Changes to existing weapons in AHQ

[Neuralstasis]

So here is something that I have been working on for a while. It's a modification to the existing AHQ weapons and rules. I made this in an effort to make the weapons more balanced and to make each weapon be useful in different situations.

Primarily the changes are to the damage dice and critical number of the weapons, plus a important change to how critical hits in hand-to-hand work. (they now just halve the targets toughness like ranged attacks)

The rules changes are fairly simple but there is also a very long write up about why and how I changed the rules. I like to think of them as an improvement rather than a change.

This is sill a work in progress and I would love feedback that anyone could give. PDF is below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17vk5AEsvPrdvWCx-3lVwPDvyiXWY2Tfd/view?usp=drive_link

[RECIVS]

So here is something that I have been working on for a while. It's a modification to the existing AHQ weapons and rules. I made this in an effort to make the weapons more balanced and to make each weapon be useful in different situations.

Primarily the changes are to the damage dice and critical number of the weapons, plus a important change to how critical hits in hand-to-hand work. (they now just halve the targets toughness like ranged attacks)

Ranged weapons worked better in my mind as they halved the target’s toughness on a critical hit. So I decided to unify the two critical hit systems and make hand-to-hand attacks also halve a target’s toughness, rounding up.

So a weapon with a better chance of critical hits would be better at damaging high toughness targets

I finally went through your notes. Interesting stuff, really. Are you still working on it?

You may have updated it by now, but what I see, basically, is that you’re adopting Slev’s approach, which is perfectly fine and the right way to go in my opinion. Reforged boosts AHQ’s potential considerably in that regard, so I’m yet to see a better system for handling that aspect of the game.

However, I’m afraid that the benefit or advantage of "unifying the two critical hit systems" is not clear to me. So, if you don’t mind, I have the following questions and comments that are open for discussion:

*In my mind, free attacks (upon critical hits) allow for more variety of combat options and results, and they give AHQ’s combat its unique feel. All those free attacks and fumbles going back and forth in an encounter infuse a certain flavor into the game, so to speak. Isn’t that the core of the AHQ combat system we’re all so fond of? I saw your charts and everything, but, how does your approach justify getting rid of such an important part of AHQ? I can see that some weapons in the game are improved with your methodology, ingeniously by the way, but is that it? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective overall (also more in line with the spirit of AHQ) to leave critical hits as they are and just fix the specific types of weapon you have issues with? maybe by adding abilities (such as cleaving) that increase the chances of doing damage? That's what Slev did. What am I missing?

*How do you reach the numbers on the left of your charts? I’d like to see those comparisons but with the same number of damage dice, just changing the to-hit scores. If I’m following you, I believe they will show that, with your approach, some weapons in the game will become more likely to do more damage than others, which allows for more customization as you say. Also, at the same time, tougher models will become more likely to be damaged by certain weapons—and the toughest models may end up being the most affected as you also say. Am I wrong?

*I believe we could all agree that, at least in AHQ, critical hits in hand-to-hand combat have nothing to do with strength or toughness; that’s why the latter are separated from WS in the game. It’s also clear to me that critical hits in hand-to-hand attacks should work differently than in ranged combat. A free attack in AHQ means that the attacker is so skilled with his weapon (regardless of its type and size—that’s what ST is for), that upon rolling a certain to-hit number he can make more than one attack in the same turn. As in real life, free attacks in AHQ are about a combination of weapon skill, opportunity, and luck. We have to keep in mind that a free attack is as likely to fail as any other hand-to-hand attack. Now, if the critical hits of ranged attacks work the way they do in AHQ, it’s seemingly because ranged weapons do a fixed amount of damage that doesn’t depend on the ST score of the attacker. I mean, contrary to what happens in hand-to-hand attacks, whether a projectile hits a model depends only on the attacker’s BS and the distance to the target, not the target’s WS (the amount of damage the said projectile may do will depend solely on the weapon used as mentioned above). We have then that a critical hit in a ranged attack only means that the shot was very well placed—and that the target’s stats (or the attacker's ST) had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it's only a very well-aimed projectile that's more likely to do damage (that’s what a well-placed shot is after all, isn’t it?), not an opportunity attack that is not guaranteed to hit in the first place. What I’m saying is that I don’t see why critical hits should be unified just to improve how some weapons work in the game.

In the end, I insist, what’s the benefit or advantage over the original system? I see that some weapons in the game become more varied and customizable with your approach as you say, but at the cost of making combat in AHQ even less interesting. Is that the result you’re looking for?

[Neuralstasis]

I finally went through your notes. Interesting stuff, really. Are you still working on it?

Nice to see someone actually read it! I haven’t changed anything more since I posted it and I have been playing using the changed weapons with my regular 3 players. My impression is that it’s working fine, one of my players has taken to carrying both a 2-handed sword and a 2-handed axe that he swaps between depending on the situation.

how does your approach justify getting rid of such an important part of AHQ? I can see that some weapons in the game are improved with your methodology, ingeniously by the way, but is that it? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective overall (also more in line with the spirit of AHQ) to leave critical hits as they are and just fix the specific types of weapon you have issues with? maybe by adding abilities (such as cleaving) that increase the chances of doing damage? That's what Slev did. What am I missing?

I guess I don’t see the free attacks and fumbles as being so important to the feel game. All changes to a game’s rules will affect the feel of the game. For any player It’s a personal matter of how much changes and what changes affects whether they like or dislike the “new” version of a game.
My changes to how HTH critical hits work was necessary to allow for weapons to work differently. It was not born of a desire to get rid of the bonus attack, the bonus attack had to go to make room for the halving a target’s toughness effect. It works for ranged weapons, why not HTH.
Granting a free attack provides a linear boost to overall damage scored against all targets, just like adding more damage dice. A better critical chance just makes a weapon better against everything. But halving a target’s toughness affects overall damage more against high-toughness targets, meaning that weapons could be tuned to make them better against high or low toughness.
Yes, you could leave the crit = free attack system and add a cleaving special rule (to boost “brutal” chance), but that just make the weapon better against all targets, it does not make the player have to choose the right weapons for the right situation. In my system, a hero with a sword is going to do more wounds to lower toughness enemies, and the same hero with an axe will do more wounds to high toughness targets. In the classic system, a hero with an axe or sword will do exactly the same damage to all enemies.

*How do you reach the numbers on the left of your charts? I’d like to see those comparisons but with the same number of damage dice, just changing the to-hit scores. If I’m following you, I believe they will show that, with your approach, some weapons in the game will become more likely to do more damage than others, which allows for more customization as you say. Also, at the same time, tougher models will become more likely to be damaged by certain weapons—and the toughest models may end up being the most affected as you also say. Am I wrong?

The numbers on the left are the average number of wounds caused by an attack. They were calculated using a python script I wrote that figures out the average wounds, based on to-hit chance and to-wound chance and also factoring in a critical chance. I have not had this script looked at by anyone but I think it is working correctly. Changing the to-hit scores would linearly affect the number of wounds caused. Easier to hit = more wounds, more difficult to hit = less wounds. So yes, you are right, higher toughness models will be more likely to be wounded by weapons with better crit vales.

A free attack in AHQ means that the attacker is so skilled with his weapon (regardless of its type and size—that’s what ST is for), that upon rolling a certain to-hit number he can make more than one attack in the same turn.

For me this is just your interpretation of the abstract game rules that AHQ and all dice-rolling games have. I choose interpret the rules differently. For me I saw that big heavy weapons like 2-handed swords have better crit values and for some reason that allows a user to randomly attack twice, not based on WS. This did not sound right to me. Why would a big heavy weapon be more likely to let someone attack twice? Shouldn’t small fast weapons be the ones to attack twice? If weapon skill somehow affected critical chance, then this system could work, but it does not. A villager with WS 3 is just as likely to crit as a master with WS 12.
I decided to re-work the rules so that a weapons crit value defines how likely they are to punch through a targets armour and damage high-toughness targets.

Therefore, it's only a very well-aimed projectile that's more likely to do damage

Actually, it’s not. A model with a BS of 12 has exactly the same chance of getting a crit as a model with BS 3 (if with 12 squares range). So aim has little to do with a crit chance. I interpret the crit chance as being about the weight and punch of the projectile + a bit of luck.

In the end, I insist, what’s the benefit or advantage over the original system? I see that some weapons in the game become more varied and customizable with your approach as you say, but at the cost of making combat in AHQ even less interesting. Is that the result you’re looking for?

The point of my changes was to make weapons slightly more variable and revising any weapons that were simply worse to make them have some practical advantage in certain situations. In using the rules with my players I don’t feel like we are missing out on the combat. I feel like it’s a bit more interesting because now both player and the GM have to think a bit more about who they should be attacking with their equipped weapons. If I have a orc with an axe I send to go attack the high-toughness dwarf, but if they have a sword they would be better attacking the lightly armoured elf.

[RECIVS]

I finally went through your notes. Interesting stuff, really. Are you still working on it?

Nice to see someone actually read it! I haven’t changed anything more since I posted it and I have been playing using the changed weapons with my regular 3 players. My impression is that it’s working fine, one of my players has taken to carrying both a 2-handed sword and a 2-handed axe that he swaps between depending on the situation.

It may take me some time, but I always read everything AHQ related: news, posts, house rules, variants…everything! It's an obsession that helps my English.

how does your approach justify getting rid of such an important part of AHQ? I can see that some weapons in the game are improved with your methodology, ingeniously by the way, but is that it? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective overall (also more in line with the spirit of AHQ) to leave critical hits as they are and just fix the specific types of weapon you have issues with? maybe by adding abilities (such as cleaving) that increase the chances of doing damage? That's what Slev did. What am I missing?

I guess I don’t see the free attacks and fumbles as being so important to the feel game. All changes to a game’s rules will affect the feel of the game. For any player It’s a personal matter of how much changes and what changes affects whether they like or dislike the “new” version of a game.

It’s perfectly fine if you or your group don’t see free attacks and fumbles as being so important to the feel of AHQ; it’s your game! The fact is, though, that getting rid of free attacks does make combat in AHQ less varied, and that’s not an interpretation—it’s an objective observation of fact that can be verified any day. Whether you or your group are ok with that result is a different discussion that doesn’t concern us here. I mean, it was assumed from the start that you (and your group) are ok with what you’re proposing; the last question in my previous post was more about whether you’re fully aware of its implications.

Yes, all changes to a game’s rules will affect the feel of the game one way or the other. That’s the point, isn’t it? What’s in debate here is if the in-game effects of your tweaks improve AHQ and how, objectively speaking.

My changes to how HTH critical hits work was necessary to allow for weapons to work differently. It was not born of a desire to get rid of the bonus attack, the bonus attack had to go to make room for the halving a target’s toughness effect. It works for ranged weapons, why not HTH.

Granting a free attack provides a linear boost to overall damage scored against all targets, just like adding more damage dice. A better critical chance just makes a weapon better against everything. But halving a target’s toughness affects overall damage more against high-toughness targets, meaning that weapons could be tuned to make them better against high or low toughness.

Yes, you could leave the crit = free attack system and add a cleaving special rule (to boost “brutal” chance), but that just make the weapon better against all targets, it does not make the player have to choose the right weapons for the right situation. In my system, a hero with a sword is going to do more wounds to lower toughness enemies, and the same hero with an axe will do more wounds to high toughness targets. In the classic system, a hero with an axe or sword will do exactly the same damage to all enemies.

As I said, your changes do make some weapons more customizable in the game. It’s just that I'd follow Slev's cleaving approach instead, as it allows for further customization of the weapons and more variety of combat, retaining the original AHQ mechanics. I don’t see the downside in that approach.

From Slev's work, I was under the impression that the goal was to make weapons in AHQ more varied according to their own characteristics and not at the expense of changing critical hits or halving toughness or whatever.

*How do you reach the numbers on the left of your charts? I’d like to see those comparisons but with the same number of damage dice, just changing the to-hit scores. If I’m following you, I believe they will show that, with your approach, some weapons in the game will become more likely to do more damage than others, which allows for more customization as you say. Also, at the same time, tougher models will become more likely to be damaged by certain weapons—and the toughest models may end up being the most affected as you also say. Am I wrong?

The numbers on the left are the average number of wounds caused by an attack. They were calculated using a python script I wrote that figures out the average wounds, based on to-hit chance and to-wound chance and also factoring in a critical chance. I have not had this script looked at by anyone but I think it is working correctly. Changing the to-hit scores would linearly affect the number of wounds caused. Easier to hit = more wounds, more difficult to hit = less wounds. So yes, you are right, higher toughness models will be more likely to be wounded by weapons with better crit vales.

And monsters become more likely to be killed with one blow, correct?

A free attack in AHQ means that the attacker is so skilled with his weapon (regardless of its type and size—that’s what ST is for), that upon rolling a certain to-hit number he can make more than one attack in the same turn.

For me this is just your interpretation of the abstract game rules that AHQ and all dice-rolling games have. I choose interpret the rules differently. For me I saw that big heavy weapons like 2-handed swords have better crit values and for some reason that allows a user to randomly attack twice, not based on WS. This did not sound right to me. Why would a big heavy weapon be more likely to let someone attack twice? Shouldn’t small fast weapons be the ones to attack twice? If weapon skill somehow affected critical chance, then this system could work, but it does not. A villager with WS 3 is just as likely to crit as a master with WS 12.
I decided to re-work the rules so that a weapons crit value defines how likely they are to punch through a targets armour and damage high-toughness targets.

In my previous post I mostly stated facts and asked questions about your interpretation of the rules, not mine. Besides, my post wasn’t about interpreting the rules to begin with, but rather about the concrete in-game effects or results of what you’re proposing, which doesn’t have anything to do with rule interpretations, preferences, or opinions if you ask me—at least not in that sense.

As discussed above, we can interpret the rules in very different ways, but I’d rather stick to objectivity, reason, and the spirit of AHQ, which has brought me very good results over the years, by the way. I don’t want to get into much detail here, but, as I said in my previous post, whether a Hero is able to wield a large weapon in AHQ depends exclusively on ST, not WS—that's how the game system works. If I’m following you, what you’re proposing is that a barbarian-type Hero such as the one depicted in the cover art, for example, could never be proficient enough with a large weapon so as to make a double attack no matter how skilled or strong he might be, correct? That clearly makes encounters less varied, and it's not how a combat-oriented dungeon crawler that handles WS, ST, and T separately is supposed to work either, for reasons already posted in this thread. I guess it’s just that I’ve watched Conan too many times, and at this point I can’t disassociate what happens in the movie from what I think should happen in the game…

Therefore, it's only a very well-aimed projectile that's more likely to do damage

Actually, it’s not. A model with a BS of 12 has exactly the same chance of getting a crit as a model with BS 3 (if with 12 squares range). So aim has little to do with a crit chance. I interpret the crit chance as being about the weight and punch of the projectile + a bit of luck.

My point exactly! Critical hits in ranged attacks are about doing more damage, which depends on the factors you mention, luck included.

Yes, they both have the same chance. As with WS, any model may get lucky while shooting a projectile or in melee; that's what gives variety to an toherwise bland combat system. As far as I understand, however, we’re discussing the effects of a critical hit in AHQ, not the chances of rolling one. I repeat, in AHQ, critical hits in ranged attacks are only very well-aimed projectiles (from lucky shooters if you want) that are more likely to do damage.

I still don't see why critical hits should be unified in AHQ just to make some weapons more varied and customizable. As I said above, there are other ways to do that.

In the end, I insist, what’s the benefit or advantage over the original system? I see that some weapons in the game become more varied and customizable with your approach as you say, but at the cost of making combat in AHQ even less interesting. Is that the result you’re looking for?

The point of my changes was to make weapons slightly more variable and revising any weapons that were simply worse to make them have some practical advantage in certain situations. In using the rules with my players I don’t feel like we are missing out on the combat. I feel like it’s a bit more interesting because now both player and the GM have to think a bit more about who they should be attacking with their equipped weapons. If I have a orc with an axe I send to go attack the high-toughness dwarf, but if they have a sword they would be better attacking the lightly armoured elf.

In the end, I believe it all comes down to whether AHQ should have more tactical variety or not, which may be more of a metaphysical question, granted. However, I take it that your position on the matter is already established, and, as I said above, that’s fine if it works for you.

[RECIVS]

I just came across this thread. Interesting read. I think it makes it clear why critical hits work the way they do in AHQ. Don’t miss the link to the video in the last post!

As I said, your changes do make some weapons more customizable in the game. It’s just that I'd follow Slev's cleaving approach instead, as it allows for further customization of the weapons and more variety of combat, retaining the original AHQ mechanics. I don’t see the downside in that approach.

From Slev's work, I was under the impression that the goal was to make weapons in AHQ more varied according to their own characteristics and not at the expense of changing critical hits or halving toughness or whatever.

Also, just to clarify so that everyone knows what I’m talking about here. Let’s take halberds, swords, axes, two-handed swords, and great axes as examples to illustrate my point:

In AHQ:
Halberds: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage Band D (Damage for short, see my bestiary)/Brutal Damage 12
Swords: C 12/F 1/Reach M/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Axes: C 12/F 1/Reach M/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Two-Handed Swords: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage E/Brutal Damage 12
Great Axes: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage E/Brutal Damage 12
I agree with you that more variety is needed in the vanilla game.

Now, Slev’s approach proposes the following to fix the issue:
Halberds: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Swords: C 12/F 1/Reach M/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Axes: C 12/F 1/Reach M/Damage D/Brutal Damage 11+
Two-Handed Swords: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach M/Damage E/Brutal Damage 11+ (or C 10+ instead of BD 11+)
Great Axes: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach M/Damage E/Brutal Damage 11+
We can see that cleaving comes into play, which clearly allows for more customization without changing how critical hits work in the game. Cleaving is an ability found in the original AHQ content, by the way. Slev took good advantage of the game system's possibilities here, expanding its potential even further, which is what I'm talking about!

Let’s now take a look at your system:
Halberds: C 11+/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Swords: C 12/F 1/Reach M/Damage D/Brutal Damage 12
Axes: C 10+/F 1/Reach M/Damage C/Brutal Damage 12
Two-Handed Swords: C 12/F 1-2/Reach R/Damage E/Brutal Damage 12
Great Axes: C 10+/F 1-2/Reach M/Damage E/Brutal Damage 12
We see that your system doesn’t mess with Brutal Damage—it gets rid of free attacks and also unifies the effects of critical hits instead—which evidently reduces the number of variables available for customizing weapons and also makes combat in the game less varied altogether as discussed in this thread.

From what I gather (please correct me if I’m wrong) your main contention against the way critical hits work in AHQ is that “granting a free attack provides a linear boost to overall damage scored against all targets”, also that “a better critical chance just makes a weapon better against everything. But halving a target’s toughness affects overall damage more against high-toughness targets, meaning that weapons could be tuned to make them better against high or low toughness”.

By the way, what do you mean by “granting a free attack provides a linear boost to overall damage scored against all targets”? Free attacks are not guaranteed to hit in the first place, so what “boost to overall damage” are we talking about here exactly?

I also gather that your complaint against Slev’s cleaving approach is that “it makes the weapon better against all targets, it does not make the player have to choose the right weapon for the right situation”. We see, then, that “having to choose the right weapon for the right situation” is, essentially, what you promote as the advantage of your tweaks.

Your point is clear. I mean, I see where are you coming from, what you’re trying to do, how, and the intended effect. It’s just that, as I said, I don’t see the advantage over Slev’s system, objectively speaking.

I find it true that hand-to-hand weapons will do exactly the same damage to all enemies in both systems, the original and yours. I mean, the total amount of damage a weapon can do is determined only by the number of damage dice rolled, which in turn depends on the ST score of the attacker. A given hand-to-hand weapon can’t do more damage than that in any case—except for BD, of course. Your changes only make damage dice more likely to wound upon rolling a critical hit; whether that improves AHQ’s gameplay and how is what’s in discussion here.

We may see, then, that the possible results with the vanilla combat system (or Slev's) are: fumble, no hit, hit, or critical hit. Critical hits are opportunities for free attacks, which are treated as normal attacks. Hits and critical hits may also do damage and brutal damage, but cleaving makes brutal damage more likely to be rolled. For reasons that I find obvious and that are discussed in the thread I linked above, critical hits in AHQ don’t make damage more likely to be done in hand-to-hand attacks, at least not directly.

On the other hand, the possible results of hand-to-hand attacks with your changes are: fumble, no hit, hit, or critical hit. Critical hits always halve the target’s T score. There’s no other option; brutal damage doesn’t change. From what I see, it’s your system that gives a boost to overall damage, associating it with to-hit rolls instead of damage rolls as it should be in AHQ.

Setting aside the reasons why critical hits shouldn’t be unified in AHQ, in any case, the variety offered by your combat system depends on obtaining certain weapons and actually using them—whether we can have different versions of the same weapons in your system or how far it can be expanded beyond that is still debatable, though. In contrast, Slev’s approach offers more variety right from the start whether the players intend it or not and regardless of the weapons in use, which, by the way, become more customizable as shown above.

We could agree or not with Slev’s specific changes to some weapons, but it’s a fact that his system offers more possibilities for customizing them without altering how critical hits work in AHQ.

[Thanquol]

With hand-held weapons within the official Advanced Heroquest (AHQ) rulebook there is a rather broad class of standard weapons that may be wielded in hand-to-hand combat by the Heroes. For example: Dagger, Spear, Axe, Warhammer, Sword, Halberd, Two-Handed Axe or Two-handed Sword.

Halberds and Spears can attack diagonally adjacent squares, which makes sense as they are classified as "long reach weapons" essentially polearms. Therefore, I think most veteran players would agree it makes sense the attacker gets the 'opportunity' to reach a target model located on diagonal squares.

The Advanced Heroquest rulebook mentions, page 18.

MOVEMENT IN COMBAT PHASES

[...] Attacks may only be made on opponents in vertically or horizontally adjacent squares. A model may be turned to face any direction, so it doesn't matter if an opponent is moved in front of or behind the model: the model can still turn to face it and make an attack. Attacks may not be made diagonally unless the attacker has a long reach weapon (such as a spear).

[...]

DEATH ZONES

Certain long reach weapons, such as spears, halberds or two-handed swords, allow combatants to attack diagonally. Any model equipped with such a weapon exerts a death zone on all the diagonal squares around it as well as the ones vertically and horizontally adjacent.

[...]

If Torallion is later equipped with a long reach weapon, such as a two-handed sword, he also exerts a death zone into the diagonal spaces about him. ..."

I believe Neuralstasis picked-up that the "two-handed sword" was also a "long reach" weapon and would allow the model to attack diagonally.

Given the organised chaos of Games Workshop's typographical inconsistencies and other technical issues within the AHQ rulebook, there is a high probability they also meant to include comparable 'two-handed axes' as long-reach weapons – i.e., it was likely an oversight.

There aren't many Specialist weapons usable by the Heroes in AHQ. Typically Two-Handed Weapons might have fallen into that category; however, there is a distinction between Two-handed Weapons for AHQ. A Two-Handed (or double-handed) weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.

The Advanced Heroquest rulebook mentions, page 44.

HAND-TO-HAND WEAPONS
[...]
Spears: Spears can attack diagonally adjacent squares.
Halberd: Halberds can attack diagonally adjacent squares. ..."

Part of the reason the Double-Handed [Sword] in AHQ has a wider profile (Fumble 1–2, Critical 11–12) compared to the typical one-handed Sword (Fumble 1, Critical 12) is its greater potential threat range and risk factor. It also does +1 Damage Dice over a regular Sword profile.

The disadvantage of Two-handed weapons (e.g. Sword or Axe) is that they require more Strength to wield and carry a greater risk of fumbling. Additionally, since it requires two hands to wield, you cannot benefit from a shield.

The expanded 'free attack' range on a critical hit – such as with a heavy Double-Handed [Sword] – exists because these weapons hit harder in general and tend to cause grievous wounds, such as severing limbs. It's not really to do with speed or manoeuvrability; they don't strike more, they just potentially do more severe damage when they do.

The Advanced Heroquest rulebook actually explains it fairly well (page 18)

"[...] Just as larger weapons cause critical hits more often, so they cause more fumbles – although they're heavier and batter easily through armour, they're also clumsier to use. These weapons cause a fumble on a hit roll of 1 or 2. ...

As most people will have realised unless the Hero is restricted in non-magic weapon choice the melee type player is nearly always going to pick a Double-Handed Sword or Axe for hand-to-hand. The +1 Damage Dice and Critical (11–12) range (over a Sword profile for example) will generally offset the Fumble chance penalty for potential damage output.

Typically, when I think of the word 'Cleaving', I imagine it allowing an attack against two opponents – but I digress... RECIVS, mentioned a homebrew "Cleaving" effect and explained its merits.

[...] Cleaving is an ability found in the original AHQ content, by the way. ...

Well, it is correct that the word "cleaving" appears within Advanced Heroquest: Terror in the Dark (page 24)

[...]Axe of Cleaving
This axe has a series of fine runes engraved along its blade which keep it magically sharp.

[...]

Double-handed Sword of Cleaving

This double-handed sword has an enchanted sharpness which allows it to cause a critical hit on a roll of 10–12. ...

However, it's more a case "Cleaving" in the AHQ rules means a magical "enchanted sharpness" rather than say a physical sweeping or thrusting movement. It's more of a placeholder word rather than effect it could easily have said keen blade or "Slashing" for the Sword version with the expanded (10–12).

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (Page 26)

Karaghul
WS +2, S +2, never fumbles, criticals on 10-12, allows the bearer to cast three Flames of Death spells per expedition.

The Rune Sword Karaghul, in AHQ had such expanded Critical range properties because she was extremely sharp. I believe she was likely using greatsword properties even though AHQ doesn't have a profile for them. As I explain elsewhere in the thread: Two-handed weapons and a shield?.


Sarcasm: I, Thanquol, supreme amongst sorcerers, deadliest of diviners, most magisterial of all mages, and I will be leading your every step. /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

I think it was clear from the start that I was referring to Slev's cleaving approach—regardless of what we may understand by "cleaving". You're right in that cleaving wasn't originally associated with damage, but that doesn't alter my point here at all. As I said, he took an idea from the original content and used it to expand the game system's potential even further. The chance of scoring BD may go from 1/12 to 1/6 just by reducing the target number by 1, for example. I still don't see the advantage over his system, by the way, which is ultimately what I was saying.

The expanded 'free attack' range on a critical hit – such as with a heavy Double-Handed [Sword] – exists because these weapons hit harder in general and tend to cause grievous wounds, such as severing limbs. It's not really to do with speed or manoeuvrability; they don't strike more, they just potentially do more severe damage when they do.

As discussed above, free attacks exist in AHQ because they give some variety to an otherwise suffocatingly bland combat system. I don't think I said anything about speed or maneuverability, by the way. In AHQ, striking more is not about the weapon alone...it's also about a combination of weapon skill (as that's the type of roll or test that originates the free attack), opportunity, and the luck of the character wielding it. Making it about the weapon alone limits the game system's potential, as such an approach restricts the actions of all characters altogether regardless of their strength, skill, and luck, rendering combat in AHQ less varied and interesting in the process. That's been my whole point right from the start.

Stronger characters can wield heavier weapons; isn’t that how it's supposed to work in general? I mean, if a character is strong enough to wield a heavy weapon, then it’s assumed that he can make attacks with it as well. If a regular soldier can make a double attack with a regular sword given the opportunity, then one would expect that a stronger character could do the same with his heavier weapon, right? What am I missing?

Yes, those heavy weapons are supposed to hit harder and cause more damage in general; isn't that implied in my posts? All I'm saying is that sacrificing combat options in AHQ just to make some weapons somewhat more customizable is not the way I'd go, for reasons already posted above.

[Thanquol]

No, I was referring more to Neuralstasis's comments regarding "tuning" that was loosely discussing weight and 'speed or manoeuvrability'. For example, say a small light stabbing dagger or versatile sword that can be wielded more easily compared to the heavy Two-Handed (Sword and Axe), the latter can cleave an opponent clean-in-half. See the following:

Why would a big heavy weapon be more likely to let someone attack twice? Shouldn’t small fast weapons be the ones to attack twice?

Neuralstasis was effectively describing a hit roll penalty or bonus, it was akin to describing a nimble rapier; for thrusts and lunges, or swift dagger wouldn't easily pierce plate. However, those two could be used to quickly wear down a softer target opponent by making more precise close-range mêlée hits (exploiting the chinks in armour). In other words, it is theoretically similar to a bonus to the Hit roll or more damage against monsters of a certain size, armour type or hide-thickness.

Macbeth, Act II, Scene I

Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee:
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.

(Macbeth, William Shakespeare, Act II, Scene I)

However, Neuralstasis seems to have chosen to align the words "Free attack" with 'Fumble and Critical' hits. In some ways "free attack" is misleading; actually a Critical is the severity of the damage inflicted by the slicing, piercing or bludgeoning effects... Hence why I clearly said it wasn't to do with: "speed or manoeuvrability".

I wasn't disagreeing with how Critical hits function in the official Advanced Heroquest rulebook. I was actually agreeing generically the expanded (11–12) range makes sense for those non-magical Two-handed (Sword and Axe) weapons and Halberd.

RECIVS, where I was started addressing you was basically where you mentioned a homebrew "Cleaving" effect and explained its merits. Yes, I understood which parts were the expanded framework rule modifications and that's fine.

Thus, to ensure the wider audience weren't confused and were on the "same page" I referenced how the official AHQ rules describes "cleaving" and that word appears within Advanced Heroquest: Terror in the Dark (page 24). Plus additionally: UK, White Dwarf issue: 139 (July 1991), Advanced Heroquest Treasures (page 64).

Essentially, I was just clarifying within the AHQ rules "cleaving" means a magical "enchanted sharpness". Nothing more, really – the word can be misleading. Due to constraints the authors likely forgot to list let's say a simple "Sword of Cleaving" in the table. And let's be honest there was no reason why a large magical Two-handed Warhammer of [Smashing] couldn't also have the wider profile (Fumble 1–2, Critical 10–12).

Like I mentioned prior the Two-handed Sword of Cleaving could have as easily been called 'Two-handed Sword of Slashing', "Hacking" or whatever, and the equivalent Cleaving Halberd of "Thrusting" the "cleaving" word Games Workshop appended was mainly just fantasy flavour text.

Where bladed weapons may temporarily or situationally perform better (or be preferable) is a variety of Blade Venoms can be applied to an edged hand weapon.

As for rune sword Karaghul, in AHQ we know it had such expanded Critical (10–12) range properties because she was extremely sharp.

However, like I mentioned above we don't know the full profile it used... For AHQ it may have been a Greatsword albeit it's just as likely a very large versatile Longsword, which can be wielded dual- or single-handed (not described in the AHQ rules).

In the Fantasy novels Felix Jaegar is a skilled duellist, and clearly uses that blade one-handed at times because within the novels it's a longsword; it of course is a two-handed blade though.

With a sigh of resignation Felix threw his faded red cloak back over his broad right shoulder, freeing his sword arm for action, then he drew his longsword [Karaghul] from its ornate scabbard. Reddened dwarfish glyphs blazed along the length of the blade.
—William King, Gotrek and Felix: Trollslayer

He [Felix] stripped off his cloak and jerkin, and unslung his own blade. It was a Longsword [Karaghul], and it had greater length and weight than her weapon. It hissed through the air as he made some practice swipes. Felix moved confidently forward. He was good with a blade and he knew it. In his youth he had excelled in his fencing lessons, and as an adult he had survived many fights. And the Templar's blade he used was the best and lightest he had ever handled.
—William King, Gotrek and Felix: Daemonslayer

Neither of those two weapon types – i.e., Longsword or Greatsword – is explained accurately within AHQ when they appear, which is why I had to reference the other thread.

For example: Aldred Fellblade and Alaric von Loth both carried a Greatsword. Curiously, those two Greatsword damage profiles do not align with the accompanying AHQ rules content. Again, it illustrates Games Workshop's editorial style and AHQ rule consistency was often questionable. Leaving players and lore enthusiasts to sort out the discrepancies themselves. It's a bit ironic – meticulous attention to world-building, yet somehow careless in rule presentation.


Sarcasm: Such are my powers of scrying that we are exactly where we need to be! /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

No, I was referring more to Neuralstasis's comments regarding "tuning" that was loosely discussing weight and 'speed or manoeuvrability'

RECIVS, where I was started addressing you was basically where you mentioned a homebrew "Cleaving" effect and explained its merits. Yes, I understood which parts were the expanded framework rule modifications and that's fine.

[RECIVS]

Again, it illustrates Games Workshop's editorial style and AHQ rule consistency was often questionable. Leaving players and lore enthusiasts to sort out the discrepancies themselves. It's a bit ironic – meticulous attention to world-building, yet somehow careless in rule presentation.

I agree, and that's my point too. Back then we were easily-dazzled pre-internet kids—who have grown up to become nostalgic middle-aged men. My approach is a call for objectivity as you may have noticed already.