HeroQuest: Grey Areas in the Rules | Discussing Interpretations | Are These Controversial Rulings?

[@JeffWitty]

Love this video soooo much! I love how you play the crossbow specifically - it’s a bit too overpowered in my games so I’m playing how you do - minimum 1 space away from the target. I WAS allowing diagonal attacks adjacent to the target - but never again.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

While I understand why some people would allow the diagonal attacks, it makes a powerful weapon even more powerful. In those cramped rooms, it feels like your "archer" should have to resort to getting their hands dirty. And it does take something away from the longsword and spear if your crossbow can make those some diagonal pings. Thanks for watching!

[@off1k]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring I too have all 8 squares classed as adjacent for the same reason as you. I also don't allow crossbow attack on distant monster if any other monster is adjacent.

[@DJChipsandGarlic]

i had a whole corridor against a zombie and missed for several turns XD

[@Sephysogaku]

Thank you for your insightful discussion! I recently got the new edition of Hero Quest, and i've already stumbled across most of these issues. I'm already documenting my own house rules & equipment shop for my players, and this video has helped me to improve it even more.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Thanks for watching. I hope you are enjoying HeroQuest.

[@Kryosleep]

I love Heroquest due to its simplicity. A bunch of cool toys with a simple framework to adorn as you see fit. Plug in some 3rd party stuff like Axianquest Infinite Dungeon and it's a random dungeon crawl. We ruled equipment change was a full action. Switch bosses to use white shields for defense and so on.

[@yodaflyz]

None of the the original heros have gear issues as the Wizard is always explicitly mentioned on gear they can't use. The Dwarf, Elf, & Barbarian can pretty much use anything that doesn't state it can only be used by a specific class like the Wizard. Gearing issues started as soon as they began adding new classes during the crowdfund. The Druid, Bard, & later the Rouge all state some kind of armor restriction that the original version of the game didn't need to put I into account.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Absolutely. That's exactly the point I am making in the video when I talk about future-proofing and how Avalon Hill should have thought more about it if they knew they were going to put out expansion material.

[@idristhomas8856]

I am really pleased with your take on the helmet though. Was pondering if my Rogue would stay squishy for ever ha ha.

[@Wilberon_McBane]

Yes! More HQ!!! Because it's such a staple of gaming history both personally and how it shaped games after it, keeping on dipping into it from different angles and having little discussions about the finer points of oddities of the rules is always interesting and thought provoking. I think I've taken pretty much the same direction as you've said on most of the slightly unclear/missing areas of the rules , especially the multiple weapons situation. When I play it with my kids (5, 7 and 11) and they're equipping themselves at the beginning we have a funny little discussion where they have to explain how they are carrying each item. I'm ex-military so we talk about various ways to sling stuff and attach to backpacks or whatever. If they can convince me it could be done then they can combine them and crack on! I also think because I'm playing for fun with my little ones and we're all still learning along the way then a liberal interpretation works for us. If I was playing with a few mates then we'd probably be more strict with things. Anyhow, another great vid. 👊😎

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Thanks for sharing your ideas. That's fun, getting the kids to explain how they are lugging all their stuff about, and it helps them to think in character without bogging the game down with extra rules. That's great.

[@michaelmiguelsanchez]

With regards to changing equipment out, I only allow it when ‘not in combat’. So if a monster has LoS to the hero, they can’t swap equipped weapons/armour. If you go into combat with the battle axe, 3 Orcs aren’t going to stand there while you pop it away, strap on your shield and draw your sword, and vice-versa.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That's a sound way of doing it. I like to give the heroes a little more freedom than that - let them get a little John Woo about things - but I can't fault the logic and it seems perfectly fair.

[@wadelatchaw9770]

Helmets I just use the rule what ever armor they are wearing or can wear, so metal armor then metal helmet, leather armor then leather helmet.

[@matthewkirkhart2401]

I wonder how much of the gray areas that we all see now are knowledge we have taken from more modern games and applied to the old HQ game now. By this I mean something that we didn’t give a second thought about when the game first came out “became” a gray area later because of more modern rules having a rule for something that HQ doesn’t have a rule for and only later did we “realize” we needed a HQ rule for it, or HQ was not specific about this more modern idea in gaming and therefore we felt that we needed a HQ rule for it or HQ was vague about it. A good example of this to me is equipping weapons. I think one of the reasons HQ doesn’t have a rule for this is because the heroes always go first. If my hero attacks when they go in the turn with a 2-handed weapon, they cannot be using a shield later when defending against monster attacks in the same turn because they are using the 2-handed weapon this turn. However, if they used a one handed weapon to attack during their part of the turn they can use a shield later in the turn to defend. The “equipping” is a more modern game idea and IMHO isn’t needed in HQ because the hero’s action determines what they are holding during the turn. Your rule of a free equipping action does the same thing, of course. But I think that the “attacking” action in HQ determines what is “equipped” in more modern ideas on gaming. I think Rogues can use helmets. A helmet is a “helmet” not “armor”. Chainmail and plate mail are said to be “armor” in their respective descriptive texts, but a helmet is not so described. On the cards for both the helmet and the armors the word “armor” is in italics because that is the effect in the game, that of providing additional defense dice. It is not a term describing what the item is narratively in the game. The narrative description is where something is said to be “armor” or not. It doesn’t say in the description for a Rogue that they can’t wear or use metal things, it says they can’t wear metal armor. And I think you are right, a helmet isn’t “armor” in this case because it doesn’t say it is in the narrative description of the item. And to me they are right about this in the descriptions on their cards. A helmet is a helmet, it’s not armor. Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the Ambidexterous Rogue’s two attacks with a dagger. The card says “short sword or dagger and you may make an additional attack with a dagger” which means that if a dagger is used to attack during the turn, you may make an additional attack with the dagger. To me the point of the bandolier is that the Rogue is always “armed” with a dagger. They may or may not use it to attack and more importantly if they throw a dagger it doesn’t mean they don’t have a dagger to use later, unlike another character who has the dagger card but once it is thrown it is gone. The Rogue does not suffer this problem if they have the bandolier as they will always have a dagger to attack with regardless of whether or not they have thrown a dagger. What I think is very interesting about the Ambidexterous Rogue and dagger use is that you can throw two daggers per turn, or throw one dagger and make a melee attack with another dagger in the same turn. Again, I think the modern game mechanics of contemporary games affects how we view the HQ rules. Heroes just “attack”. The weapon determines whether it is ranged or melee, but the hero is just “attacking.” So if an Ambidexterous Rogue uses a dagger to make an attack (melee or ranged) in a turn, they may make another attack with a dagger (melee or ranged) in the same turn. I agree with your interpretation of an “adjacent square.” Adjacent monsters are in any square next to the hero, including diagonally. The diagonal square to a hero or monster does not make the hero or monster not adjacent, it just limits which weapons may be used to affect that monster or hero. This has nothing to do with whether or not a monster or hero is “adjacent” it has to do with whether the hero or monster can attack the enemy with an attack action. Therefore, the crossbow may not be used to attack monsters who are in any of the 8 squares directly adjacent to the hero. As to whether it can or cannot be used with a shield, I think we need to go with what is written, or in this case not written, on the card. Yes, a hero can use a shield and a crossbow in the same turn. I 100% agree that the line of sight rule is not a “rule of thumb” it is the freaking rule! But I don’t think there is a mistake in the diagram. The key to the rule I think is that the rule is all about the literal “centers” of the squares in question. LOS is only blocked when the line passes through the center of a square that has something that can block LOS is there. So, in the diagram, the Wizard blocks the Elf’s LOS to the lowest orc on the right because the line from the center of the Elf’s square passes through the center of the Wizard’s square before getting to the center of the orc’s square. The Wizard does not block the LOS of the Elf to the orc on the right that is the middle of the row of three orcs because the line from the center of the Elf’s square to the center of the orc’s square does not pass through the CENTER of the Wizard’s square. This is why a corner does not block LOS because the line is not passing through the center of the “corner’s” square. In your examples, the only one that I think is a bit “tricky” in this respect is when the wall is in the hallway but you can still draw a line from the center of the hero’s square to the center of the monster’s square. But I don’t think it is tricky because the wall block blocks LOS absolutely just like, say, a closed door does. A diagonal line could be drawn to two adjacent squares passing through a square occupied by a closed door, but we do not say that LOS exists because the door is closed, even though the line does not pass directly through the actual “closed door” itself. But I do agree, we are having to apply a bit of common sense logic here rather than go directly with the rule as they write it. So yes, no diagonal attacking through squares with solid walls, but diagonal attacking through a square occupied by a monster is possible as long as the straight line from the attacking square to the target square does not pass through the center of the square occupied by the potentially blocking monster. In your video example at the end, the goblin can be attacked by the elf because the line does not pass through the center of the squares occupied by the orcs. If the elf was in a square diagonal to an orc, and the goblin was in a square diagonal to the orc on the other side of the orc, then I don’t think the elf could not attack the goblin because the straight line from the elf to the goblin passes through the center of a square occupied by the orc. But you are totally right, we are all indeed playing our own version of the game. And to me that is part of the beauty of it.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I think it's the other way around - the grey areas were always grey areas, but back in the day you just took your best stab at what it meant and carried on. You didn't hear other people's interpretations, so you just assumed you were doing it the way it was meant to be. Helmets and shields are definitely armour. They have the "armor" keyword. And shields even say "this hand-held armor..." in the description. I would never argue a helmet wasn't armour, it's specifically about whether it's metal that causes a problem. The "rule of thumb" doesn't say line of sight is blocked when the line runs through the centre of a blocking element, it says draw the line from the centre of your hero's square to the centre of the target square, and if the line crosses a blocking element such as a hero or monster, there is no line of sight. If you rule that line of sight is only blocked if it runs through the centre of a blocking item you create some very peculiar situations. For example look at the LOS diagram again. Place a character in the square adjacent north of the wizard - is the arrow crossing through the centre of either of those characters? No. Are you going to rule the elf could see through a solid line of heroes? Of course not. LOS was rarely a problem with the UK rules because you could always see everything in a room, and corridor fighting never really got that busy and wasn't all that common due to most corridors being a single square wide. We definitely seem to have the same idea and approach to equipping multiple weapons - the end result is basically the same. The only reason I went the extra half step and made it a "free action" to equip weapons was so a hero can still change their weapons on a turn when they don't attack. Edit: forgot to say thank you for taking the time to write such an in-depth and thoughtful comment.

[@matthewkirkhart2401]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Thanks, I always love your videos. That’s why I spend so much time commenting on them, they always make me think and appreciate the game more! So with the helmets, shields, and armor thing, I’m not trying to make the case that helmets and shields are not “armor” in the literal sense. They are. I just mean in game mechanic terms in relation to trying to be internally consistent with the rules as the authors wrote them, I would conclude with what is written on the cards that armor is armor and shields are armor, but helmets are “headwear”, not armor. In the real world, helmets, shields, and body armor are indeed all armor. In responding to your point about keywords, I’ve always thought of the keywords being used to provide a description of the game effect, not a narrative description of what the item “is” to the heroes in the game. So my likely incorrect interpretation is that these three things are all “armor” in that they provide bonus defense dice, but they are not “armor” in terms of what heroes can and cannot use them. That information is provided in the narrative description of the item, not the keyword, but I’m probably wrong about that. I do see what you are saying, but does this mean then that a Rogue could use a shield? I don’t have the expansion with the Rogue so I don’t have those cards and such. It doesn’t say that the shield is “metal” is why I am asking. Does it say that a Rogue can’t use a shield? Or does it just say that a Rogue can’t use “metal armor.” If it just says that a Rogue can’t use metal armor, then given that “metal” is not in the descriptive text for a shield, I would rule that a Rogue could use a shield. Oh my, I just had a bunch of flashbacks to 1st edition AD&D discussions in the early 80s about whether or not Thieves could use shields while performing their thief skills! . And history repeats itself. 🙂 I agree that it doesn’t say explicitly in the LOS rule that what matters is the line passing through the center of a square occupied by something that blocks LOS. But they spend a lot of time emphasizing the center point of the squares in the rule, and I think that is important and is trying to draw us to the important element in the rule … the line and the center points of squares (which in a more abstract way includes the idea that you mentioned about heroes and monsters not being static and moving around, which is why the center of the square, any square the line passes through, is the most important thing to consider). And most importantly to me, looking at it this way resolves the error in the diagram that you pointed out. It becomes not an error any longer and makes the written text of the rule consistent with the diagram, because you are right, if you do not interprete it the way I am suggesting, the Wizard should block the LOS by the Elf to the middle Orc in the diagram. The line CLEARLY passes through the Wizard’s square. So my interpretation, perhaps poor nonetheless, attempts to make what is written in the text match what is pictured in the diagram. Honestly, as silly as it sounds I would argue that LOS would not be blocked in the situation you describe with another hero occupying the square north of the Wizard’s square because the line doesn’t pass through the center of the square . To me, it’s similar to the orc and goblin example you have in the video, albeit they are on a diagonal to each other and not side by side. True, it’s a hallway in the figure in the rules, but it’s a wide hallway. The upper most orc in the diagram WOULD have LOS blocked to it, however, if there was another hero north of the Wizard. So the top-most orc and the bottom-most orc would not be within LOS of the Elf if there was another hero directly north of the Wizard. But the middle orc could be seen. Again, I think this focusing on the center of the squares the line passes through to determine whether something is blocked captures the idea you raised of heroes and monsters moving around and not being static. If the line passes through the center of the occupied square, though, even though the hero or monster is moving around, because it passes through the center of the location occupied by the hero or monster, LOS is blocked. The hero or monster is just too frequently going to be in that part of the square even if it is moving around within it, so LOS is blocked. If the line passes through just a little corner of the occupied square, LOS is not blocked because most of the time that the moving hero or monster is not in that small part of the square they occupy so LOS is not blocked. I agree with you, I prefer the UK LOS rule. It’s simpler and much more straightforward. That said, I think your point about using the UK LOS rule might result in removing a little bit of decision making by the players because everything in a room in LOS if a hero is in the room is an interesting point. But I’m not sure that it would be that big of an issue, meaning that I would guess that there are few instances where the US LOS rule would say “no” and the UK rule would say “yes.” So it might be a whole lot of bother about nothing and certainly without question the easiest solution for the LOS rule is to use the UK version. Regardless, your main point in this video about the LOS rule not being clear in the US version is obviously spot on just from our discussion alone ! Also, I agree with several of the other commenters. More HQ videos! 🙂

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The rogue wording is they cannot use "metal armour or shields". There are only two items with the keyword "armor" that do not contain the term "metal armour" or "shield" and they are the bracers and the helmet. It's interesting to note that the wizard's cloak functions as armour (+1 defend) but it does not include the keyword "armor," presumably because it's a cloak and only usable by the wizard. I see where you are coming from with LOS, but I think if you start ruling that lines going partially over blocked squares aren't blocked then things can get into a bit of a pickle, as almost anything that isn't in a cardinal direction or true diagonal from your hero will be visible, and you could even have a character surrounded by eight other characters that can still shoot out in certain directions (which is actually possible in the EU rules as long as they are in a room!). The way I see it, the actual rule for line of sight states "heroes and monsters are only visible if an unobstructed straight line can be traced from the spellcaster to the target." There is no mention of if the line goes through the centre of anything. The "rule of thumb" then goes on to clarify (or obfuscate) by giving a definitive start and end point for that line - the middle of the spellcaster's square and the middle of the target's square - but it still states there is no visibility if the line crosses anything. Again, it doesn't say the line has to cross the middle of the blocking element. If you only block LOS if the line runs through the centre of the blocking element you could, for example (referring to the LOS diagram) move your elf into the space adjacent to the wizard (west side) and still shoot two of the three orcs in the corridor beyond, because your line still wouldn't go through the very middle of the wizard's spell. And how would you rule the "middle" of a wall or door? - the rules don't change the terminology based on what the blocking element is it just says "if the line does not cross a wall, closed door, hero or monster the target is declared visible." I can't see anybody arguing the wizard in the LOS diagram would be able to target the orc to the north behind the door, but if your line has to go through the middle of the door to be blocked... It can just get a bit silly. I think the cleanest way to rule it is, you start your line on the centre of your square, you finish it on the centre of the target square and if it crosses anything, it's blocked. The online community has lamented the LOS diagram in the original US version of the rules for a very long time, and it was unfortunate Hasbro didn't update it for the new edition. It's actually taken from the original EU version of the rules, which makes no mention of drawing your line from centre square to centre square and actually moves the position of the line so it isn't coming from the centre of the elf and therefore doesn't touch the wizard at all. If you don't have an original copy of the EU rules you can check it out at Ye Olde Inn website. It sheds some nice extra confusion on the issue! Phew... HeroQuest rules really weren't designed for this level of scrutiny!

[@matthewkirkhart2401]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring All great points about LOS. I think most people are going to go with your interpretation of the rule. In terms of my interpretation, as far as closed doors and walls and such, the line doesn’t need to go through the center of those squares to block LOS, it just has to go through any part of the square because those things block sight. So, for example, any part of the line for LOS purposes that passes through a square of a closed door or a wall would be blocked because the hero or monster cannot see through those squares in any fashion. Another way to think of it is that the closed door or the wall doesn’t move and it takes up the entirety of the space, unlike a monster or hero who is moving about in the space, never taking up all of it at any one point in time. And yes, I was thinking the same thing about the UK LOS rule, a monster surrounded on all sides by other monsters could be the target of LOS by a hero as long as the hero and the target monster are in the same room. And I’m honestly okay with that. Partly to me anyway the issue with any LOS rule in a game that doesn’t do it abstractly like the UK version does in games that use squares is going to have some weird situations. Yes, that is odd that the cloak for the Wizard does not use the keyword “armor” I suppose because Wizards can’t wear armor. So this I think gives support for your notion that the description is not as relevant as the keywords they use.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I guess I'm just not keen on the idea that you could shoot through a solid line of miniatures to something beyond, and if you were to replace the wizard in the LOS diagram with a rock pile or wall tile, suddenly the elf no longer has that line of sight. But, I admittedly grant my own exception with walls and rock piles by not allowing the true diagonal attack through the corners like I would between two miniatures, so again everyone is doing their own thing. I just like to keep those exceptions to a minimum so for me it's cleaner to be as consistent as possible and treat any broken line as obstructed. It just would have been nice for Hasbro to include a clear, definitive example, rather than repurposing the EU example that worked with different rules. Advanced Heroquest has a nice way of handling line of sight by having rules for clear and partial line of sight. As for equipment - HeroQuest gets fluffier the more it expands as well. The Frozen Horror has an item called Armbands of Ice. It isn't called armour, so anyone with an armour restriction could wear it, but you wear it on your arm where you would wear your bracers. The weeds just keep getting thicker from there! But I have to say again, the point of this video wasn't to pick apart an incredible game, it was to highlight the notion that lots of people play it in lots of different ways, all putting their own take on things, and many of those people will be absolutely certain they are playing the "correct" way. It would be interesting if one day Avalon Hill addressed things like line of sight and let us know which ruling they use when playtesting.

[@HeroQuestFans]

I agree with your judgement calls here on these rules... the companion app is a marvelous piece of programming to keep track of some many variables, and while interesting I don't treat it as a "definitive" ruling on anything (it contains many small errors and a few oddities). however it is nice that you can always choose "use artifact" and pick the rod of telekinesis to see if the App (at least) thinks you should have line of sight to an enemy.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I've never thought to test LoS using the rod (I only use the app when I'm doing my playthroughs). The app's LoS rules are odd though because they don't use the "rule of thumb" from the rules. It lets you see around corners before you get to them, which means it can't be drawing the line from the centre of the square. Which, of course, just makes things even more confusing on that front. Really, I guess it's fine whichever way people rule it as long as it stays consistent.

[@andrea.arcidiacona]

Regarding how many weapons you can take with you, to make it more realistic and also challenging in terms of your choices that will determine your fate... I like to grant 2 big and 1 small weapon only; to choose before the begin of the quest.

[@IamRTurner]

Thank you! I think your interpretations sound reasonable and balanced. I was disappointed to see that they didn't clarify some of these things with the new version as well but what can you do (besides make a video about it)?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

They definitely could have tightened things up a bit. Reproducing the error from the old line of sight diagram is particularly egregious. But it gives us all something to talk about!

[@w.i.t.c.h.q.u.e.e.n]

Tbh, things like the movement rules are fundamentally flawed. The community has been discussing this stuff for 30yrs now without any definitive conclusion. They could have redesigned it, fixed it partially, or leave it as is. Personally, I'm glad the rules are just a reprint bc everything else would've caused massive controversies in the community. *If* they'd like to redesign the rules it'd also be smarter to do it this way first and publish a new 2nd edition later.

[@TH-gr2pz]

I like the idea of a duck initiative roll for characters blocking line of sight, maybe risk/reward. Roll high, successful duck and hit, roll medium no hit, roll really low take friendly fire.

[@needfoolthings]

Absolitely love this video. Ye Olde Inn exists because if these questions.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Glad you liked the video. Thanks for watching.

[@imalive4u169]

I try to keep the game as realistic as possible. The Armory has a limited number of equipment cards that's basically all the heroes in my game has to work with. So at the beginning the Barbarian gets the broad sword card, and the Dwarf and the Elf gets the two short swords and the Wizard the dagger. These cards are removed from the Armory but can be returned to the Armory if they have been lost, destroyed, or sold back for half price to be purchased again. Also if let's say a hero searches for treasure and it says that the hero finds a staff and another hero already has ownership of the staff card they simply do not find a staff. As for owning equipment with armor heroes that can wear them can have a helmet on their head a suit of armor like chain mail or plate mail, a shield, a bracer for their arms, a medallion/necklace, two rings one on each hand, a pair of boots on their feet, and a belt. As for how many weapons they can carry I limited it to 2 weapons which would also include the Rogue's bandolier (unlimited daggers). The Attack on the hero's sheet is based upon their primary weapon which that hero would normally use. The player actually has to announce if they are going to use their other weapon before an attack. This can change the dynamics of combat for instance the Dwarf's primary weapon is the battle axe but he can't equip a shield but than before an attack announces he's going to fire a bolt with his crossbow at a distant monster. He has a shield most of the time not used. But deciding to use the crossbow let's him equip the shield until his next turn giving him an additional combat dice for defense. On his next turn the Dwarf is back to using his battle axe again without the shield equipped. There are also other things like the Wizard's Cloak which I count as a suit of armor for the Wizard. In an actual battle carrying multiple weapons wouldn't happen as they would just hinder the person which is why there should be a limit to how many are carried. The heroes are adventurers so likely even if they own multiple weapons these would be left outside of the dungeon on their pack animals. If a hero finds let's say a weapon or armor which exceeds their limit the player has to make a choice to what they'll discard. As for potions each hero is limited to five potions. This keeps a nice balance playing the game preventing heroes from being overpowered. Again a choice keep the potion which was found exceeding their limit discarding another potion the hero is carrying or discard the potion found searching for treasure.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Interesting ideas. The cards limiting the availability of equipment was an actual rule in the original European edition of the game, but it was changed once the adventure design kit came out. Also, in the European version you had to discard any items you pulled from the treasure deck at the end of the mission, preventing you from stockpiling too many potions.

[@yodaflyz]

My UK 1st edition copy doesn't list starter items on the character cards like the later editions leaving it to the player to guess at what the starter items are based on the stats. The Barbarian & Wizard always felt obvious & the elf feels right with a short sword. However, as the dwarf always has an Ax in it's art & starts with attack 2. I kind of wish they had chosen the throwing ax instead of the short sword for the Dwarfs starter weapon as it just feels right for him. Especially in the new edition as they don't have 2 short swords in the core box (unless I was shorted 1 short sword in favor for another card with my copy)

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The UK edition didn't include starting gear and there was no implication that the heroes had any of the equipment cards - there isn't even an item you could equip the wizard that would give him one combat dice, and the shortsword in the UK edition allows a hero to attack diagonally and it clearly wasn't the intent to let the elf or dwarf start the game with that ability. The attack section says to roll the dice listed under attack on your character board, and the section on equipment says "the player rolls the number of dice shown for the weapon, instead of the number of dice shown on his character board against attack." Basically, if you weren't using a weapon, you used the value on the character board (which has an impact on the mission where you start off imprisoned with no equipment). Hasbro's edition only included a single shortsword card, which seems like an oversight; however, cards are only for reference. Players don't need to keep them as they can write the equipment on their character sheet.

[@off1k]

@ImAlive 4U My house rules regarding equipment are different, I allow for heroes to carry 3 extra weapons/armour (backpack) and total of 4 potions each, this allows for dead hero pick up plus possible weapons/armour finds during quests. I also limit treasure search to per furniture piece, no treasure searching empty rooms allowed but heroes have a chance to take 2nd treasure card by rolling against their minds points, I do remove all but 2 hazard cards but keep most wandering monster cards, keep in mind I'm using 2x treasure decks. One main difference is I don't limit the items to the amount of cards, so every hero can have a helmet and crossbow (barring wiz and other character limitations) but what I do between quests is limit the amount of items in the armoury by rolling 6d6 and that's the total amount of available items. Can only buy 1 item per card, so shuffle the deck and draw the top X amount of cards and that's the armoury, usually average 18-24 cards available to purchase of a possible 42, still waiting on Mage of the Mirror which increases it to 46 cards iirc.

[@HeroQuestFans]

gray areas... at least there's a deep online presence to discuss it. I wish there was more for the gray areas in space crusade!

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

It's understandable considering the smaller distribution that Space Crusade doesn't get the same level of discussion. Differences between the computer game and the board game also add to some of the confusion.

[@harringtonmartin]

The Advanced Armory cards clear up a lot of these distinction problems. It's a bit of an investment, but there are a lot less gray areas within the game when they are used.

[@pst5345]

Line of sight is done like in dnd 3.5. The corner of a square connecting with a corner of an enemy square grants LoS. That alone is easing up casting.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That certainly seems to be the best way to rule it, but is bizarrely not how LOS is explained in the rules.

[@Archaeonomy]

Great video. I use a similar rule with changing weapons for the same reason, though I do restrict the crossbow as two-handed, so it becomes most used when players switch between using a crossbow and using a sword and shield. Line of sight is much easier for me since I made a 3d board, if line of sight is a concern, bend over and get a mini's eye view, job done.

[@Archaeonomy]

Oh, and I have also seen on some pdf cards the spear marked as '2 handed', yeah, no, I think there have been enough people over the millennia who used spear and shield as their armament of choice to rule that out.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I don't know why the spear would be considered two-handed. Poking at people from behind shields was a pretty common thing to do. For the staff, two-handed makes sense, but not the spear. So you are using true line of sight in your games - tabletop miniatures style. That's interesting. But does that mean you do or don't allow people to shoot or fire spells between diagonally adjacent characters?

[@Archaeonomy]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Ah, now you get into the nitty gritty. The way we deal with monsters/heroes in the way is that other characters of the same side do not block line of sight (unless they want to, some heroes really don't get on) So a wizard can use a dwarf as a meat shield and fire magic from behind them, but similarly a chaos sorcerer can use an orc as their meat shield, and cannot be targeted until there are no more monsters blocking line of sight. It's to allow 'rearline' characters like wizards and archers to actually function that way.

[@Archaeonomy]

It makes spells like Genie that ignore line of sight even more valuable. I have had a few cases where my chaos sorcerer gets wiped while standing behind a nice array of cannon fodder by a single lucky genie attack.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I assume you are using the Euro rules, then, as Genie requires line of sight in the NA rules. Lots of the spells got nerfed in the NA rules, along with LOS. The wizard was much more powerful in the European edition when they could walk into any room and draw line of sight to everything in it.

[@user-oz3wb5kh5m]

very helpful video, i just picked hero quest and im trying to houserule some things. I want your clear opinion about line of sight. You said in the video that when a hero is in a room he has line of sight of everything in the room. That means a wizard can cast spells at monsters that are behind an other hero or monster? And what about this rule in corridors? how does it work?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The rule that heroes could see everything in a room when they are in that room is from the original UK rules set. And yes, it was simply a case that you could target anything within a room, while in corridors you had to have unobstructed line of sight as you would expect. For the new Avalon Hill edition, they don't use that ruling, but the rules as presented in the manual are unclear so you have to make a choice. You can either: (a) Draw line of sight from centre of your square to the centre of the target square. This is how the rule is described under "a good rule of thumb" on page 14 of the rules. This is more restrictive. (b) Draw line of sight from any part of your square to any part of the target square. This appears to be the intention of the diagram on page 14 and how it works in the HeroQuest companion app. This is more open, and makes it easier for the wizard and elf to use spells.

[@BrokenZen311]

Regarding the "all search" action that does traps, secret doors, and treasure, how do you handle trapped treasure chests?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The treasure search is optional. You only do it if it is safe and you want to. Also, I only use that in my solo playthroughs. In group games there are still two distinct searches: one for traps and doors, one for treasure.

[@knghtbrd]

Agree with every ruling you made except Adjacent, mostly because in your conclusion, you literally show the rules page that defines FOUR adjacent squares, as opposed to eight surrounding squares. Crossbow does diagonals then and is indeed a powerful weapon. What I've considered is that the crossbow depicted on the old minis had sort of a magazine affair going on. While we generally assume the crossbow has infinite ammo when purchased, I recall that when you find one, that's typically not the case. Six shots in The Dark Company, was it? I'd suggest if someone wants to argue a crossbow maybe shouldn't be one-handed that it would probably require a second hand to reload that magazine every n shots. Six seems reasonable. If you are carrying a shield, that probably should require your action to accomplish. Just a suggestion, of course.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I don't see why the longsword would cost the same as a crossbow, when the crossbow would be so much more powerful, but there we go. Although the original UK card never states it, the US version has always stated the crossbow has unlimited bolts. The original UK card art doesn't show any kind of magazine and I don't recall the miniatures having magazines. I'm not sure how a top-loading crossbow would auto-reload from any kind of magazine. Dark Company does include a crossbow with limited ammo, but it's an exception and you find an unlimited supply of bolts later in the quest.

[@jessicarowan5673]

If you look at the diagram of line of sight it does show that the wizard is blocking LoS the the lines are defined in the key just below the picture

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

No, the diagram clearly shows a solid "clear line of sight" from the elf, passing through the wizard's space, and touching the second orc in the column. Did you really think I didn't look at the diagram?

[@jessicarowan5673]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring That line that doesn't go through the middle of the orcs space and therefore would not block line of sight as per the "rule of thumb" referenced. I would agree that they shouldn't have used that phrase but that paragraph and the diagram clearly shows the intent of the rule.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The rule isn't that line of sight is blocked if the line goes through the centre of a square. The rule is, draw a line from the centre of your square to the centre of the target square, if the line crosses anything (no mention of centre) then the line of sight is blocked. The diagonal line from the elf to the middle orc in the diagram doesn't go through the centre of ANY squares. Who would rule that if that corridor had a monster, hero or wall on every single space the elf would still be able to attack that centre orc? The diagram in the US rules is taken from the original UK rules, where the line could be drawn from any part of the characters square. In that UK diagram they move the diagonal line slightly up, so it isn't coming from the centre of the elf's space and misses the wizard's space completely.

[@smartgenes1]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring I think it's best to use common sense that the wizard is not a 3D cube blocking everything in that square. Can you draw a line with ruler, string or whatever from target to target. I allow also firing at a larger monster such as an ogre behind a smaller one. If it looks a tricky shot I do a BP check. This can result in a player hitting another player by accident. I also allow a wizard casting a spell past a character one square in front of him, since the player could be shouted at to duck. The players sometimes come up with their own arguments for those situations, with "I'll allow that" being my DM privilege!

[@paulkerr7320]

My crossbow rulings are actullay totally opposite yours, I do allow adjacent diagonal shooting, but dont allow crossbow and shield

[@absolutepower9893]

In the new release they added the leather bracers, but only 1 card, would you say that only 1 pair of the bracers are available to be used by the 4 hero's? In the original US version there was the armory sheet you purchased from and in any number you wanted but those bracers were not available in the original?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

None of the items in the shop are limited. You can buy as much of anything as you like.

[@HivisoftheScale]

Ooh! I've had my own grey zone with the rules back a long time ago, centuries even, when The Frozen Horror had first come out. It had to do with the Mercenaries. Our Zargon (my father) posited that as the Mercenaries were not really Monsters they would get to roll "White Shields" for defense, rather than "Black Shields". I'm was a little salty about this (I was very young at the time) but now I'm not sure how I feel. On the one side, you could simply say, the kind of shields required is simply dependent on the side they are on. Or you could declare only Heroes can roll "heroic shields" for defense, and therefore no matter what side they are on, the mercenaries need the "monsters shield" instead.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That's a great example of a "back in the day" issue. I'm definitely falling on the side of "it depends who they are fighting for." In the latest rules it says "whenever a mercenary is shown on a quest map it should be considered a monster controlled by Zargon." By that wording, enemy mercs need to roll black shields. However, it then goes on to say that when a merc is controlled by the heroes, "A mercenary can move, open doors, attack and defend as a hero," which suggests they would need to roll the white shields when fighting for good. I do know that enemy mercs controlled by Zargon need to roll black shields in the app, which supports that conclusion.

[@HivisoftheScale]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring sounds pretty conclusive to me...

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I think the most conclusive argument is the Frozen Horror is stupidly hard to beat. Zargon needs to cut the heroes some slack! (By the way, thanks for sharing your story, I love hearing people's stories about their adventures growing up with HeroQuest.)

[@nyteification8801]

I've been a long time player of HeroQuest since it's original release. I like the app that enables a single player option, but was curious if a platform exists to play this online? Not one of the videogame releases, but a virtual board game type of thing?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

There's tabletop simulator, I believe.

[@RRKristensen]

What are your perspective on the "Genie" spell? The card text says that the genie can attack "any" visible monster. I interpreted that as 1 monster, whereas my wife interpreted it as ALL monsters in the corridor. I googled the definition of "Any", and I found that it can in fact mean "All".

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Monster. Singular. If it could attack all visible monsters it would be incredibly overpowered. Note that in the app the spell will only attack a single monster.

[@bjrnchrstn]

With armor (like mail) I let them choose to use it or not. If not, pass to companion or back in the deck. Rogue can wear helmet with us. Doesn’t say metal and is explicit about who can’t wear it (wizard). Smart solution on the xbow. Ill implement that. Also a room can just be searched once by one hero. Not 4 times the same room with 4 heroes. Wouldn’t be logical.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Just to mention, Avalon Hill have updated the helmet to be metal. They put an updated helmet card in Rise of the Dread Moon. So it's an official rule that the rogue can't use it now, although that doesn't mean you have to stop letting him.

[@zug1974]

Is there any official quests that have high furniture *not* up against the wall?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I don't recall any, but there are situations where it can block your line of sight.

[@Malcadon]

As the Evil Wizard Player, I would typically rule more on "common-sense" than on hard rulings... to a degree. (I mean, 'common-sense' would say that Heroes should be able to pick better weapons off dead monsters, but I dont do that.) I have used and forgotten so many house rules over the years that I often times forget what is official. Early on with the old game, I always treated furniture a separate search for traps or treasure than from the room they are in. I always like the idea that a Hero has to move adjacent to a chest to inspect it for traps and then clam the treasure if its safe to do so.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Using so many different rules the lines between official and unofficial is probably quite common with HeroQuest. As I said, I think everyone does things there own way, either because of houseruling, or because of different interpretations of some of the fuzzy language. Everyone puts their stamp on it somehow.

[@paulkerr7320]

My search rulesare pretty simple. Each hero can only search a room once. treasure, traps and secret doors included. Corridors can't be searched for treasure and area searched ion corridors is entry door to junction/dead end or corner to corner to mark transitions

[@stefanrosch9422]

Concerning the LoS it would be interesting to „experiment“ with the HeroQuest App. Has anybody done this yet?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The app reveals things around corners from two spaces away, suggesting it draws a line from any part of your space to any part of the target space - playing by the way the rules are worded and ignoring the "rule of thumb." You can see this occurring in some of my playthroughs.

[@jasonsumma1530]

The only time I switch out weapons is if it is melee vs long range. I never thought about it but I guess I go the "free action" route as long as the player declares what they are using. I've yet to go sword\shield to battleaxe and back. I've always wondered about the shield as being "metal". The double wall, to me, would not allow you see anything beyond the wall since it is a closed corridor. As far as the player is concerned, there is nothing beyond the double wall. One thing which irritated me is in one of the Kellar's Keep quests, there is a dread sorcerer. Somehow he was able to cast lightning bolt through all four players even though to me he only had line of sight on one or maybe two. Basically, to me, the lightning bolt came from the wall and not the caster. Line of sight, for me, gets messier for spells than weapons.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I would definitely rule the same way on the wall, but by the wording of the line of sight rules in the current edition, there is a strong argument that you would have line of sight as you only have to see a corner of the target square. Which is obviously nonsense. I can't picture that issue with the dread sorcerer. Is that from the companion app? The lightning bolt spell card states that the spell is cast in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal direction. Therefore all the heroes would have to be lined up, with the sorcerer at the head of the line, for all of them to be hit at once.

[@jasonsumma1530]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring It was the companion app. I think the dread sorcerer only had a good sight on one of the characters in the middle of the line. It was one of the smaller rooms where I did have all of the heroes in a line. So I think what the game did was curved the lightning bolt by hitting one of the end ones via diagonal and then wrapped it around to the rest. I can't recall which quest it was because been so long ago. When the damage is 2\character with no defense rolls, it technically killed two of mine and practically dropped the other two down to a single point. I think this was also the same quest with the rolling ball trap at the start so maybe quest 3 or 4.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Wow. Sounds like the app screwed you over. One of the issues with an AI app over a Zargon player, I suppose. I wonder if it was a one-off glitch or whether they have programmed the spell incorrectly.

[@MONKEYZENTV]

I've been playing solo with the app and the app won't let the wizard cast a spell (firebolt) on an enemy if they're in a diagonal (adjacent) square to the wizard, so that lones up with how you treat shooting.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That doesn't make sense to me though. I don't know why the app is preventing you from casting that spell, as the wizard can cast spells on anyone they can see. Edit: I just loaded up the app to check this myself, and it allowed me to cast ball of flame and fire of wrath at diagonally adjacent and orthogonally adjacent targets. I wonder if there was a glitch in the app while you were using it?

[@MONKEYZENTV]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring he might singe himself being too close to the target 😉

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Ha. The wizard loses his eyebrows for the good of the mission. This is why he doesn't have a beard!

[@MONKEYZENTV]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring maybe, I surrounded chaos warrior on 3 sides with the rest of the party, but when they failed, I just had the wizard left. I also want to say thank you for all the heroquest coverage. I ordered it on the crowd funding through zavvi solely on your recommendation. I've been enjoying with my grandkids

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That's amazing. Thank you. I hope you and your grandchildren are making the most amazing memories together.

[@Pezzapoo]

One day I will finish the campaign (

[@dimitristripakis7364]

Our house rules is that heroes keep original weapons and armor but can only choose one configuration during a quest. So you can not switch weapons/armor midgame (you are supposed to have left surplus equipment "at home").

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That makes sense. How do you handle the situation when they find weapons and armour during a quest? Do they have to just carry it or can they change at that point?

[@dimitristripakis7364]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Yes, they can wear or wield what they find, immediately. The point is that we don't like to change the statistics of the heroes all the time, because of switching weapons. We use a temporary A4 for each quest, where we write each hero's ATK, DEF and BODY points. To update this once for one player, because they found something, is not a nuisance. But to update 2-3 times every battle because "now he shoots with crossbow", "now he wields the sword because the Orcs came close", "now he wields the crossbow again because the Orc next to him died", etc etc, well, that kind of spoils the game, in my opinion.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Thanks for sharing. It's interesting to me what people consider would spoil a game. For me, limiting the heroes to one weapon loadout would remove a lot of the fun of on-the-fly tactical changes. For example, I wouldn't want to take away from them the option to switch to crossbows so they don't have to charge into a place that seems dangerous, or to prevent them from making any close combat attacks at all because they do have a crossbow. Limiting the heroes on equipment also takes away the benefit of the axe's and dagger's throwing ability, because nobody would ever throw them as they would have nothing to swap to afterwards.

[@pst5345]

Easy solution to item equip. You choose your item setup before the scenario and are bound to it. It is still a boardgame thoufh. The book scenarios do not require item swap moderation. The most important thing I would change if at all were monsters not being able to open doors.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Interestingly, Rise of the Dread Moon has a disguise mechanism where you are only allowed to use certain items, but you are allowed to take all of your equipment with you anyway, it just isn't equipped. You can choose to use the restricted items at any time, but immediately lose your disguise when you do. I don't mind monsters not being able to open doors in general because there are certain scenarios in specific quests where it's allowed, and it's something Zargon can also add into custom scenarios when they want to add tension or push the heroes into action.

[@WhiteRhinoPSO]

While trying to come up with behaviors and abilities for the various monsters (as I'm much more likely to he playing alone using AxianQuest's Infinite Dungeon cards), I had the idea that Goblins normally try to gang up on the weakest hero.. But if there's only one Goblin left, they'll try to get away - and this includes opening regular doors in the dungeon if it gets them closer to an exit. Not always an option due to hero placement or the only exit being the spiral staircase the heroes arrived from, but it's still a fun idea that makes Goblins a little more dangerous.

[@ryanw4613]

Im going to throw in a curveball regarding equipment that relates directly to the Dread spell Rust. If a character loses a helmet for example to the spell, do you consider the equipment inventory unlimited, or limited in relation to the number of cards provided in the box? Wouldn't just buying another helmet invalidate the long term effectiveness of Rust? Could you potentially have all characters bar the wizard wielding battleaxes making playthroughs less challenging, or are these also limited to 2, again directly relating to the number of cards in the box? So many questions!! 😂

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

So, in the original European rules the number of equipment cards limited the number of items in the store - if the card wasn't available, you couldn't buy it. This rule was changed when the Adventure Design Kit came out, as the rules in that expansion specified that you could write your equipment on the larger character sheets included allowing you to buy things there wasn't an available card for. In North America, originally there were no equipment cards. The Armory was an insert in the box. Therefore there never was a limit. When Avalon Hill made their edition, they decided to go with cards like in the European edition, but again, without any kind of limit. The rules specifically state items are always in stock, even if there are no cards available. This is on page 13 of the new rules.

[@ryanw4613]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Thanks for clearing that up!

[@littilittiti1272]

Whi can explain the usage of mindpoints to me?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

You only need to worry about mind points when you need to worry about them. In the core game they are only used in relation to certain spells (like giving the target a chance to defend against the spell based on their mind points). Once you get into the expansions there are some enemies and events that can reduce your mind points, and the rules are included when necessary. Once Frozen Horror came out, rules for "shock" were introduced, which means your hero is significantly weakened if their mind points reach zero.

[@KentKaliber]

When you play the game, do you count "Bracers" as Armor? Or you do allow your Heroes to wear Bracers WITH Armor?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

The armour bracers (from the equipment deck) are not allowed with body armour. This was confirmed by Avalon Hill at some point. The elven bracers that increase your body and mind points can be worn with body armour as they are not classified as armour.

[@KentKaliber]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Thanks for the SWIFT reply! This was really shocking for me to see recently, as I always thought Bracers were an "ADD ON" like the Helmet or the Shield, to cover your forearms. I never envisioned the Bracers as Body Armor.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

In the second print of the UK edition in 1990 the bracers were added as an exclusive item for the wizard. They could be worn with his wizard's cloak. It was strange to me to see the bracers being available to everyone when I got Avalon Hill's edition. The problem is, if they don't treat bracers as body armour, you are going to get some heroes running around the board with seven defence dice as standard, which is a bit much. Of course, there's nothing stopping you ruling that heroes can have bracers with body armour if you prefer.

[@smartgenes1]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring There's not much argument with Borin's Armour though since the picture shows nothing on the arms, and even my player pointed that out.

[@jimduncan2164]

Spot on with LOS, that's exactly how I do it.

[@deathryte4463]

Just a point you got wrong the diagram for line-of-sight states that a dotted line is blocked so the Elf cannot see through the Wizard.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I didn’t get anything wrong. You are looking at the wrong line. It’s the diagonal one.

[@deathryte4463]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring my bad i never actually noticed that line before

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

No worries. Thanks for watching.

[@8bitorgy]

I don't think you should be able to switch weapons or any equipment if there are monsters on board, unless stated. It should be center of square to center of square when looking around walls, but only partial line of site is needed for players/enemies. So the wizard, for example, can hit only hit diagonally from behind a door. The armor restrictions are baffling to me, however. They seem overpowered. It's very easy to make a tank out of any class....

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I get where you are coming from, but that restriction does stop heroes being able to do things like kicking open a door, throwing an axe, and then switching to a sword on their next round of combat. I like the heroes to be able to keep things fluid. Also, sometimes a monster pops at the end of a long corridor or across the map, and their presence would stop heroes from changing weapons to shoot with crossbows or throwing weapons. I believe the wizard and rogue cap at four defend dice based on equipment, but they can get additional dice from spells and potions. Our wizard has bracers and a cloak, and will usually cast stone skin on himself, giving him five defend dice.

[@8bitorgy]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring the answer is that heroes should be at their edge or their toes in hallways.... Make sure you're ready for them. But yeah, I also believe the spirit of the game limits certain classes from upper echelon armor values.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Again, my issue there is it can lead to slightly stilted gameplay. I want to go around that corner, but someone who takes their turn after me doesn't have their crossbow ready, so I have to wait so that they can take their turn and equip themselves... that sort of thing. HeroQuest is such an easy-going fluid game, I just like to keep things rolling all the time. And I'm not keen on playing by a rule that would mean nobody would ever throw their axe or dagger unless it was the last action that would clear a room. There are definitely other people who use your approach though, and "lock in" weapon options when monsters are around. It really is all about finding the option that works best for your group.

[@devinthunderstrike]

Companion app?

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Yes, Avalon Hill's HeroQuest companion app that runs the dungeon for you.

[@warface4881]

I really enjoy your content. I have found that (as Zargon) I needed to nerf the game a bit for the players in the beginning.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Thank you. I think as Zargon you often have to tip the balance one way or the other. At the start they may struggle, then they get into a rhythm and its gets quite easy, and then once you get to expansions like The Frozen Horror you have to start cutting the heroes a bit of slack again.

[@warface4881]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring we haven't gotten deep enough into the game for it to get "easy" but that does seem to be the consensus. I look forward to getting to that point!

[@mjolasgard2533]

You forgot about the House Rule we have after rescuing Sir Ragnar: Never trust the barbarian if he's played by your father... *curses* Police still havent charged him with my elf's murder

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Ha. The big lughead has been intimidating all the witnesses.

[@mikehorvath9661]

The way my son and I tackle line of sight is the same as Star Wars Imperial Assault. One corner of the square that your hero is on, must be able to see 2 corners that the enemy is on. Other heroes do not block line of site, but other enemies do. And I agree with the bookcase vs table.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

That seems reasonable. I think as long as everybody knows what rule you are using and it's applied consistently then it shouldn't cause a problem whichever method you use.

[@RUTGERMORTENSEN]

it takes 2 hands to hold and load a crossbow :/

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

But you can still use one with a shield.

[@1000jjwalker]

So I was game mastering and I allow alot of wiggling in my game. If what there doing seems logical and can be fairly argued I might allow. Just to keep the game moving. But If there's a problem with the treasure- I've taken to the practice of rolling an 8 sided die. I know it's not the hard rules but the players seem to like the chance aspects of it and acespt the ruling or luck. I also use the 8 for random encounters just to spice the game up. It's not of the rules but I want all the players to feel like things are moving around them.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

I agree with giving the players a bit of freedom and keeping things moving. HeroQuest is not a game you want to get bogged down with.

[@sabriath]

adjacent is not diagonal....words have meaning, you don't have 8 squares adjacent, you have 4, the other 4 are diagonal.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Things can be orthogonally or diagonally adjacent, and are often ruled as such. Many games define adjacent to mean any neighbouring space (this is common in games where diagonal movement is allowed). HeroQuest never originally defined adjacency clearly. Avalon Hill's edition does say you are adjacent when you are in an orthogonal position, but then when it came to large monsters it says "large monsters can attack all adjacent spaces including diagonally" which muddies the water a little more. I believe, even now there is an official rules forum for the game on Discord, Avalon Hill will still not give a firm response to whether or not diagonally adjacent targets are valid for ranged attacks, as they say people should play the way they want to. I believe that preventing the crossbow from making such attacks gives the longsword a proper purpose and prevents the crossbow from being overpowered. Thanks for watching.

[@sabriath]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring The rules do state adjacent and diagonally as separate words, therefore, they are separate identities. "diagonally adjacent" is just a weird identifier to even state...either you are adjacent (share the same tile line) or you are not. The longsword is not useless as it attacks adjacent as well as diagonal....and crossbow isn't overpowered because it can't attack adjacent. I'm not sure how you can reason the way you did when Zargon has the power to move opportunistically based on these identities. The book states "you move adjacent"....if you can't move diagonal, then diagonal cannot be adjacent. Words have meaning in English....not sure if you were aware. There is no inconsistency, and trying to get a company to clarify something that is trivial wouldn't matter what their answer would be because they would cater toward neutrality (not piss anyone off). They would say YOU were correct and they would also say I was correct....pointless debate really, if you want to use it that way, fine, but it's not what the rules say, so you're using house rules. *shrug

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

We can disagree on the ruling of the crossbow. The point of the video is they are potentially controversial rulings. However, adjacent can mean sharing a contiguous side or corner in board games. This is very common. I'm happy to discuss games as much as people like, but I do request people refrain from being rude. Thanks.

[@smartgenes1]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Common sense to me seems to dictate that they can fire a crossbow at something which is too far away too hit with their short range weapon. If the longsword is not particularly useful, that's just the way it is.

[@timd4524]

I do rules as written so there is no Grey areas. If it says you can do it, then you can. If it says you can't, or doesn't mention anything particular that someone brings up, then it's back to step one. Follow the rules. If it seems vague, you're looking for something beyond the scope of the game. It's an incredibly easy and well balanced game. Most house rules I've heard of break that balance in favor of the players. To me, that defeats the challenge of the game. Kind of like playing monopoly but running around the track backwards to hit all the good properties first.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

So how do you handle characters with multiple weapons? For line of sight, do you follow the "rule of thumb," or the rules in the diagram, because they're not the same?

[@robodog3571]

whilst you have some valid points, particularly the risk of bias and overthinking, there are clear errors or absurdities and most people seek to overcome them rather than assume they are deliberate

[@matthewduhn7906]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Simple answer : one weapon in the right hand and one weapon in the left hand. You can only attack with one at the time. No extra weapons beyond that. If using a shield then you only have one weapon. If using a two-handed weapon you only have one weapon and no shield. If you find a new weapon then you may have to discard or trade your surplus weapon. Too many players overthink the rules. When in doubt use the motto "Keep it simple stoopid" and follow the rulebook and bonus rules that Avalon Hill provide.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

@@matthewduhn7906 Which is absolutely a fine way to handle it, but not in the rules at all. The rules even imply you can have multiple weapons (as it says you can only attack with one at a time). So what you are saying is an interpretation of a rule that isn't clearly defined, which is the point of the video. Tim says there are no grey areas in the rules because he plays exactly rules as written, but I don't think that's possible in all cases, and your way of handling weapons, which seems perfectly reasonable, isn't rules as written.

[@matthewduhn7906]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring True, however, one weapon in each hand does constitute multiple weapons, and the bandolier has multiple daggers on it. It's only ambiguous if you wish to make the rules ambiguous. Nowhere in the rules does it state that you can carry extra weapons on back, belt, boot, etc. So, therefore you may be armed with 2 one-handed weapons max and choose which weapon to make an attack.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

I think that, rules as written, you do not change equipment in the middle of an adventure. There's no rules for flying to Venus either. Because you don't. Not sure anybody actually plays it that way in practice though. Personally, I would say that you may change your handheld equipment at the start of your turn. You are then locked into that combo until your next turn. You may only change into/out of body armor when there are no monsters present and it takes a full turn (no movement or other action allowed). Wearing a helmet will reduce a rogue's peripheral vision and hearing and stuff. This reduction in situational awareness is directly counterproductive to his mission of 'banging around effortlessly and silently'. I agree with your interpretation of what is and isn't a short sword or dagger. Pavises are a thing. You can use a shield with a crossbow whether it's one or two handed. Nitpicking here is just over complicating a game that's meant to be streamlined. IMHO, adjacent is defined as all cardinal direction squares. A diagonal is not adjacent. My take on LOS goes like this - instead of center to center, which is explicitly a rule of thumb, LOS can go from any corner of a source square to any corner of the target square. Corners do not block LOS in any case, including that weird wall one. In that specific case, I would say that the strange construction has left a small gap in the wall that you can see through but not move through. Perhaps some kind of arrow loop. This method solves the LOS diagram error free and leaves the LOS a little bit on the forgiving side. Those are my interpretations anyways.

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

To me, it makes no sense that swapping equipment is forbidden. If that was the case, nobody would ever throw their axe or dagger, you wouldn't be able to use the weapons you find in the weapons rack until you leave the dungeon and equip them, and losing your sword to the rust spell would leave you fighting with bare fists until the end of the dungeon. The "rule of thumb" is a bad addition to the LoS rules section. The original Euro rules allowed drawing LoS from any part of your space to any part of the target space (and there was no LoS in rooms at all). The companion app also seems to ignore the "rule of thumb" completely. I know that at least some people from Avalon Hill watch my videos as well as engaging with the fandom everywhere else. Some kind of clarification document down the road would be nice.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring The throwing issue you present is only a theoretical problem. If you're going melee, you're going to equip your best melee weapon. You will never throw that weapon under any circumstance if you have half a brain. Especially since, rules as written, thrown items are non-recoverable. Supposing you have a sword and you opt to throw a dagger, you never actually equip the dagger. It's just an expendable munition. In a more complicated game, yeah, you would need to equip the dagger, throw the dagger, and then equip another weapon but hero quest has just streamlined all of that away. The rust spell might be a bigger problem but meh. It's meant to be a screw the player sort of move. The potential issue of not being able to 'equip' a weapon or armor you found in the dungeon is a spot where the roots of the game are colliding with a more modern and/or casual gaming mentality. I'm pretty sure they didn't really mean for you to do that because, in the gaming culture at the time, that just wasn't something you did. To elaborate a bit - the game is designed by old school dnd nerds. If you played old school dnd, you found out *very* quickly that you should never, ever, under any circumstances just pick up and 'equip' some item or artifact you found in a dungeon. If you're tempted to use it, it's probably bait. If your warrior puts on that shiny suit of magical armor he found in the dungeon, odds are that he's going to be permanently possessed by it's creator and spend the rest of his short violent life walking around as a husk of a man doing unspeakable acts of evil until someone offs him. Those potions you found, if they where ever genuine, are probably now well past their 'best by' date and could do literally anything. Unsurprisingly, most of those literally anythings involve the character dying horribly. That spell book will melt your wizards brain. Sure... *Maybe* they're actually fine. Probably not though. Like I said though, I'm not sure that many people actually cared to be strict about playing this aspect of the game as it is written. I definitely agree they should not have added that 'rule of thumb' about center to center. I wouldn't be inclined to do away with LOS in rooms though.

[@johnmiddleton4291]

@@ColonelSandersLite This game came out long after most old school nerds had switched to AD&D. Switching weapons was absolutely allowed in combat, you just lost your place on the initiative order had acted last. I believe that rule is actually in Greyhawk too. All the magic items in Hero Quest are a known thing either because the heroes have seen them before, or they are specific quest items that they have been told to find. Hero Quest isn't D&D regardless. It's a separate game with it's own rule, as you stated above. Implying rules from outside the game is pointless.

[@ColonelSandersLite]

@@johnmiddleton4291 You definitely missed the point there. The point was not whether or not you where *allowed* to switch weapons in combat in old school dnd (which I'm still calling adnd old school). The point was that you just wouldn't try and use something you found in the dungeon because you didn't know for sure wasn't a cursed item. The odds are just too high that it is. The more you wanted to use it, the more likely this was true. Gygax would definitely *allow* you to equip that seemingly magic sword you just found laid out on a pedestal covered in runes. The thing would invariably end up eating your soul when you did that though. That was just the culture. You raid the dungeon. You get your loot. You take it home and figure out what's useful. Only then you can use it. These behaviors where just ingrained. From hard experience. Not saying that it's particularly valid from a mechanical POV in hero quest though. More that it's just an oversight IMHO. A cultural blind spot if you will.

[@johnmiddleton4291]

​@@ColonelSandersLite This isn't D&D. Your ongoing debate about how your group handled magic items in D&D is the actual missing of the point here. Handling of magic items was very different from OD&D to AD&D. Regardless, all you describe is player predilection and not any actual rules of the game. Players certainly did use items they found in game as trial and error was precisely the best method for figuring out how something worked. A few Detect Magic, Rad Magic, or later Identify could help. It was GM issue if every item was cursed because that created a game where no one would experiment, thus making cursed items mostly pointless, or lots of game time was taken up in testing stuff on the outskirts of town or paying sages. There are lots of discussion about this on Dragonsfoot and other forums. None of this has s single thing to do with Heroquest though. No one cares what D&D might do with regard to HQ rules. Moreover, there aren't any rules for testing items outside dungeons at all in HQ, so you have to do it in the dungeons. There is no other option.

[@OK-hl6qd]

Sounds like you play with some real nit pickers

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

No. My group is super laid back. Zargon would always get final word on any questions about rulings that came up during a game.

[@andreasschaetze2930]

I don’t find it lacking in rules if you use common sense

[@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring]

Glad to hear you've never had any rules debates at your table and you find the rules absolutely complete.

[@OK-hl6qd]

@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring 🙄