help if a monster is pinned by other Heroes, but in cases where Zargon can move a target after it has been shot at by a Crossbow, the readjustment to acquire a new line of sight will halve the rate of fire. I can't say how often this will come into play, however. It needs playtesting to validate its worth.