Chill Spell

[SirRick]

I was reading through the catds on this site for this expansion when i noticed domething odd about the spell Chill. The spell card mentions any one hero or monster adjacent to the spell caster. The "any one" part of the phrase leads me to believe it only means one target, but the "hero or monster" part seems as if the spell should hit all figures adjacent to the caster.

Also the spell scroll is worded differently and says that any monster adjacent to the caster takes damage, which seems as if all monsters should take damage, but heroes are not mentioned on the scroll.

However both cards do mention that the spell cannot be used on creatures that are diagonally adjacent, which opens a whole new can of worms, such as if a crossbow cam be used on a diagonally adjacent creature (crossbow argument topic).

[slev]

I always ruled the scroll was just like teh spell; "any one [target type]".

FOr the spell, a plain English reading means that you can target one figure of choice from those in the target area, which is orthagonally adjacent to the caster.

The spell is effectively a melee attack.

[Gold Bearer]

However both cards do mention that the spell cannot be used on creatures that are diagonally adjacent, which opens a whole new can of worms, such as if a crossbow cam be used on a diagonally adjacent creature (crossbow argument topic).

In the US rules crossbows definitely can't be used against diagonally adjacent targets. It would make long swords pointless because they cost the same as crossbows. I suppose the long sword can be used against directly adjacent targets as well but it was confirmed in The Frozen Horror. Halberdiers cost the same as crossbowmen but crossbowman can attack directly adjacent targets. This would definitely make halbirdiers redundant. I don't think diagonally adjacent is supposed to count as ranged in either version.

[The Admiral]

However both cards do mention that the spell cannot be used on creatures that are diagonally adjacent, which opens a whole new can of worms, such as if a crossbow cam be used on a diagonally adjacent creature (crossbow argument topic).

In the US rules crossbows definitely can't be used against diagonally adjacent targets. It would make long swords pointless because they cost the same as crossbows. I suppose the long sword can be used against directly adjacent targets as well but it was confirmed in The Frozen Horror. Halberdiers cost the same as crossbowmen but crossbowman can attack directly adjacent targets. This would definitely make halbirdiers redundant. I don't think diagonally adjacent is supposed to count as ranged in either version.

Adjacent is defined quite clearly in the rules. Diagonal is not adjacent. I agree with your Longsword/Halberdier discrepancies, but they do not change the definition of adjacent.

[Daedalus]

I was reading through the catds on this site for this expansion when i noticed domething odd about the spell Chill. The spell card mentions any one hero or monster adjacent to the spell caster. The "any one" part of the phrase leads me to believe it only means one target, but the "hero or monster" part seems as if the spell should hit all figures adjacent to the caster.

Try reading the "any one" onto both "Hero" and "monster" as a cohesive phrase. You get "any one Hero or monster." This works something like You can have any one apple or orange from the fruit basket. That's an offer of just one piece of fruit.

Also the spell scroll is worded differently and says that any monster adjacent to the caster takes damage, which seems as if all monsters should take damage, but heroes are not mentioned on the scroll.

However both cards do mention that the spell cannot be used on creatures that are diagonally adjacent, which opens a whole new can of worms, such as if a crossbow cam be used on a diagonally adjacent creature (crossbow argument topic).

That's unfortunate! I get the feeling a project manager at US Milton Bradley dumped a Hero Quest box on some in-house game designer: "Play this, then give me a 10 Quest expansion for the Barbarian in a month."

...I the US rules crossbows definitely can't be used against diagonally adjacent targets. It would make long swords pointless because they cost the same as crossbows....

I agree. We can't have Heroes swinging falchions around.

[knightkrawler]

Adjacent is defined quite clearly in the rules. Diagonal is not adjacent. I agree with your Longsword/Halberdier discrepancies, but they do not change the definition of adjacent.

EU 2nd edition rules define from what spaces you can attack under the regular circumstances.
They also define how a figure cannot move diagonally.
But the word adjacent is never used, so there simply is no definition for it, so you cannot say that diagonal isn't adjacent.
If you find the definition in EU 1st or 2nd edition, let me know.

One more instance of sloppy writing that I've addressed in my rulebook. One more interpretable ambiguous body of text.
by the way, I also found the switching from "fight" to "combat", mixing up terminologies that make my stomach twist and turn.
The writing for HQ was outright bad. There's no other word for it.

[Daedalus]

Adjacent is defined quite clearly in the rules. Diagonal is not adjacent. I agree with your Longsword/Halberdier discrepancies, but they do not change the definition of adjacent.

EU 2nd edition rules define from what spaces you can attack under the regular circumstances.
They also define how a figure cannot move diagonally.
But the word adjacent is never used, so there simply is no definition for it, so you cannot say that diagonal isn't adjacent.
If you find the definition in EU 1st or 2nd edition, let me know....

The Admiral may have been referring to the NA rules, as the BQP is an NA expansion. Though you were addressing another, allow me to take up the adjacent challenge for interest...

On p.15 of the EU 2ND edition rules under Missile Fire:

...However, you may not use the crossbow or throw a weapon if you are adjacent to your opponent.

The crossbow equipment Card has a similar restriction with adjacent. These two instances aren't definitions, but they they could refer to the defined squares a Hero can attack from (to the front, side or rear) under Attacking on p.9...if one wanted to...and some don't.

[knightkrawler]

That's right. The writing is so bad that you would have to assume what "adjacent" means to further assume that "diagonal(ly adjacent)" isn't adjacent.
You can also assume that only those squares you can move into counting one square are adjacent, which makes the diagonal ones not adjacent,
but oh how I hate that freakin' writing of HeroQuest...

[wallydubbs]

The fact that they specify "Diagnolly Adjacent" implies that diagnol is a form of adjacent. Crossbows are thus restricted from attacking an adjacent target.

[Maurice76]

Taking a small step back, it's pretty clear that when they designed the rule with regards to adjacency, they actually meant to talk about other creatures within melee range. For a spell touch attack (such as Chill), that means the target has to be within short melee range, i.e. in any of the four tiles surrounding the tile the caster is on, which share a common border.

Firing a Bow or Crossbow is pretty hard while you're being slapped silly by the melee weapon of an opponent. This means the four tiles in short melee range and I would rule that this also includes the four diagonally adjacent tiles (what I would call the long melee range), provided any of those creatures there has the ability to make a long melee attack. You could say that skeletons have a long melee attack with their scythes, but orcs with their swords don't. So yes, according to me you can fire your crossbow at any target, as long as no enemy is capable of plummeting you with its weapon in melee combat.