Empty Treasure Chests ! (unmarked, official quests)

[Kurgan]

I recall one quest we were playing on twitch, I guess we were in more Role player mode than usual and it went something like this... first person searched and found what was in the chest. Next person found a false bottom in the chest the first hero had missed that revealed another hidden treasure. The third guy was hoping maybe if he ripped the chest off the ground there might have been something left over underneath, and sure enough...

The rules just work, but with a little imagination you can come up with what you like. The first hero simply found something (or didn't) and the search of the next person found something else, etc. You might get nothing the first time, a hazard the second time a wandering monster the third time and the fourth time an actual treasure. It's certain possible, because it's based on the cards in the deck. It's what makes the game the game as opposed to something else. I like the randomness of it, and each hero is trying his luck at it, so it's kind of cool that they each get a turn so to speak. Even if it was the basic deck and you used card counting techniques to know that all the "good" cards were gone, you still wouldn't necessarily know that Zargon didn't have any quest notes left that might indicate a treasure... only that the traditional conventions of the official quest designers typically are that no furniture = no special treasure in this room (though sometimes a monster drops something when it dies too; so a completely empty room is most likely going to just be fodder for card draws). A treasure chest room "really" being like an empty room is just disappointing, that's really the biggest issue with it, and it seems that wasn't what the designers were going for, they just missed it in the rushed development process.

[Kurgan]

If I remember well, to open a treasure chest in the Japanese Edition requires to be adjacent to the chest as said in the Beginner Rules.

This is another point why I think the Japanese Edition tried to polish those topics from previous versions of the rules which could be improved.

Other clear improvements I remember in Japanese Editoon (could be more):

- Trap searching inside a room is allowed from outside, from the door, which allows fiding traps just adjacent to the door.

- Leveling-up rules for the heroes.

- Healing Potions can be bought in the Armory.

- Adjacent/Surrounding squares clarification included.

- etc.


This also remember me one of the big questions I have about HeroQuest story since I edited the translation of the Japanese Edition: Was Mr. Baker involved in the Japanese Edition design? I guess no.. but there are several details like those improvements which let me wondering he could be involved. If yes, maybe we could consider the Japanese Edition as the Director's Cut rules system? The final one he really would like to see on the boards?

While it omits some things that were present in other editions, it does go out of its way to make the game more like an "RPG" with more character specific abilities, limited stock of things (really only matters for the purchasable healing potions), more story flavor (akin to some of the other expansions like Prophecy of Telor or Dark Company) and the leveling up mechanic and even the recommendations for Grimdead's conduct. As always I certainly can't thank you (and the people before you on here) enough for the effort in helping bring these translations to the forefront and show the depth of interesting similarities and differences of this poorly publicized edition to the public eye.

The level of involvement of Stephen Baker in the HQ process from start to finish is a little vague and there are conflicting details online. In the interest of professionalism or company secrecy I am not sure the full story will ever truly be known. For the remake he was only an advisor and freelance writer of a few quests (Prophecy of Telor booklet and Rogar's Hall). My thought was that he wrote wrote most or all of the original 14 quests. I don't know what if anything he did on ROTWL or KK. The way some tell it he invented the game and it is basically his game (except the art and miniatures that were done by Les Edwards for the cover paintings, Gary Chalke--who also did art for GamesWorkShop's Warhammer and Fighting Fantasy -- for the card illustrations and other illustrations mostly from the EU editions were borrowed from GamesWorkShop's own Warhammer Fantasy 3rd edition book like the "Minions of Morcar" painting which was slightly edited or the "Old World" map from the EU ROTWL booklet... and all of the plastic miniatures which were done by GWS sculptors). Brian Ansell (formerly the head of GWS) has said variously that Baker worked for a time at a GWS store as a manager (Baker confirms) and came up with the initial designs for the HQ board game for Milton Bradley. This is confirmed by various stories Baker has told about it, that the board had three sections and was very large, and the game was inspired by D&D with the goal of putting that type of RPG experience into a single box for the entry level player. Baker and Ansell then tell pretty much the same story (though the latter more as a way to "correct the record" for fans who he thought were inflating the importance of Baker's dominance of the project or perhaps forgetting the collaborative process) that Milton Bradley wanted a simpler, less expensive solution so the game was re-designed. Ansell's version of the story is that others (from GWS or connected with them) re-wrote the game and Baker's initial designs were discarded in favor of the cheaper, simpler solution. I assume by this he means the gameplay mechanics (rules) and board. Whatever the level of involvement of Baker in this or any edition of HeroQuest, my hat is off to him. When I found his email I sent a heartfelt message of thanks to him and some appreciation also for space crusade, and his response was quick and genial.

I should probably see if I can find Brian Ansell's email and thank him (and his team) for the miniatures too, to be fair! And Les Edwards, and Gary Chalke... too bad we don't have all the names of all the people who worked on these projects (unless they just want to be left alone about it!).

We know that in 1989 "Advanced HeroQuest" was done in-house by GamesWorkShop (the box has no Milton Bradley logos on it, while all released copies of HeroQuest prior to the remake have had both MB and GWS logos and copyright notices on them). Obviously we're not counting the brief period when Chaoseum was using the name "HeroQuest" for their unrelated RPG game that has since been renamed.

We can guess from the draft notes that Lucapaschi provided that the hero themed expansions were done in-house at Milton Bradley by a small team (6+ people?) and they were allowed to use existing GWS card art and miniatures borrowed from the EU exclusive packs (though they were at the same time introducing some new designs).

As you've shown, Takara developed the Japanese edition and while Milton Bradley (all this time a Hasbro subsidiary) and GWS are credited, I could imagine they probably had their own team working on things.

I don't really know (and someone please correct me), but I don't imagine that Stephen Baker was required to sign off on each thing to say what he approved of. Despite some early rumors on the internet, while he was key in the development of the game, it wasn't his property or his exclusively, but the property of Hasbro, developed in cooperation with GamesWorkShop (they owned the designs of most of the miniatures, much of the artwork and key terms like "Fimir" and "Chaos Warrior").

As far as "writer's intention" it sounds like Baker is happy that the game he helped create is still being played. But the variety in rulesets to me seems more re-tooling for different markets rather than being seen as a linear process of progressive evolution such that each new version is "more advanced" (and "better"?) than the previous one. Just different.

This was a debate people were having early on when the remake came out, that because it was the "newest" version it must therefore be the "best" and we should discard previous editions in favor of this one. To me that seems at odds with the general spirit of the game which is that yes, this is what the designers intended, but you are free to change it to your liking, plus it's a big nostalgia thing in the first place, so why shouldn't someone feel free to modify the game they purchase to the version they remember playing the most?

Given Baker's relationship with Hasbro gaming today (freelance designer, guest writer, friend of Avalon Hill, etc.), I would imagine it would be unlikely to find some interview where he'd come out and say "you know, I hated what they did with my game, I really prefer X version." He seems like much too wise and charitable a guy to do that, and who knows, there might even be some legal requirement that he keep such statements (if he really feels that way) to himself. But am I curious what he thinks of each version? Absolutely. Even still, that doesn't mean I would play only in accordance with his wishes, I have had disagreements of the "creators" of franchises before (see any conversation about George Lucas and Star Wars).

There is a long standing rumor online that GamesWorkshop and Hasbro had a "rupture" or break up of some kind, a "split" that happened sometime in the days of classic HeroQuest. However I have a hard time finding good evidence for this, as if there was some kind of acrimonious distance between the two companies and not just they finished their collaborative work and moved on (that HeroQuest "died" not so much because of anything anybody did or didn't do but that the market was seen as not being conducive to such an expensive board game at the time, though they did try other similar things a few more times most notably with HeroScape). It seems like the two companies were working together and MB products were coming out with the GWS logo on them for many years (with Advanced HeroQuest and Advanced Space Crusade and its spinoffs being the sole exceptions). People forget about BattleMasters and Space Crusade when talking about this stuff! I think the Brazilian edition that didn't have any actual citadel miniatures in the box (only cardboard representations) wouldn't have to credit "citadel" (the name for GWS's catalog of sculpts) but I suppose it still included other artwork and terminology directly based on the same WHF materials that filled out other editions. Even the PC games developed by Gremlin still used the terms (though there were a few changes like changing "Genestealers" in Space Crusade to "soul suckers" and making them look more like xenomorph aliens-- in game, while the cover painting still depicts them in the same fashion as the 1990 game).

Sorry for the "novel" I just have wanted to share some of that stuff and have been thinking about it for awhile.

[Kurgan]

This year's remake of the Elf Quest Pack ("Mage of the Mirror") creates a new general rule in the quest book called "Elven Riches" that says any unmarked treasure chest found should be assumed to contain 200 gold coins for the first hero who searches the room in which it dwells.

However as one goes through that same quest book, all of the previously unmarked treasure chests have notes assigned to them, meaning there are no "unmarked" chests left in that quest book at least!

This was a departure from the Frozen Horror remake where they left the quest book pretty much as is from 1992 (minus word substitutions for things like Chaos Warriors and Fimir of course) and relied upon a digital online quest by Doug Hopkins entitled "Into the Northlands" to add errata and "playtesting" (ideas for improving the campaign). Though it wouldn't surprise me if a digital quest also came out as a bridge between MOTM and perhaps the next quest pack "Rise of the Dread Moon" expected later this year (and the first retail release of a quest pack of brand new content that isn't just a remake of legacy material).

Edit: and as it turns out, there is at least one unmarked chest found in CoPD as well. And ROTDM includes at least one instance of a chest you need to talk up to open (it's a special one in a corridor).

[Daedalus]

I rule it as if a note specifically says the chest is empty that there is no treasure in that room. Otherwise why specify? I don’t let any Hero draw a treasure card in that room.

I've also decided this is a viable interpretation. Supporting text from p.16 of the Instruction Booklet:

• If there is no special treasure called out to Zargon in the Quest book, you, as a Hero, must draw a random card from the Treasure Card deck and read it aloud. . . .
  [Comment: A Treasure Card is only drawn if there is no special treasure. This works the same as an empty room scenario, whether furniture is present or not (including chests with no noted treasure). I consider it the primary rule that allows a draw for a Treasure Card.
• As Zargon, if there is no special treasure (as described in the Quest Notes), you must read aloud the treasure description once the treasure has been found. The special treasure is discovered only once by the first Hero who searches the room for treasure, even if the other Heroes later search that same room.
  [Comment: Special treasure of value is discovered only once, then the state of the chest is changed to no treasure. The primary purpose of the phrase even if the other Heroes later search that same room is stated to prevent regaining the valuable treasure multiple times due to this no-treasure state. Special treasure of no value such as "This treasure chest is empty" or "The weapons on this weapons rack are chipped, rusted, and broken. There is nothing here that the Heroes would want" do not change state after being discovered by the first Hero to search for treasure. The phrase even if the other Heroes later search that same room needn't apply as the valueless state can't change and thus can later be rediscovered as no treasure by an inattentive or late-arriving Hero.
• If there is no special treasure in the searched room, direct the searching Hero to draw a Treasure Card as described. . . .
  [Comment: Valueless treasure notes do not change state after a first search for treasure--they remain as valueless special treasure in the room--a persistent booby prize, if you will. As such, the if condition isn't met (the note preventing productive searches still applies, preventing subsequent productive searches), so a secondary searching Hero can't be directed to draw a Treasure Card. This is in contrast to when a valuable treasure is noted. In this case, subsequent Treasure Card draws should be directed by Zargon as the noted treasure can no longer be discovered.

Yes, all of this is arranged to amplify a reason for negative Quest notes and is certainly not the only way to understand treasure searching. The interpretation is aimed at maximizing the impact of the nothing-of-value Quest Note with a view towards differentiating the inclusion of a noted chest as much as possible from an unnoted chest (or weapons rack). As such, I prefer to limit further secondary Treasure Card searches to just when valuable treasure is found and the state changes to no-treasure.

Applying the negative consequences of a no treasure search result to just the first searching Hero is a perfectly valid interpretation of the treasure-search rules, of course. I'm not arguing against that, rather I'm justifying an unclear Quest Note circumstance to suit my own sensibilities. Others are welcome to adopt or reject the perspective as they see fit.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

For the Classic rather than Remake edition...

The rules are a little ambiguous in this area, the searching for and disarming traps rules refer to “chest/furniture traps” which suggests chests and other unspecified furniture. The quest notes from the Gathering Storm (Game System) quest book give examples of chests (various), a cupboard (Lair of the Orc Warlord) and a tomb (Return to Barak Tor) and the Adventure Design Booklet suggests “hiding treasure in cupboards”, however not all examples of these furniture types contain quest notes in the Gathering Storm campaign and beyond so if we adopt this, possibly intended, broader interpretation then what do we do when there aren’t any relevant quest notes?

Suggestion: Chests, cupboards and tombs are designated as a furniture category of “containers” in that they can contain treasure, can be trapped and more...these containers needed to be opened as per the rules for chests and doors (unless the quest notes detail the contents), you as EWP handle them as follows...

Handling Unmarked Containers

When a hero opens a container…

Cupboard: EWP draws Treasure card.
• if gold, jewels, gems, potions, holy water then he gives the card to the player.
• if any other card, then the EWP states, "the container is empty" and returns card to deck and shuffles.

Chest: EWP draws Treasure card.
• if gold, jewels, gems, potions, holy water then he gives the card to the player,
• if trap then it is trapped, once trap is resolved then draw a second card and interpret as per the cupboard rules (return the trap card to the deck and shuffle)
• if wandering monster or nothing card then EWP states "the container is empty" (return trap card to deck and shuffle)

Tomb: EWP draws Treasure card.
• if gold, jewels, gems, potions, holy water then he gives the card to the player,
• if trap then it is trapped, once trap is resolved then draw a second card and interpret as per the cupboard rules (remembering to return the trap card to the deck and shuffle)
• if wandering monster then EWP states "You have disturbed the rest of the dead" place a Skeleton on any square next to the tomb and the looter and attack, once attack is resolved then draw a second card and interpret as per the cupboard rules (return wandering monster card to deck and shuffle)
• if nothing card then EWP states "the container is empty" (return trap card to deck and shuffle)

These rules allow you to incorporate these container rules into your own quests without needing to detail the contents, and to back port them into existing official quests, where the contents are not detailed in the Quest notes.

[Parzival]

This discussion has inspired me to have a treasure chest that, when searched, contains a piece of parchment. When removed and read, it is a note saying “This chest is empty.” If returned to the chest, it magically changes to read, “This chest is not empty.”

If one wants to clever (and more generous) placing the note back in the chest causes it to read “This chest is full”, and 200 gold coins magically appear.