Defending against the Orc's Bane

[The Admiral]

Agreed also, but does this mean that the Polar Warbear has an attack value of 4CD and can attack twice?

Yes.

[Onan]

The best way to avoid any mistake, debate, or problem (regardless of whatever it is written in the rules) is to totally ignore this rule and allow a figure to roll defence dice against every attack.
The skill of a multiple attack is already a bonus, denying defence to the target is a mess (and frustrating)!

That's also my approach. We have played through FH once, and Zargon allowed a lot of cheating from the heroes, so that at least one hero would reach the exit. We were clutching at every straw, so I didn't even tell Zargon (who only read the Quest Notes) that one attack is unblockable. Even with a second defense the warbears killed enough heroes. And the rule is just unclear and overly complicated.

Regarding Orc's Bane I allow a very loose interpretation: "Once per turn you may additionally attack an Orc." This might be the realm of house rules, but the players like it. They attack a , then move to up to an and attack again. Like if the sword had a life of its own and attacks an for you. But then again, is it really a house rule?

The sword, Orcs Bane allows you to roll two combat dice in attack. You may attack TWICE if you are fighting Orcs.

What is the effect? "You may attack TWICE." It doesn't say that the attacks have to be against Orcs.
What is the condition to get the effect? "if you are fighting Orcs." One of my attacks is against an Orc, so you could argue that I am fighting Orcs.

This might be a bit far-fetched, but it produces cool action scenes.

I also allow the to roll 3 AD with Orc's Bane. I'm not talking about that rich kid with a broadsword from the US who calls himself barbarian, but about the European Schwarzenegger barbarian. Orc's Bane "allows him to roll two combat dice in attack", but this doesn't mean it prevents him from rolling his usual 3 dice, or does it?

I also think that Heroic Brew gives a second attack that you may do before or after the regular move and/or attack against the same or a different target, and the same target defends against both attacks.

[Parzival]

Holy cow, how did this topic get to 11 pages?*

My take is the power of Orc’s Bane is simply that, when facing Orcs, you get two attacks, as long as both attacks are against an Orc. And the Orc gets to defend with 2 dice against each attack. This implies a single target— you simply get a second chance to kill it if the first try flops.

But as a house rule, I have no problem allowing the wielder to strike two different Orcs (only) on the same turn, provided the first strike kills an Orc and a second Orc is adjacent to the wielder (no getting to hit a non-Orc and then also an Orc). Because otherwise, it’s kind of a wimpy sword. You’re better of with a standard, mundane broadsword, as that gives you 3 dice vs. 2 defense, and of course the longsword or battleaxe are both far superior. So a chance to off two monsters (albeit only Orcs) is a nifty bit of magic, whereas 4 attack rolls (total) vs 4 defense rolls (total) is a feeble advantage, and in a way makes an Orc tougher than they ought to be!

I also house rule it works against goblins, in part because goblins are just annoying little speed bumps. You ought to be able to chop through two of ‘em in a single swing.

*Aside from newbies coming along 17 years later…

[MonsterMotor]

Holy cow, how did this topic get to 11 pages?*

I don't know and I won't read through these posts, either. But part of the issues being debated here simply arise from differences between the printed editions. In this case, the German 1st edition card clearly says that you can attack each orc twice with it. However, the text of the second edition card is not very clear. There are also differences between the HQ editions across the languages, even for the same edition.

[wallydubbs]

I don't know if I posted on here yet, but I asked Stephen Baker via E mail about this topic so I'll just lay it out:

Question: The effects of Heroic Brew allows a hero to make 2 attacks, as Orc's Bane allows a hero to make 2 attacks against Orcs. The question is if the two attacks were meant to be against the same monster, or could they possibly be split between 2 monsters both adjacent to a hero?
In these occasions when a hero attacks the same monster twice, is the monster allowed two defence?
These questions arise due to Hasbro Rereleasing with monsters and heroes that have this ability. Hasbro has made official rulings on this but some Inn members disagree and your opinion holds weight.

Stephen Baker's Response: I would say you could make two attacks as a single action. This may be against the same monster or against two different monsters you are eligible to attack. I would not allow two attacks to be separated by a move.
If you had Heroic Brew AND Orc's Bane you could use one action to attack a monster, if it is an Orc you get a second attack, either against the same Orc or a different Orc you are eligible to attack. You may then use the second attack granted by Heroic Brew. I effect you will get to make 3 attacks so long as two of them are against Orcs.
For me personally, I think Monsters AND heroes should get to defend against any attack.

[Onan]

Wow, this is some great feedback, wallydubbs! Thanks for forwarding! And thanks Stephen for giving your input!

[Parzival]

Aligns with my understanding. Good to see it confirmed! Thanks!

[Kurgan]

I like it. Of course if Mike Gray were the one answering I'm sure he'd give a different answer, as the whole "multiple attacks against the same target" mechanic was their doing... they at first made it so one attack was unblockable (most likely intended to be the second attack, or second and third in the case of a 3 attack creature... yes, those existed, we just didn't get to see them... yet!), but then were thinking of making it just one large attack (a polar warbear would be rolling 8 dice against the barbarian, not 4, then a pause and then another 4 that he couldn't defend against) that the target defends against.

We played it with the "second attempt" attack and with defense back in the day too, because the rules didn't give any special conditions for this situation like Frozen Horror did (albeit only for the monster attack vs. the single hero). Clearly AH intends the 1992 printed Polar Warbear mechanic universalized (but allowed for the target to choose which of the attacks to defend against instead of it always being the first one only as implied by the original text).

Makes one wonder if the victim had a potion of defense, if he could defend the first attack normally, then use the potion to defend with 2 dice against the otherwise "unblockable" attack. If I were Zargon maybe I'd allow such a thing. I personally like the extra utility of the Orc's bane hitting two different orcs in a single turn, and I agree the Rogue is designed to have some unblockable attacks (he's too weak without that option). But I prefer the "combined dice" option Gray & Co. were thinking about even if it wasn't included in the final release back in the day.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Whilst it is always great to hear from "the creator" and his position on Orcs' Bane aligns with my own (which is even better), I'm not sure about the part around Heroic Brew AND Orcs' Bane...

Either you allow it to stack, so you'd get one attack which if it was against an Orc then Orcs' Bane would allow you a second attack against an Orc, you would then get the attack again from Heroic Brew (which would actually be the third attack) and if it was against an Orc then Orcs' Bane would allow you another attack (the fourth) against an Orc, so four attacks in total

Or you don't allow them to stack, so you'd get one attack which if it was against an Orc then Orcs' Bane would allow you a second attack against an Orc, at which point you would have had your two attacks so action complete both effects have been used up.

[Parzival]

Orc’s Bane has a potentially interesting wording, if liberally treated.

The card says the wielder may “attack twice if attacking an orc.” (2021 edition)
The liberal reading would be to interpret that as meaning each orc attacked. If one does that, then consider the following:

—O—
OEO
—O—

The Elf (E) has Orc’s Bane. He begins his turn with four adjacent orcs (O1-4).
E attacks O1, and kills it in one strike. Since he was attacking an orc, he gets to attack twice— and so O2 is the recipient. But O2 is “an orc” and E is attacking it, so by the wording on the card, E thus gets to attack O2 twice also. He kills it in one go, with another second attack outstanding. He uses that to attack O3, and kills it again right off. He now has another attack leftover from O3, so he attacks O4 for another “attack twice” opportunity. In this case, it doesn’t matter if E takes both attacks to kill the Orc (or fails to), because once the attacks on O4 are done, there are no other adjacent orcs possible to be attacked in this turn.

(Cue “Legolas, You’re Better Than Us”— https://youtu.be/bO8uSd063Wc )

Is that what’s intended for Orc’s Bane? Probably not. But it would be AWESOME!