Ye Olde Inn

1)
Between missions when you "have trouble with the law", they fine you 30 gold coins for each greek fire flask that you have because they view it as a danger due to it's fire risk. Do they also confiscate the greek fire flasks in addition to the fines?

2)
When a hero with a long weapon( such as a spear ) attacks a monster with a short weapon that can not reach the hero, if the hero fumbles, does the monster still get a free attack even though the hero is out of the monsters attack range? Is there some other sort of fumble penalty that applies to the hero if the monster can't reach for the free counter attack, or does the monster just reach somehow?

b_0 wrote:1)
Between missions when you "have trouble with the law", they fine you 30 gold coins for each greek fire flask that you have because they view it as a danger due to it's fire risk. Do they also confiscate the greek fire flasks in addition to the fines?

In my opinion it would make sense that they confiscate the greek fire as well. The rules don't mention it literally though.

b_0 wrote:2)
When a hero with a long weapon( such as a spear ) attacks a monster with a short weapon that can not reach the hero, if the hero fumbles, does the monster still get a free attack even though the hero is out of the monsters attack range? Is there some other sort of fumble penalty that applies to the hero if the monster can't reach for the free counter attack, or does the monster just reach somehow?

Good question that I would also like to hear other people's solutions. I have encountered this in my games several times, and then I didn't allow the monster or hero to counterattack since he couldn't reach the attacker.

Dieterdg84 wrote:

b_0 wrote:1)
Between missions when you "have trouble with the law", they fine you 30 gold coins for each greek fire flask that you have because they view it as a danger due to it's fire risk. Do they also confiscate the greek fire flasks in addition to the fines?

In my opinion it would make sense that they confiscate the greek fire as well. The rules don't mention it literally though.

It's notable that it's available for sale in town. Perhaps the hero's buy from shady characters, or perhaps they brought it to a part of town where it wasn't allowed. If the former, then I'd think confiscation, but if the latter, then I'm not sure. It could be interesting to have different towns with different events, prices, availability of items, and categories of henchmen.

Dieterdg84 wrote:

b_0 wrote:2)
When a hero with a long weapon( such as a spear ) attacks a monster with a short weapon that can not reach the hero, if the hero fumbles, does the monster still get a free attack even though the hero is out of the monsters attack range? Is there some other sort of fumble penalty that applies to the hero if the monster can't reach for the free counter attack, or does the monster just reach somehow?

Good question that I would also like to hear other people's solutions. I have encountered this in my games several times, and then I didn't allow the monster or hero to counterattack since he couldn't reach the attacker.

In the case of a fumble, I imagine that you could assume that the fumbler stumbled forward just within range to have their hand or something reachable by their enemy.

b_0 wrote:1)Between missions when you "have trouble with the law", they fine you 30 gold coins for each greek fire flask that you have because they view it as a danger due to it's fire risk. Do they also confiscate the greek fire flasks in addition to the fines?

You can simply add an optional roll to determine that.

b_0 wrote:2) When a hero with a long weapon( such as a spear ) attacks a monster with a short weapon that can not reach the hero, if the hero fumbles, does the monster still get a free attack even though the hero is out of the monsters attack range? Is there some other sort of fumble penalty that applies to the hero if the monster can't reach for the free counter attack, or does the monster just reach somehow?

I don't think he does. The monster can't reach the hero for all intents and purposes.

The RAW outcome for "Trouble With The Law" feels like one of those unfortunate GW missteps – Greek Fire is a valuable tool for dealing with certain Hazard rooms, yet the rule penalises players simply for possessing it. It's the kind of result that might've been better left on the cutting room floor.

A cleaner house rule: 5 GCs fine per flask, no confiscation. It works better for several reasons:

• The item isn't lost: Heroes keep their gear for the next expedition.
• The fine makes sense as a tax: The 5 GCs reflects the cost of illegally transporting volatile chemicals. The Watch gets its cut.
• It creates a meaningful choice: Pay the "tax" and proceed, or avoid the fine and risk hazard rooms without Greek Fire.

It's a simple fix that restores narrative logic and mechanical fairness.

Diagonal Fumbles and the Oversight in AHQ

This question gets right to the point:

"If a Hero with a long-reach hand-to-hand weapon fumbles while attacking diagonally, can the monster with a short weapon still make a Free Attack?"

This seemingly simple scenario reveals a deeper mechanical flaw in Advanced Heroquest. A literal reading of the rules creates an unintended – and highly exploitable – conflict between diagonal reach and the Free Attack mechanic.

The Diagonal Fumble Loophole

• Long reach weapons (e.g. halberds, spears, double-handed swords) allow diagonal attacks.
• If a Hero fumbles while attacking diagonally, and the monster can't retaliate diagonally, the Free Attack is nullified.
• This creates a false immunity – especially when the Hero is wielding a weapon with a high Fumble range (like 1–2).
• Result: players can fish for damage diagonally with no risk. That's not clever play – it's rule manipulation.

The Diagonal Immunity Exploit

• In edge cases, up to 8 Heroes and Henchmen combined can surround a monster – 4 diagonally, immune to retaliation.
• Fumbles become meaningless for half the attackers.
• Combat becomes lopsided: the monster can only retaliate against orthogonally adjacent attackers.
• This isn't balance. It's selective invincibility.

Why It Matters

• Undermines the risk–reward structure of weapon choice.
• Encourages rule manipulation over tactical depth.
• Creates a false sense of mastery through geometry, not gameplay.
• Breaks the intended tension of combat.

A Simple Rule Patch

"On a fumble, the opponent may make a Free Attack regardless of hand-to-hand weapon reach, as long as they are adjacent."

This preserves the spirit of the rule, restores risk to long-reach weapons, and keeps gameplay tense and fair. Narratively, it makes sense: a stumble invites a lunge, regardless of weapon type. Mechanically, it's symmetrical: if a monster fumbles diagonally, the Hero should get a Free Attack too.

Monster Weapon Profiles: The Imbalance

• Most normal size monsters don't have diagonal reach.
• Only a few regular-sized monsters in the AHQ Rulebook (Skaven Warlord, Skaven Poisoned Wind Globadier, Skeletons with scythes, Chaos Sorcerer) can retaliate diagonally in hand-to-hand combat.
• Chaos Champion and Orc Warchief wield double-handed weapons, but AHQ forgot to list diagonal reach for double-handed axes – despite identical profiles to double-handed swords.
• This loophole disproportionately benefits Heroes and breaks encounter balance.

Final Framing: Holistic, Not Literal

• This isn't about doorway bottlenecks or spatial layout.
• It's about mechanical integrity.
• Diagonal is a relative position, not a shield from consequence.
• GW's rules were loose, yes – but that's why clarity matters.

The Spirit of the Rule

Fumbles are meant to punish recklessness, not reward clever positioning. Diagonal reach is a tactical advantage – not immunity from consequence. Ignoring this oversight creates a false immunity that savvy players can exploit. And when the system allows risk to be bypassed by positioning alone, it's not tactical – it's broken.

This isn't about catching anyone out. It's about preserving the tension, fairness, and spirit of AHQ. If we can agree that Fumbles should carry risk regardless of angle, then we've already restored something vital to the game.

Sarcasm: Of course-yes, all wise cunning warlords know that hand-to-hand stab-fight is for expendable claw-things and worthless underlings! True power lies in blasting-blasting! Kill-kill from afar, while brave-brilliant leaders stand back and cackle with triumph, yes-yes! Let the fool-things charge and die-die, quick-quick, while we bask in glorious victory and warpstone snuff-sniff. Tactical brilliance! Genius unmatched! Only a dung-minded, dull-claw traitor-thing would disagree, yes-yes! /Sarcasm

Thanquol wrote:This isn't about doorway bottlenecks or spatial layout.

Some weapons simply can't attack diagonally. Period. The issue you mention does lie in the doorway bottleneck and the resultant spatial layout. It's actually one of the main problems in AHQ, as it "permeates" through all the game system as the adventurers train and gain FPs, dulling the combat dynamics and the game in general. Fix the bottleneck and everything will fall into place; the issue you refer to (and some others) will disappear.

Bottleneck fighting in a DC of this type is in fact the result of poor (rushed-to-market) game design. It's a flaw that should be avoided in a DC, not a mechanic to base its combat system on! In what parallel universe is that acceptable for a combat-oriented DC such as AHQ?

The thread isn't about doorway bottlenecks or terrain exploits. It's about how Fumble mechanics interact with weapon reach – specifically diagonal counter-attacks.

If you reject diagonal reach as valid in open space, then logically you must also reject orthogonal Fumbles unless the attacker is directly facing the Hero. Otherwise, it's inconsistent.

The doorway exploit fix doesn't apply here. There's no doorway. No bottleneck. Just a monster in open space.

And yes, some weapons can't attack diagonally. That's the point. The paradox arises when a monster can't attack diagonally in standard combat, but can on a Fumble. That's not a flaw – it's a design quirk.

You're welcome to disagree, but please engage with the actual scenario – not a terrain issue that isn't present.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, all is clear now! The Horned Rat has whispered visions to Grey Seer Thanquol, yes-yes! No paradoxes here, no contradictions, no fog-fog. Everything aligns beautifully, just as the sacred texts foretold. The system is flawless, the logic pristine, and all dissenters are simply confused, yes-yes! /Sarcasm

Thanquol wrote:It's about how Fumble mechanics interact with weapon reach – specifically diagonal counter-attacks.

Correct, and isn't the doorway bottleneck the situation in which the issue you mention becomes more evident in the game? I believe the OP refers to that situation.

Are we having troll brew again? Your post doesn't say anything about "open spaces", quite the contrary, actually. I see your "edge case" example, but it's just that: an imaginary situation that rarely happens in the vanilla game—if at all. Longer-reach melee weapons are supposed to give an advantage over normal-reach ones, which could be exploited in certain, highly unlikely "edge" situations such as the one in your example—not the bottleneck, is that your point?

The doorway bottleneck is much more common and pernicious in AHQ (both in general and in particular) for the purpose of exploiting longer-reach weapons; the situation in your example is rare and doesn't seem to affect gameplay as much.

In any case, your example sounds more like the last enemy of an encounter being surrounded on all sides and about to be finished. I don't see why (neither mechanically nor thematically) the enemy in your example—carrying a normal melee weapon—should be granted free longer-reach attacks against his attackers equipped with longer-reach weapons when they fumble. I'm afraid you simply haven't justified the necessity for changing something that works exactly as it's supposed to in the first place.

I did engage with the actual scenario, and, as I said, I'm afraid you haven't yet justified why we should go to the extent of giving some weapons inconsistent capabilities rather than solving the doorway bottleneck instead, which is the real problem here. I say it again, some hand-to-hand weapons simply can't reach diagonally in AHQ, bottleneck or not. Period. You speak of "mechanical integrity", but I don't see it in what you propose.

The only paradox that arises is your statement that fixing the doorway bottleneck "doesn't apply" here. Why is it off topic to propose a solution that addresses (and solves) the real issue at hand? Since when proposing better solutions than the previous posters is off topic? Isn't that the point of posting here? You speak of the "spirit" of AHQ, but you avoid the bottleneck issue when discussing diagonal counterattacks? C'mon! Who's off topic here after all?

I stand by what I said, which totally applies here. Maybe you're the one who should engage with the "actual scenario"? I take it that the doorway bottleneck in AHQ is not a big problem to you.

Thanquol wrote:If you reject diagonal reach as valid in open space, then logically you must also reject orthogonal Fumbles unless the attacker is directly facing the Hero. Otherwise, it's inconsistent.

Not necessarily. Logic doesn't always apply in combat, by the way. Besides, that's why I proposed flanking and DZ-focusing mechanics in the first place. The attacker has to decide whether to change his facing to execute the free attack or not based on tactical considerations that are constantly changing. That's allowed in the vanilla game, isn't it? Are you tweaking that too? I thought this was about weapon reach, not unit facing.

What I reject is the inconsistency of altering the nature of some weapons in the game just to deal with an issue that can be solved more effectively otherwise.