An alternative set of rules for HQ - Tactical HQ

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Deploying monsters with diagonal attacks is actually more a matter of quest design than one of the set of rules. Since diagonal attacks are much more dangerous in THQ than in the normal rules, I was very cautious with that. But I am considering giving a diagonal attack to a white monster species also in my rules, so each colour set of monsters then has one species capable of performing such attacks. This would certainly fit best for the skeletons because they are wielding a scythe, agreed. But, such an upgrade will then require the heroes to act tactically very accurately in some scenarios in Return of the Witch Lord. Otherwise, they will perish very quickly.

Yes, but again a matter of quest design only. I find it very natural when monsters leave a safe path for themselves to walk around in their homes

When you state that things are more a matter of quest design, whilst you are not wrong rule changes and quest design are two sides of the same coin, adding more restrictions on quest design to avoid or mitigate situations that a ruleset doesn't cover, doesn't feel like the best way to go for me.

There should be no reason why a dungeon builder cannot put a trap on the square behind a door, so the rules need to handle it.

Aside from this point of principle, you must remember that there are 100s of predesigned quests out in the ether already (from official, semi-official, not official but widely played and so on), reverse engineering all of those to fit any new quest design restrictions would be quite an ambitious project!

My reason for example for arming Goblins with Spear as standard is to increase tactical options for the EW. In the base game Goblins basically are just weaker Orcs, same tactics available, head on attack only. Arming them with Spears as standard has a few neat effects which thematically suit Goblins sneaky and cowardly mindset; it increases the maximum number that can attack at once from 4 to 8 making them more dangerous in numbers, it allows them to support attacks from stronger monsters by stabbing through the cracks rather than just forming an orderly queue - for example in the classic door blocking scenario a set up with a Battle Axe armed Barbarian plugging the door with Elf and Dwarf to either side armed with a Longsword and Spear, gives the heroes a total of 9AD, opposing this with a single attacking monster, an Orc perhaps with 3AD, is seriously unbalanced, even if he has queue of other monsters behind him. If 2 of those other monsters are Goblins armed with Spears then they can flank him with their diagonal attacks adding another 4AD to the equation, 9AD versus 7AD makes for a better engagement than queuing up one by one for a 9AD against 3/2AD meat grinder engagement) but you are correct, this may suit my ruleset (and the basic ruleset) better than your own version.

And monsters can already move safely around their homes despite traps in the base game (and my own ruleset) as they can safely move through trapped squares as they are familiar with the dungeon, its traps and triggers, so this change doesn't make this possible, it is already possible, but this change does reveal to the heroes where hidden traps are, for free, and cause potential stalemate situations by revealing this hidden information.

Sure, you can obey such card limits. Thematically, I find it quite laughable that there should be only 1 crossbow, 1 battleaxe, etc. available for purchase for the great heroes on whom the whole world depends to save them. I don't know anybody who seriously plays with these equipment limits.

You do now, me!

HQ game rules, and those of many many other games, often impose unrealistic, even laughable, restrictions for the sake of improved game play (chess has only 2 knights in each army, really does the whole world only have 4 horses). Equally what kind of world only has 1 Barbarian, 1 Dwarf, 1 Elf, 1 Wizard for example, but the restriction applies in the base game, for me if it makes the gameplay better, then it should be seriously considered, whether "realistic" or not, and under the NA edition where there are no such card based restrictions, each hero (wizard aside) could be armed with 2 of each weapon, battleaxes, longswords, shields, throwing axes, crossbows (possibly even helmets!) which isn't particularly realistic either, so the "realism" challenge is equally applicable with or without equipment card limits in the base game. Restricting the equipment available forces choices on the players and ensures that they need to work together as a team, rather than each hero becoming a one-man band with a weapon for every possible scenario, plus back ups.

All of that aside and moving onto my next point of feedback

Fixed movement for heroes (and monsters)

Aside from the name change, you introduce the concept here that Movement, or Dexterity, is a fixed value that can be reduced by equipment, but you also state that the number cannot exceed the starting DX +2, which seems strange if there is a reduction, how would it ever exceed the starting number?

Fixed movement for heroes (in combination with keeping fixed movement for monsters) is an often proposed and discussed change, a lot of people have a gut reaction to “roll and move”, but what is often missed in these discussion and the rule changes that follow is that HQs “heroes variable movement versus monster fixed movement” contains an in-built and simple initiative system where, depending on the distance between the two figures, a lower roll can result in the hero not reaching the monster, giving the monster the opportunity for the first strike (which in many cases might be the only strike for lower strength monsters) or a higher roll resulting in the hero reaching the monster and getting the first strike. Changing to fixed movement for heroes eliminates this initiative variable, making movement especially in combat situations, and planning of a heroes' actions, far more predictable and dull and eliminates a fun part of the game when plans go wrong and players have to improvise…more relevant discussions under the Is 2 red dice for Hero move best? topic. I for one would want to keep the hero variable movement versus monster fixed movement principle which doesn’t mean the mechanism cannot be changed, but I think should remain variable for heroes.

The point that many people have made here, is that whilst that may (or may not) be relevant in a combat situation with monsters on the board, or at least on the board and within the vicinity of the heroes, it isn't relevant outside of that situation. However as HQ doesn't distinguish between "exploration" turns and "combat" turns like AHQ for example, it is possible and indeed common that a hero starts his turn without monsters present and then on his turn reveals monsters, so a rule that allows a choice of different mechanisms based on whether monsters are present or absent is flawed.

One example, and there are many variations, but I'll leave you to think these through, one such rule, the "official" take 8 mechanism where you can choose to take a fixed 8 movement squares if there are no monsters on the board (a non-combat situation), can be easily exploited by a player by ending a previous turn a square short of a door, behind which is likely to be a room containing monsters, so on his next turn instead of risking a low roll, moving to and opening the door, revealing the monsters, and moving short and giving them the initiative and the first attack(s), instead he takes the 8, then moves one square, opens the door and has a guaranteed 7 squares to move, gain the initiative, and get the first attack, effectively bypassing the variable roll which should apply in a combat situation.

[MonsterMotor]

I don't know anybody who seriously plays with these equipment limits.

You do now, me!

My pleasure.

Fixed movement for heroes (and monsters)

Aside from the name change, you introduce the concept here that Movement, or Dexterity, is a fixed value that can be reduced by equipment, but you also state that the number cannot exceed the starting DX +2, which seems strange if there is a reduction, how would it ever exceed the starting number?

Well, what I called dexterity is perhaps better described as leg strength. If you carry more, you will become slower. If you train your legs, you can get faster. But there are natural limits of your body, of course. Here the limit serves to not let the movement value get out of hand if a player intends to increase his dexterity to very high values. A maximum of 10 squares for most heroes is a good limit in my view.

Fixed movement for heroes (in combination with keeping fixed movement for monsters) is an often proposed and discussed change, a lot of people have a gut reaction to “roll and move”, but what is often missed in these discussion and the rule changes that follow is that HQs “heroes variable movement versus monster fixed movement” contains an in-built and simple initiative system where, depending on the distance between the two figures, a lower roll can result in the hero not reaching the monster, giving the monster the opportunity for the first strike (which in many cases might be the only strike for lower strength monsters) or a higher roll resulting in the hero reaching the monster and getting the first strike. Changing to fixed movement for heroes eliminates this initiative variable, making movement especially in combat situations, and planning of a heroes' actions, far more predictable and dull and eliminates a fun part of the game when plans go wrong and players have to improvise…more relevant discussions under the Is 2 red dice for Hero move best? topic. I for one would want to keep the hero variable movement versus monster fixed movement principle which doesn’t mean the mechanism cannot be changed, but I think should remain variable for heroes.

The point that many people have made here, is that whilst that may (or may not) be relevant in a combat situation with monsters on the board, or at least on the board and within the vicinity of the heroes, it isn't relevant outside of that situation. However as HQ doesn't distinguish between "exploration" turns and "combat" turns like AHQ for example, it is possible and indeed common that a hero starts his turn without monsters present and then on his turn reveals monsters, so a rule that allows a choice of different mechanisms based on whether monsters are present or absent is flawed.

One example, and there are many variations, but I'll leave you to think these through, one such rule, the "official" take 8 mechanism where you can choose to take a fixed 8 movement squares if there are no monsters on the board (a non-combat situation), can be easily exploited by a player by ending a previous turn a square short of a door, behind which is likely to be a room containing monsters, so on his next turn instead of risking a low roll, moving to and opening the door, revealing the monsters, and moving short and giving them the initiative and the first attack(s), instead he takes the 8, then moves one square, opens the door and has a guaranteed 7 squares to move, gain the initiative, and get the first attack, effectively bypassing the variable roll which should apply in a combat situation.

Yes, the roll-2-dice mechanism is a very good way to process initiative. I had thought through similar things you write here. Therefore, I had explicitly mentioned the movement dice as an option to keep in THQ. My main intention to use fixed movement was to reduce the time for movement dice rolling because these rolls are unnecessary a lot of the time.

Regarding your example for the situation at the door, I never saw this a serious problem in my gameplay experience. Thematically, one can imagine that the heroes take a deep breath and focus their minds. They are, thus, well prepared to encounter whatever lies beyond a closed door, and so they will reach anything within their standard movement range. I have no problem with that when playing as the monsters.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I wouldn't really describe it as a serious issue as such, it's just if you allow that exploit to bypass "initiative" at the point of first contact, following a door being opened or a corner turned, that first contact / first strike is generally the moment at which initiative plays the most significant role, if heroes can guarantee the first strike then they will probably take down enough monsters, denying them a strike at all, and any still standing will generally be outnumbered, so the heroes advantage continues, so really allowing that exploit changes the balance between the "cost" of rolling the dice (time, complexity) versus the "benefit" (enhanced game play) by removing most of the benefit, so what you are left with means you might as well ignore the "initiative" element entirely and just go for fixed movement.

And on the subject of movement...

Movement penalties based on equipment

The other aspect of this change is the reduction based on equipment with “heavier” equipment reducing movement – with shield, two-handed weapons and some one-handed weapons causing a 1 point reduction, chainmail a 2 point reduction and plate a 3 point reduction.

As movement in HQ outside of combat, is generally assumed to be cautious as the heroes are moving through a dimly-lit, unfamiliar environment, filled with traps and hidden monsters as opposed to a full on sprint, I’ve never been convinced that equipment-based movement penalties make any sense in this context. Even in a combat situation a heroes (or monsters) awareness and speed of reactions would be a much bigger factor than what they are carrying in terms of their movement, a Barbarian kicking open a door and being able to rapidly assess and react to the perils that are revealed seems unlikely to be negatively impacted by whether he is carrying a shortsword or a slightly heavier broadsword in his hand or even a shield on his back. I like the standard HQ handling of that situation through a movement roll incorporating a variable element combined with the fixed movement of monsters which includes a reaction element (which is why goblins get a 10 compared to more dim-witted Ogres, Trolls and Zombies)

If you consider that most "critical" movement in HQ is probably around the middle of the range 6-8 squares and a square is probably about 5-6 feet across, then you are talking about rapid movement in the range of 30-48 feet, or ~10-16m, sprints of that distance will always be won by the person who reacts quickest first rather than the one with the greatest "speed", even I could beat Usain Bolt over that distance if you were to distract him for a couple of seconds at the start!

One other minor point

Choose Your Own Turn Order

Turn order: In every turn of the heroes, they can choose anew in which order they want to act. Figures assigned to a particular hero are still moved immediately after the respective hero. A usual, Zargon/Morcar moves the monsters in his turn, after the heroes have ended their turn.

Couple of challenges to consider here

1) first is the potential time taken to decide each turn (which may well be a problem or not depending on your group composition)
2) second is a way of resolving conflicts in this process

[MonsterMotor]

And on the subject of movement...

Movement penalties based on equipment

The other aspect of this change is the reduction based on equipment with “heavier” equipment reducing movement – with shield, two-handed weapons and some one-handed weapons causing a 1 point reduction, chainmail a 2 point reduction and plate a 3 point reduction.

As movement in HQ outside of combat, is generally assumed to be cautious as the heroes are moving through a dimly-lit, unfamiliar environment, filled with traps and hidden monsters as opposed to a full on sprint, I’ve never been convinced that equipment-based movement penalties make any sense in this context. Even in a combat situation a heroes (or monsters) awareness and speed of reactions would be a much bigger factor than what they are carrying in terms of their movement, a Barbarian kicking open a door and being able to rapidly assess and react to the perils that are revealed seems unlikely to be negatively impacted by whether he is carrying a shortsword or a slightly heavier broadsword in his hand or even a shield on his back. I like the standard HQ handling of that situation through a movement roll incorporating a variable element combined with the fixed movement of monsters which includes a reaction element (which is why goblins get a 10 compared to more dim-witted Ogres, Trolls and Zombies)

If you consider that most "critical" movement in HQ is probably around the middle of the range 6-8 squares and a square is probably about 5-6 feet across, then you are talking about rapid movement in the range of 30-48 feet, or ~10-16m, sprints of that distance will always be won by the person who reacts quickest first rather than the one with the greatest "speed", even I could beat Usain Bolt over that distance if you were to distract him for a couple of seconds at the start!

Sure, this is a valid point of view. On the other hand, I find the rather strong penalty of wearing a plate mail in the original rules too drastic, which made such a hero very cumbersome to move. This was my main intention to propose this more balanced system. It also integrates well with the evasion mechanics. Players have now the option to play a heavily armoured hero with decent speed if they increase their dexterity accordingly over time as they earn the money to buy the heavy stuff. And, independent of that, you can still keep using the movement dice throughout the game, if you like to use them to represent initiative.

One other minor point

Choose Your Own Turn Order

Turn order: In every turn of the heroes, they can choose anew in which order they want to act. Figures assigned to a particular hero are still moved immediately after the respective hero. A usual, Zargon/Morcar moves the monsters in his turn, after the heroes have ended their turn.

Couple of challenges to consider here

1) first is the potential time taken to decide each turn (which may well be a problem or not depending on your group composition)
2) second is a way of resolving conflicts in this process

Yes, this could be an issue for some groups. If they do not come to an agreement, then they will need to go by seat order as usual.

However, this rule is very important to have as the standard in THQ because it allows for a smart positioning, sequence of attacks, etc. of the heroes, which is important in many situations. Otherwise, the difficulty of the game would be significantly higher. You should drop this rule only if you really want to handle the challenge.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I've noticed that your method for both evade and jump uses a roll a number of combat dice and get at least one "x" symbol to succeed but the symbols required are different between evade and jump or . This isn't necessarily a problem but these kinds of little inconsistencies make the rules a little more complex and a little harder to remember without giving any significant gain, and in the case of jumping the base game gives a typical 0.50 chance of success, my version a 0.53 chance of success and yours a 0.75 chance of success, so I would changing your jump test to just use as a success.

(Optional) Full defence: Instead of attacking, a hero may assume a full defence posture. This grants him +1D on all defence and evasion rolls.

Granted this is an optional rule, but as sacrificing an attack denies you the potential of removing a monster and its attacks entirely, the best defence possible, I'm not convinced there would ever be a situation in which this would be worth doing so I'd consider scrapping that rule entirely.

(Optional for veterans) Swap weapon: Instead of making an attack, a hero may swap a weapon and/or shield with a different one from the backpack. Only allowed if no enemy is adjacent.

No shield: If somebody attacks with a weapon with this trait, he must not use his shield bonus until the beginning of his next turn.

This is interesting, how do you think that the base game rules work around attacking with weapons, weapon-shield combinations, having more than one weapon and swapping weapons?

I don't see anything in the original game rules that prevent a hero from carrying multiple weapons, so I assume that is allowed, but equally there are no rules around attacking with multiple weapons at the same time, so I assume you have to choose which weapon you are attacking with as part of your attack action i.e. "I am attacking with my Broadsword" so the neatest solution for me is that switching weapons takes place ONLY as part of your attack action, so you are considered armed with that weapon until you attack again and may select a different weapon to do so (to keep track of this my players keep "stowed gear" in a face-down stack and only have active equipment, the Broadsword, Armour and so face up) but reading your two statement above I'm not clear how this works in your version?

If I want to use my crossbow to shoot a monster, then I would have to sacrifice my attack to switch to my crossbow, hoping that by the time my next turn comes the monster I was intending to shoot was still alive and still in LOS, on the monsters turn he moves adjacent and attacks me, on my turn I wouldn't be able to change weapons and would have to attack the adjacent monster with the crossbow (?) or would I have to lose another action to move away and switch to a shortsword and shield combination, the monster then moves adjacent to me again and attacks and I wouldn't get the +1DD bonus from the shield that I am using (why not?)

Searching while in danger: If there are monsters in the same room/corridor or in line of sight, a hero can perform this type of search action only. He must hence roll a die: a skull detects the next trap in his room within 3 squares distance, a white shield detects the next secret door in his room within 3 squares distance, a black shield detects all traps and secret doors in his room within 3 squares distance.

For most of the time in most quests the chances are there aren't going to be any traps or secret doors within a 3 square distance, so this seems like a waste of an action especially in a combat situation, but that aside if you can use this for secret doors and trap search, then why not for treasure, how would you track which areas have been searched for traps and secret doors using this method, as under the basic rules an area, a whole room or passage, has either been searched and the traps and secret doors revealed or has not, binary, but under your method an area searched (that could be part of a room or passage, or even part of a room and passage) with a roll of a will have been searched for traps but not secret doors, this creates something of an administrative burden of having to record square by square which area have been searched for trap, which areas for secret doors and which areas for both or have I misunderstood?

[MonsterMotor]

I've noticed that your method for both evade and jump uses a roll a number of combat dice and get at least one "x" symbol to succeed but the symbols required are different between evade and jump or . This isn't necessarily a problem but these kinds of little inconsistencies make the rules a little more complex and a little harder to remember without giving any significant gain, and in the case of jumping the base game gives a typical 0.50 chance of success, my version a 0.53 chance of success and yours a 0.75 chance of success, so I would changing your jump test to just use as a success.

The dice symbols for a successful jump are the same as in the original rules, and I intentionally kept them this way to increase the probability for a successful jump. This encourages the heroes and monsters to attempt jumps more often than they would do otherwise. I was never happy with the standard 50% chance of success anyway. With a 75% chance of success, one can even try a jump with an orc that one wants to assault the heroes across a trapped path. But you can adjust this probability with your own house rules, of course.

(Optional for veterans) Swap weapon: Instead of making an attack, a hero may swap a weapon and/or shield with a different one from the backpack. Only allowed if no enemy is adjacent.

No shield: If somebody attacks with a weapon with this trait, he must not use his shield bonus until the beginning of his next turn.

This is interesting, how do you think that the base game rules work around attacking with weapons, weapon-shield combinations, having more than one weapon and swapping weapons?

I don't see anything in the original game rules that prevent a hero from carrying multiple weapons, so I assume that is allowed, but equally there are no rules around attacking with multiple weapons at the same time, so I assume you have to choose which weapon you are attacking with as part of your attack action i.e. "I am attacking with my Broadsword" so the neatest solution for me is that switching weapons takes place ONLY as part of your attack action, so you are considered armed with that weapon until you attack again and may select a different weapon to do so (to keep track of this my players keep "stowed gear" in a face-down stack and only have active equipment, the Broadsword, Armour and so face up) but reading your two statement above I'm not clear how this works in your version?

If I want to use my crossbow to shoot a monster, then I would have to sacrifice my attack to switch to my crossbow, hoping that by the time my next turn comes the monster I was intending to shoot was still alive and still in LOS, on the monsters turn he moves adjacent and attacks me, on my turn I wouldn't be able to change weapons and would have to attack the adjacent monster with the crossbow (?) or would I have to lose another action to move away and switch to a shortsword and shield combination, the monster then moves adjacent to me again and attacks and I wouldn't get the +1DD bonus from the shield that I am using (why not?)

I don't know if I understand your questions correctly. First, I am not aware of any rules on this matter in the base game either. Therefore, the no shield rule is merely to clarify the moment that determines how exactly the shield bonus can get lost.

If you also use the optional rule, then you will need to keep track of which weapon is currently in use, certainly, just as you described. If you need to swap the weapon, then this will cost you an attack action, which makes the combat harder, and you must make one step away from the monster before doing so. But you will gain your shield bonus immediately in the same turn as you equip yourself with shortsword and shield because you do not actually make an attack. You only consume the attack action for this swap.

Searching while in danger: If there are monsters in the same room/corridor or in line of sight, a hero can perform this type of search action only. He must hence roll a die: a skull detects the next trap in his room within 3 squares distance, a white shield detects the next secret door in his room within 3 squares distance, a black shield detects all traps and secret doors in his room within 3 squares distance.

For most of the time in most quests the chances are there aren't going to be any traps or secret doors within a 3 square distance, so this seems like a waste of an action especially in a combat situation, but that aside if you can use this for secret doors and trap search, then why not for treasure, how would you track which areas have been searched for traps and secret doors using this method, as under the basic rules an area, a whole room or passage, has either been searched and the traps and secret doors revealed or has not, binary, but under your method an area searched (that could be part of a room or passage, or even part of a room and passage) with a roll of a will have been searched for traps but not secret doors, this creates something of an administrative burden of having to record square by square which area have been searched for trap, which areas for secret doors and which areas for both or have I misunderstood?

Right, this action will not be used too often, but there are situations where it is useful, for instance, if you are in a long corridor with a monster far in the distance that you want to approach without stepping into traps along the way.

There is no need to keep track of any of such searches. You can search for traps and secret doors as often as you want, and you may or may not find something, depending on your position. Once the combat is over, the heroes will likely make a final ordinary search to be sure that they did not miss anything important.

I did not include the option for treasure searches here because those may be potentially harmful if a hazard or a wandering monster card would be drawn. Such occurrences would make the situation even more dangerous, which might discourage the heroes from performing this kind of search entirely.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Right, this action will not be used too often, but there are situations where it is useful, for instance, if you are in a long corridor with a monster far in the distance that you want to approach without stepping into traps along the way.

So in this long corridor example, let's use the longest corridor of 26 squares with the hero at one end and the monster at the other...

Turn 1 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward 3 squares
Turn 2 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward another 3 squares
Turn 3 - you do the same but roll a so you know there are no secret doors, but you don't know whether there are any traps so you remain in position
Turn 4 - you do the same and get a so you are safe to move another 3 squares
Turn 5 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward another 3 squares
Turn 6 - you do the same but roll a so you know there are no secret doors, but you don't know whether there are any traps so you remain in position...

I can't even be bothered to type it any more so I certainly wouldn't be bothered to actually play it out!

EDIT: I feel like I'm coming across as being overly critical which isn't my intention. I'm trying to understand the changes that you have made, but more importantly the reasons that you feel a change is needed (the "why") and then once the problem is understood then walk together towards a solution.

In this example I think, from what you have said, that you feel there is a problem with the original rules around searching for traps and specifically why a hero would, under the original rules, have no chance at all of spotting a trap in a corridor that he is walking along simply due to the presence of a monster at the far end. And I agree with this, but before looking at a solution consider for a minute other problems on the same topic, why would a hero in a dungeon have zero chance of spotting a tripwire across a corridor that he is moving along (does he walk with his eyes closed) or a suspiciously loose flagstone in a room he is moving through, why would he have zero chance of spotting a hidden swinging axe simply because it is on the other side of an open door, how can he move around and search every inch of an entire room meticulously for treasure, find none and then take a single step and fall into a concealed pit. The search for traps mechanism in the game is flawed, rather than applying a sticky plaster to each crack, it may be helpful to take a step back (carefully) and consider what you want the trap/search for traps/disarm traps mechanism to deliver and then design a mechanism that delivers what you want.

[MonsterMotor]

Right, this action will not be used too often, but there are situations where it is useful, for instance, if you are in a long corridor with a monster far in the distance that you want to approach without stepping into traps along the way.

So in this long corridor example, let's use the longest corridor of 26 squares with the hero at one end and the monster at the other...

Turn 1 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward 3 squares
Turn 2 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward another 3 squares
Turn 3 - you do the same but roll a so you know there are no secret doors, but you don't know whether there are any traps so you remain in position
Turn 4 - you do the same and get a so you are safe to move another 3 squares
Turn 5 - as an action you would search the 3 squares in front of you, and roll a so you know there are no traps, so you move forward another 3 squares
Turn 6 - you do the same but roll a so you know there are no secret doors, but you don't know whether there are any traps so you remain in position...

I can't even be bothered to type it any more so I certainly wouldn't be bothered to actually play it out!

EDIT: I feel like I'm coming across as being overly critical which isn't my intention. I'm trying to understand the changes that you have made, but more importantly the reasons that you feel a change is needed (the "why") and then once the problem is understood then walk together towards a solution.

In this example I think, from what you have said, that you feel there is a problem with the original rules around searching for traps and specifically why a hero would, under the original rules, have no chance at all of spotting a trap in a corridor that he is walking along simply due to the presence of a monster at the far end. And I agree with this, but before looking at a solution consider for a minute other problems on the same topic, why would a hero in a dungeon have zero chance of spotting a tripwire across a corridor that he is moving along (does he walk with his eyes closed) or a suspiciously loose flagstone in a room he is moving through, why would he have zero chance of spotting a hidden swinging axe simply because it is on the other side of an open door, how can he move around and search every inch of an entire room meticulously for treasure, find none and then take a single step and fall into a concealed pit. The search for traps mechanism in the game is flawed, rather than applying a sticky plaster to each crack, it may be helpful to take a step back (carefully) and consider what you want the trap/search for traps/disarm traps mechanism to deliver and then design a mechanism that delivers what you want.

Ok, this is an extreme example (albeit present in some of the known quests), and it would be boring to play it out completely this way, I agree. But if the heroes are already battered and have very few body points left, this is their option to possibly survive. Otherwise, a fresh party might just take the risk and start searching after they have stepped into a first trap. Also, the monster might do something while the heroes are slowly approaching, like coming even closer, or decide to hide around the corner at some point in time. Personally, I try not to design quests where the heroes have to travel long distances along corridors without much action happening, unless there is a specific reason. I found such travel situations to be boring for the players anyway and have seen their attention distracted in such moments all too often.

Other examples in which this kind of search will be made are situations where it is best to assault a room directly after a door is opened. The first hero can make a quick search while standing on the entrance square and find out with a 66% chance whether there are traps nearby that the others could step into. Having such a search option can serve as an encouragement to actually do the assault instead of taking a standard block position behind the door.

All in all, I find this a useful rule to have, but if the players forget about it, then let them. In some sense, this is an optional rule with a different label on it.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

My point here (and I don't feel that I'm doing a very good job of putting it across, so my bad!) is that you have indicated through some of your applied fixes that you have identified at least two issues with the HQ search for traps (and secret doors) rule as written, the traps behind doors and searching for traps with monsters present.

I would counter that by taking a step back and suggested that the HQ searching for traps (and secret doors) mechanism is fundamentally flawed and he choice of mechanism in the original game makes no sense when you stop and think about it, and rather than more 1,2 or more quick fixes in this area, a complete rethink may be in order.

More on the Search – The Binding Topic topic but in brief, if you consider this area with a fresh pair of eyes then you would probably want a mechanism that results in heroes sometimes spotting traps before triggering them and sometimes failing to spot traps, so triggering them and suffering the consequences. A mechanism consisting of some form of dice roll with odds for success and failure in a similar way to jumping pits for example, so something along the lines off "when a hero moves onto a square indicated as trapped, the player rolls x combat dice, if the dice show at least one then they have successfully spotted the trap without setting it off, otherwise they have failed to spot the trap and set it off (I'm not concerned here with the exact mechanism used, just that it is some form of dice roll with a binary outcome - you could reuse your Evade mechanism here - the figure rolls its evasion dice, and if at least 1 white shield appears, they have spotted the trap otherwise they have set it off).

This would make far more sense than the original HQ mechanism which effectively says that players can choose either
a) to move their heroes in "eyes peeled / spot trap" mode, using up an action to automatically spot traps in an area and never fall victim to them
OR
b) can choose to move in a "eyes closed / never spot traps" mode in which case they always fail to spot traps and set them off.

a) slows the game down and makes it more boring as it renders traps ineffective, so not a great option for gameplay but tactically the best option for winning the game

b) much quicker but a tactically bad option

This forces players to choose between making the game boring (and why would they ever wanted to do that) or deliberately choosing to risk their hero when they don't need to, not a great choice to force on players and typically in a game, players combine the two options, partly through forgetting to search for traps or to try and avoid making it too dull - a bad compromise all round.

Surely a variable roll with a binary outcome, find or don't find, as a standard method would make far more sense. I think if I was to suggest scrapping th jumping mechanism for pits and replace it with a 2 mode approach to jumping pits where player could choose to either sacrifice an action and automatically jump a pit successfully or choose to just to fail and fall in, then that would quite rightly be criticised!

[MonsterMotor]

Well, I disagree. I do not think that traps are fundamentally flawed in HQ. In addition, I do not see traps as a very central part in HQ, either. They are a neat (or sometimes annoying) feature, but HQ could exist and be interesting without them. In addition to the standard traps, some of them cannot be found and will always trigger and make the heroes a surprise.

When intelligently placed in quests, traps can make exploring and combat situations in HQ a bit more interesting. But if used excessively or placed only to annoy the heroes (like directly behind a door), then they can easily destroy the fun. This is mostly a matter of quest design (and there are many bad examples for that), and that is where I see the real flaws, but not in the rules themselves.

Therefore, I did not find it necessary to change the overall mechanics of traps. My rule "search while in danger" only intends to give the heroes more tactical options in combat situations.