Crossbow--2 handed or can use a shield?

[mitchiemasha]

It amazes me how they either ignored or failed to notice equipping.

Equipping wasn't much an issue in the UK ed as the weapons were limited to the card. It was never intended to continue on as it did.

[Jalapenotrellis]

The armory doesn't specifically state whether you can use a shield with the crossbow--is it a 2-handed weapon? Also, what is preventing someone from shooting the crossbow and switching to a shield at the end of their turn, then switching back to the crossbow to attack? On passing items, the only rule clarification is that a player can pass items if adjacent and no monster is adjacent on their turn (Elf and Barb quest packs). Nothing about how often you can swap your own armor on and off.

Although the original rules make no indication, it seems reasonable that the Crossbow would be two handed; one hand for the trigger while the other hand would be used to aim.

Although a shield could technically be tied around the heroes forearm it would most likely impede his precision. To avoid complication I'd say make it 2 handed.

In regards to switching equipment back and forth during a quest, some players agree on using a turn action for this, otherwise there'd be no difference in weilding a battle axe with a shield.
I would say if the hero has a dagger or hand axe and chooses to throw it he can immediately pull out a new item, but if he's putting the battle axe away to take out a Broadsword and shield, that should take an action. You can do it in the middle of melee, but it'll prevent you from making an attack until your next turn.

I'm pending agreement on two-handed for crossbow, as I don't really see a big deal if somebody wants to equip a shield from afar because there are only so many ranged attackers.

As for equipping and unequipping, I have come to the conclusion that following the passing items rule clarification established in the barbarian and elf Quest packs' instruction books, if a hero attacks with an item he has to hold on to it for the defending cycle from the evil wizard attacks. He cannot attack and then switch to a more defensive stance until his next turn if he used the item to attack and is still adjacent to a monster. If the hero attacks first and then moves away from the monster, they would meet the criteria of no longer being adjacent to a monster and would be able to switch equipment. Predicting the future about having to pass a crossbow across characters in future Quests when kiting an ogre or avoiding a yeti, for example, I kind of see this as intended for survival as a battle tactic, as many have said that they don't think that these later quests are balanced for standing toe-to-toe to monsters. However, passing the item back to the first player would not be as efficient the second round because a turn order is held. The first round, all three crossbow eligible heroes could technically shoot the crossbow and move to the back of the line (and equip the best armor, as none are adjacent to a monster). The next round only the third player would be able to shoot the crossbow and then have to take it back to the first character, so it would be very advantageous every other turn. This all assumes the monster doesn't do anything smart like go hide behind a corner or enter a room out of line of sight, this seems to be a viable kiting tactic. It also requires that enough movement be rolled consistently.

As for when somebody is wearing armor, they will be toe to toe with a monster and therefore unable to swap out because they are adjacent to a monster, not meeting the criteria for passing items. Additionally, if they attacked with the armor they must be defending with it until their next turn. This is probably how I will play.

What do y'all think of this?

Edit: I'm thinking about this more. Even with a fixed turn order, all three crossbow eligible characters could shoot the same crossbow and wear the same armor every turn if standing in a line since after the third goes, he can just pass it back to the first and get back third in line. The wizard wouldn't even get in the way either, assuming he uses a ranged attack every time. It just seems like a very viable battle strategy in a long corridor, and the monsters job would be to prevent that from happening so effectively by dodging around corners and forcing heroes to pursue rather than shoot and kite. It seems to happen on all video games anyways that involve kiting. There usually is AI to make the monster hide around the corner intelligently than brutishly pursue the hero while getting repeatedly shot. However, if the monster is slow and dumb (like one mind point), I could see this happening. It might just be a battle tactic, much like blocking a doorway to avoid getting surrounded and possibly intended.

[mitchiemasha]

Whilst I have equipping mechanics, I've never once known a player to change armour, unless they've just found it. Putting a shield on your back could happen but repeatably changing armour is a bit pointless. Making plate armour 'even if unequipped' is the first stipulation to add.

As pointed too, the issue is sharing the same armour. Using the -1Md6 to requip does fix Plate Armour. This is already -1Md6, reequipping this the Hero wouldn't be able to move. Borins armour remains a potential problem. Tossing weapons can happen and is seen in movies but a lot of players are very protective of their loot. The last thing they want is to see another Hero run away with it.

One thing I have a problem with is telling players they can't do something. If they've spent time coming up with it, simply saying no... is no fun, even if you don't like it. It's much better to say this is how you can do that.* I changed my -1Md6 bonus action to be worded as

Give/Receive: Weapon/potion to/from another whilst passing or adjacent. Both may Re-Equip for free.

Previously it was worded not to include 'whilst passing' and implied you had to be the owner. Instead of stopping the game every 10 minutes, to reexplain the rule, it was easier to rewrite it, to word it to include how players were trying to play it. This is what I call natural simplification.

I'd even allow things to be thrown... use the throwers base attack roll and the catchers base defence. Instead of a hit and a block, it would be a successful throw and catch. We have thrown range, which is the same as current BODY... And, the Broken mechanic to include it getting damaged, a smashed potion. If the throw or catch is failed it becomes lost... to which we have "lost weapons are found if the area is searched". Searching needs to be cleared of monsters so the risk in doing it or not.

I hope people are starting to see how all the little things fit together. Instead of stipulating everything, we create the basic mechanic. Then that is twisted to fit the variables that occur.

The problem of players sharing a weapon... BROKEN. The more a weapon is used, the sooner it will get broken. Roll equal to it's power. Which is rare for the battle Axe, a good thing, it's more likely when buffed by a potion or spell.

*This is why I oppose mods like, 'you can't attack through doors' etc. Ideas people use to fix what they see as an issue, non issues. If the Heroes choose to block a door they should be able too, especially as it's something that would likely happen. If it is an issue to the game, come up with ways to make it not work so well should they attempt it... Like Goblins MAM! The non issue of waiting for high move rolls, Heroes could easily be waiting outside a room... Double 1's Hazard. And, Dungeon tokens! The "you're not allowed to do that" "that's not how it works" should be reserved for players who think they can walk through walls, with out a spell or reroll dice with out Fate! They're already ruining the game before you are.

My post was starting to get a bit messy so i'll stop there... For now!

[j_dean80]

I don't see an issue with blocking doorways. The monsters can merely move away from the door and wait for the Heroes to enter. They can go to the closest corners of the room to get out of LoS of a crossbow. Or Quest designers can include a secret door behind the Heroes that the monsters may open.

[devarionarias]

I've actually never had this come up in a game, but it is a very interesting question. I actually went back to look at the armory thinking I remembered it saying "cannot be used with the shield" but it doesn't.

Realistically it doesn't make much sense, but I think I would allow a player to do it.

[Kurgan]

I try to follow the rules pretty strictly, and just add new rules on top of them. So for me, you can use a crossbow with a shield, and that's that.

I did add a long bow, and sure, you can argue that you aren't shooting up into the sky to make the arrows travel farther and do more damage, but range is unlimited in the basic rules, so I just make it do more damage and say the Dwarf can't use it (too big and clumsy). I suppose I should have the spear usable with a shield, but I think in the basic rules it says no, so the only "long" weapon you can combine with the shield would be the longsword, even though in real life the long sword was a two-handed weapon. This is Hero Quest, it goes by high fantasy games logic. Otherwise plate mail shouldn't slow you down, and thrown weapons should always be retrievable and you shouldn't have unlimited anything. Eventually you move into D&D territory... I want to keep it somewhat board game simple and yet provide incentives to use different weapons/equipment with strengths and weaknesses, but still give the notion that you are finally upgrading by saving your gold.

[Oftkilted]

Weapon swapping isn’t listed as an “action option”. So if a hero chooses to use a specific weapon they would be stuck with it until their next opportunity to attack.

The models that have Crossbows have them modeled as two handed weapons. These aren’t hand-crossbows that you use in a single hand.

[wallydubbs]

Weapon swapping isn’t listed as an “action option”. So if a hero chooses to use a specific weapon they would be stuck with it until their next opportunity to attack.

That's part of the problem when it comes to non-conforming equipment there has to be some sort of mechanic at limiting the heroes from putting away the Battle Axe and taking out his Broadsword and sheild for that extra defense dice. If this passes as a non-action heroes will constantly do it and there wouldn't be much of a difference from holding both at the same time.

[Oftkilted]

I’m of the camp that actually shooting a crossbow would require two hands. (A pistol or hand crossbow could be 1-handed, but they don’t exist in HeroQuest.) And they would be able to equip their default weapon (or a single pre-defined sheathed weapon) if attacked in melee. (But wouldn’t be able to equip a shield, as that would likely be lashed to their back or their pack.) So from an “equipment” side it would be “sword and crossbow”.

My thought is that Dark Warriors with a crossbow are 3(2). With the 2 for melee/adjacent combat.

Which indicates they can at a minimum swap from ranged to melee. But they’d need to make the choice to do so.

I’m in favor of a “there has to be no monsters in the room to swap melee weapons” so it is a “non-action that requires them to be out of danger”.

Though there is still the “there is no action that allows them to swap” which would mean that they’re limited to whatever Zargon dictates.

Warhammer Quest had a similar rule where you couldn’t change equipment while there were visible enemies. Though you can pass consumables (potions/flasks/scrolls/etc.)

[Orc26]

We played that crossbow was 1 handed. Every time a new player pointed out that "crossbows don't work that way" or Zargon player would comically get out a magnifying glass and the armory insert and look for the rules telling you that you couldn't use it with a shield. It was a fun little skit that happened every now and then


On the matter of changing equipment we never once had a player change armor mid mission except when Borin's armor was found and we played that what you attacked with is what you were stuck with until your next turn