Did anyone ever actually use broadswords?

[Thrawn]

As I've stated in a couple other threads, I was Zargon for a couple of complete run throughs of HQ published quests, in addition to some custom campaigns and 'one-off" quests.

In all of that time, I found that some of the equipement was pretty useless in the game. I wanted to see if this was the experience of others as well.

The poster child for this was the broadsword. Yes, the barbarian starts with one, but that was the ONLY broadsword I ever saw used. There really seemed to be no reason whatsoever to actually buy a broadsword. Just save the extra 100 gold to get the far superior longsword with it's diagonal attacks.

The shortsword was really in the same boat. It's really only a starter weapon for the dwarf and elf. Once 350 gold is hit, it will never be seen again.

Even the staff falls in this category. It should never be bought for the barbarian/dwarf/elf, and the wizard finds one in quest 3. It is the wizard's main weapon for 10 quests, before it too disappears with the introduction of the wizard's staff.

The game really came down to longsword/battleaxe/crossbow as the top tier weapons, and anything else was either "newby equipment" or unused.

Anyone done anything to address this in their games?

[cynthialee]

I saw a weapons breakage rule discusion in the forums somewhere.
If you allow for broken weapons and then buying a spare weapon might be a good idea.
Add in some encumberance rules to keep some clown from buying 4 long swords and keeping them in his gear.

[drathe]

For my last couple groups, I started using a tiered armoury.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=249&hilit=tiered

The basics are as follows: Only a few items are available (and known) at the beginning of the game. Every few completed quests, the armoury stock expands introducing new items. Kind of like in a video game RPG as you move to the next town, there's new items that are better than what you have right now.

[Thrawn]

For my last couple groups, I started using a tiered armoury.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=249&hilit=tiered

The basics are as follows: Only a few items are available (and known) at the beginning of the game. Every few completed quests, the armoury stock expands introducing new items. Kind of like in a video game RPG as you move to the next town, there's new items that are better than what you have right now.

Wow. You had EXACTLY the same issue I did, right down to the same worthless weapons. The tiers are interesting, although I only think it will work with new players. It would slow down progression a bit as well, which might be nice. It definitely gets rid of early crossbows ruling the game.

As for breakage and encumberance, I'm not a huge fan of breakage except in special circumstances. I did try out encumberance though at one point. 2 weapons + 1 dagger (4 daggers would count as 1 weapon, so the wizard could have some ammo). Each additional weapon cost you 1 movement. Same for extra shields and helms, with chain or plate being more severe if you carry a spare.

[torilen]

Yeah, unless you create a reason for characters to buy weapons - the armory is, for the most part, kind of useless, except for
giving the person who buys the game something to look at and think about.

I totally agree with the idea of weapons breaking, or at least wearing down, or being lost for some reason. Maybe there is a
creature that steals them in your sleep...or a powerful wizard tries to capture you and orders you to "drop your weapons".
Most of the reason for having to buy new weapons, however, deal more in the actual role-playing side of the game, should
your gaming group decide to go that way.

If you stick with just the basic HQ rules...even those from the expansion...and leave it as just a "board game" - there is little
need for new weapons.

However - a thought just occurred - do the mercenaries you can hire in the later expansion come with weapons? Or do you have to
supply them with weapons upon hiring them?

[drathe]

Strangely, in the Brazil version (based off the American version), the Longsword only attacks with 2 Combat Dice instead of 3. Giving the Broadsword a continued edge against other blades. (pun somewhat intended)

[Goblin-King]

Even more strangely... In the Danish version (and I suppose it's some kind of mis-translation) the broadsword allows you to roll three dice in DEFENSE!!! wtf man?

[sean582]

In my version's armory the crossbow description says...

you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you

...but makes exclusion to diagonal attacks. So for me, if my hero has a crossbow and a broadsword then he can hit any adjacent or diagonal square with 3 attack dice so a longsword is obsolete. What am I missing here?

[cynthialee]

In my version's armory the crossbow description says...

you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you

...but makes exclusion to diagonal attacks. So for me, if my hero has a crossbow and a broadsword then he can hit any adjacent or diagonal square with 3 attack dice so a longsword is obsolete. What am I missing here?

point

I guess it only maters if you are ussing encumbrance rules. But then...the character is going to have a melee weapon and a cross bow in most cases so you are right.

[Daedalus]

In my version's armory the crossbow description says...

you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you

...but makes exclusion to diagonal attacks. So for me, if my hero has a crossbow and a broadsword then he can hit any adjacent or diagonal square with 3 attack dice so a longsword is obsolete. What am I missing here?

The Longsword has a purpose, but you can't equate the diagonal attack from a Longsword with a Crossbow shot from the same diagonal space. Why? Because a careful inspection of wording disallows a Crossbow shot diagonally between 2 corners. The wording for the Crossbow from the Armory goes like this:

This long-range weapon gives you the
attack strength of 3 combat dice. You
may fire at any monster that you can
"see." However, you cannot fire at
a monster that is adjacent to you....

So you have to "see" a monster in order to fire at it.
The wording for seeing from p.15 of the N. Amer. Instruction Booklet has this to say under "SEE":

A Good Rule of Thumb: Draw an
invisible straight line between the center
of the square the spellcaster is on and
the center of the square the target is on.
If the line does not cross a wall, closed
door, Hero or monster, the target is
declared visible, even if the line just
touches a corner or wall edge. The
following diagram shows an example
of what is visible.

The key is the qualifying dependent clause "...even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge." This specifically includes the case of one corner of a Hero or monster--indicated by the article "a", but it doesn't include a line that touches two meeting corners of two Heroes or monsters. Touching just one corner or edge provides line-of-sight to the target because the square(s) opposite/across from of the blocking corner or edge are free of obstruction. Should two corners of obtructing squares meet, however, then there are no clear squares opposite to "see" through.

So a Hero is prohibited by the "see" rule from shooting through two corners, which is the case when shooting between diagonally-adjacent monsters or Heroes. The diagonal attack of a Longsword is useful because it is under no such restriction. Similarly, a Hero can't shoot a Crossbow diagonally between a door corner and the corner of an adjacent Hero. Again, the diagonal attacking ability of the Longsword allows this.

All that said, I feel a Crossbow is seriously underpriced. I'd suggest a cost of 550 [or 650-edit] gold coins, which again would enhance the appeal of a Longsword.