Adjacent monsters

[Jewels!]

This is going to turn out like the Borin's Armor thread, isn't it?

[knightkrawler]

No, because "corner" does not apply to every square.

I don't understand how everyone can just utterly fail to understand the rules-as-written. I have had this board game for twenty years, and this has never been an issue.

Short Sword, Broadsword, Battle Axe = Adjacent Squares (4)
Longsword, Staff = Adjacent, Diagonal Squares (8)
Crossbow = Non-adjacent, No squares within firing arc more than 50% obstructed by a doorway

The golden rule of any game that has rules, is "Can Vs. Cannot; that's Game Theory 101.

A game object classified within the rules behaves exceptionally only with a "Can or Cannot" clause.

Do all weapons attack diagonally? No.
Do all weapons normally attack adjacent? Yes.
Does the crossbow attack adjacent? No.
Do weapons normally attack any enemies that you can "see?" No.
Does the crossbow normally attack any enemies that you can "see"? Yes.
Do the rules cover additional description of what "see" actually means? Yes.
Do the rules describe "see" as an area-of-effect? Yes.

By ruling that the Crossbow is incapable of attacking diagonally, you are applying the logic that the Battle Axe can be used to attack any enemy that you can "see," because it does not say that you cannot and because you can "see" adjacent enemies, that you already know you can attack, normally.

Considering Weapons

Short Sword; clauses: 1 (May not be used by the Wizard)
Broad Sword; clauses: 1 (May not be used by the Wizard)
Longsword; clauses: 2 (Enables you to attack diagonally, may not be used by the Wizard)
Battle Axe; clauses: 2 (You may not use a shield when using this weapon, may not be used by the Wizard)
Crossbow; clauses: 3 (You may fire at any monster that you can "see," you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you, may not be used by the Wizard)
Staff; clauses: 2 (Enables you to attack diagonally, you may not use a shield when using this weapon)
Dagger; clauses: 2 (Can also be thrown at any enemy you can "see," it is lost when it is thrown)

Can you use a shield with the crossbow? Yes.
Can you attack a diagonal enemy with the crossbow? Yes.

Exactly.
What I said before in other words.

This is going to turn out like the Borin's Armor thread, isn't it?

It should be hereby over...

[Daedalus]

Wouldn't this also disallow using the crossbow to attack along the diagonal across ANY distance though?

Yes, a Hero with a crossbow is prevented from firing between two obstructing squares that are diagonally positioned and connected by one corner. Distance is not the factor, but rather the inability to "see" through those squares. They function as a continuous barrier together, even though they are joined by just one point (but 2 square corners). Most of the squares are filled, so there isn't an opportunity to lean a bit and get the clear shot past that point.

I just want to state crossbow attacks are still allowed while attacking diagonally in many instances, whether just one square away from a monster or across a room. It is often the case that just one diagonally-intervening square blocks line of sight, and firing a crossbow is permitted in these instances. For example, a Hero can fire diagonally through a doorway at a monster if the doorway is clear of figures. It's also possible if the targeted monster is in the square just inside [edit] the doorway with the adjacent, outer [edit] doorway square vacant.

[Daedalus]

edit: the EU rules are completely different from NA rules. The term "see" ins't in the EU rules if I recall correctly. They describe line of sight with a drawing in the rules.

Yes, "see" is a term defined in the NA rules only. The EU rules use the term "visable" on p.15. under Missile Weapons: "...Your target must be visible, as with casting a spell...."

The EU rules referenced from p.15, found on p. 11 under Casting Spells:

Spells can be cast at monster or character provided they are visible to the spell-
caster. Models in the same room as the spell-caster are always visible. Models in
passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed
staight line from the spell-caster to the target. If the line passes through
another model, through a wall, or through a closed door, then the target model is
not visible.

               

The image you describe is found right under the p.11 rules above. This image was reproduced in the NA rules for the same purpose.

I think this diagram is useful for illustrating how to handle a crossbow. The Elf has line of sight to the top-left Orc. At least half of that Orc is "visible" to the Elf. However, the Elf doesn't have line of sight to the top-right Orc, because a wall obstructs a straight line to that target. Less than half of that second Orc is "visible". The defining principle can be explained thusly: A monster can only be targeted by a spell or missile attack if at least half of the figure is visible to the caster/attacker.

The Wizard does not have line of sight to the top-right Orc because both the adjacent Orc below it and the wall corner next to it each block a different half of the target--none of the Orc is visible to the Wizard. If a Hero were to be placed closer to the top-right Orc in the diagonal square, he too would have his line of sight obstructed completely and wouldn't be able to fire a crossbow. Conversely, if a Hero were to be placed closer than the Elf is to the top-left Orc in the diagonal square, he would be able to fire a crossbow at that monster because at least half of the targeted Orc was visible. Remember, the only restriction put in the EU crossbow Equipment Card is that it can't be fired at an adjacent opponent.

Both the staff and spear can attack diagonally but don't have the line-of-sight restrictions that missile weapons have. A Hero could use either melee weapon to attack the top-right Orc from its close diagonal square. A crossbow can't attack that Orc, so diagonally-attacking melee weapons have an advantage over missile weapons up close, like they should.

An interesting inconsistency is evident in the EU rules. On the text from p.11 cited above it is stated that "Models in the same room as the spell-caster are always visible." Yet in a corridor or from from different rooms, line of sight is required. This means a Wizard can somehow cast a spell though an obstructing figure in a room, but not outside of a room. Are EU Wizards bouncing spells off of the walls and ceilings in rooms? I much prefer the consistency of the "fixed" NA rules here, where line of sight applies equally over the gameboard. Are EU players fine with this, or do you houserule otherwise?

[Sjeng]

I never thought of that. I always use LOS, even inside rooms. Seems logical.

[Goblin-King]

An interesting inconsistency is evident in the EU rules. On the text from p.11 cited above it is stated that "Models in the same room as the spell-caster are always visible." Yet in a corridor or from from different rooms, line of sight is required. This means a Wizard can somehow cast a spell though an obstructing figure in a room, but not outside of a room. Are EU Wizards bouncing spells off of the walls and ceilings in rooms? I much prefer the consistency of the "fixed" NA rules here, where line of sight applies equally over the gameboard. Are EU players fine with this, or do you houserule otherwise?

We've always been fine with this rule. Never thought about it really. But after all the spells are limited and the wizard is generally considered the weakest character. I see no harm in cutting him a little slack by this little obscure rule.
It would make more sense if spells simply followed the established LOS rules though.

[knightkrawler]

Well, in a corridor, when the spellcaster has two monsters in front of him, one blocking sight of the other,
I allow the spellcaster anyway to put a spell on the obstructed monster.

Call it line-of-knowing. A spell is not the same as a projectile for me. I consider the spell effect to be immaterial/astral
and just avoiding the obstruction.

As Goblin-King said, cut the Wizard some slack. It makes for some strategic options.

[chaoticprime]

The EU rules are just not very good. And what's up with the arena crap between Quests?

[Goblin-King]

Arena? What are you talking about?

[Daedalus]

It appears to me the Arena is there to hold the hands of newbies before the Maze and the rest of the Quests are begun. I wonder how many groups actually played those two training exercises set up in the EU 1st ed. [edit] Rule Book.