FAQs, Errata & Clarifications for HeroQuest Classic

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Decades overdue but I've started to put together a document covering Errata, FAQs, Errata & Clarifications for HeroQuest Classic Edition

The intention here is to provide any new players coming to the Classic Edition with a document that whilst not perfect will hopefully help smooth out some of the issues that we have uncovered over the years.

Obviously this is a significant piece of work and I have only just started so I would appreciate any feedback on the document as "many eyeballs tame complexity".

If you have feedback on the document, errors in the document, missing stuff, anything that isn't clear then please reply on this topic, however if you understand what I have written but don't agree with my interpretation of a particular rule or ruleset then please address this through the relevant topics on the board rather than this one (and I plan to include links to the relevant topic / discussion on the boards into the document).

Thank you.

FAQs, Errata and Clarifications for HQ Classic Edition

[Onan]

Thanks for this compilation, BW!

Maybe you should include the Throne as a Container, because it holds Melar's key in M5.

If you see all squares in the rooms next do you, don't you also see the first square behind each open door?

Can you open a door while in a pit trap?

Regarding M12 without waking the witch lord, I like to fix the intro text of M13 to "some idiots have awoken the witch lord". Works no matter the outcome of M12

[Kurgan]

Making an errata exhaustively to cover the EU 1st & 2nd editions, the Japanese Edition, and the NA/Brazilian editions would be huge! There are many areas in which there are no definitive answers (only guesswork, and online polls). Yes, many things have been answered by Avalon Hill, but let's face it, when it comes to the NA edition, nobody working on the game now was there when that edition was being written. Baker was the OG of the EU editions (and half the European expansions) but while he works on lots of stuff for Avalon Hill today, it's with the ruleset developed by Mike Gray & Co, which he had no input on (except meeting with him at the start).

I'm talking under NA/Remake rules here:

You don't see the trap in the doorway, because traps are only found by searching (unless we're talking specials, like the Potion of Vision), just as you don't see the treasures or secret doors simply by looking through the doorway.

Yes, you can open a door while in an adjacent pit trap. Just like if you are holding two shields but no weapon, you still attack with 1 die (and defend with 4).

We've seen the draft notes for the hero themed packs (including the unreleased ones) and that was MAJOR in helping to understand the background. Seeing that kind of draft notes for the earlier expansions and Game System would be amazing. Until then, good luck!

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Maybe you should include the Throne as a Container, because it holds Melar's key in M5.

I was considering including some other types of furniture under containers, like the throne, but in the end I chose not to because I couldn't find any "evidence" in the official material where these are trapped or it states that you find something IN the furniture. In the quest you reference it states that a player searching for treasure will find the key and that touching the key causes the secret door to be revealed. This reference to "searching for treasure" suggests to me that the key is found somewhere in the room, if it was located within the throne then I would expect the text to refer to "opening the throne".

If you see all squares in the rooms next do you, don't you also see the first square behind each open door?

Sorry I'm not following this one, which bit are you referring to? If it is around what you can see then you can see all the squares in a room that you are next to including the first square behind the open door, as that is in the room.

Can you open a door while in a pit trap?

Falling into a pit ends your turn, so you couldn't open a door or container having fallen into a pit as your turn would be over, but on your next turn you are free to move without any restrictions. As opening a door or container is part of movement I don't see any reason why you can't do this even if your movement starts in a pit. I'll add this to the next version of the document. Appreciate the feedback.

Regarding M12 without waking the witch lord, I like to fix the intro text of M13 to "some idiots have awoken the witch lord". Works no matter the outcome of M12

That would also do the trick!

Making an errata exhaustively to cover the EU 1st & 2nd editions, the Japanese Edition, and the NA/Brazilian editions would be huge! There are many areas in which there are no definitive answers (only guesswork, and online polls). Yes, many things have been answered by Avalon Hill, but let's face it, when it comes to the NA edition, nobody working on the game now was there when that edition was being written. Baker was the OG of the EU editions (and half the European expansions) but while he works on lots of stuff for Avalon Hill today, it's with the ruleset developed by Mike Gray & Co, which he had no input on (except meeting with him at the start).

All true but fortunately my document covers the classic edition only (the "EU 1st & 2nd editions")

Just like if you are holding two shields but no weapon, you still attack with 1 die (and defend with 4).

That may be correct under the Remake rules but under the Classic rules, you would attack using the number of combat dice indicated on your character board.

[Kurgan]

Yeah, "classic" is completely subjective of course. To me, the US rules are classic, while to you 2nd edition is classic, even though they came out the same year (with equal popularity?). To someone who grew up with the game in Japan their rules are classic. It's not often but there are a few people on here who consider one of the editions from 1990 superior to the other, and I understand it could be a touchy subject when you don't agree with them (no argument intended). Avalon Hill's rules are the same as the "classic" rules of 1990 (reading "classic" as the NA rules), though they have added onto it with expanded elements, mostly they've only chosen to clarify a few things, which while controversial with some of us, have their supporters in terms of "that's probably what they meant all along."

It's a great idea to try to draw together what people are saying about the rules over the years to try to draw together some kind of consensus. But there's a lot of subjective bias there too... do we try to figure out what fans thought the ambiguous rules (or best solutions to conflicts, top house rules) were in the 90's? Today? In the future? Do we go by what is popular on this site and these forums, or elsewhere on the web? Do we need to conduct polls off the web? If Avalon Hill digs out the drafts from the old days, what the designers actually did intend, does that trump all our opinions? When I look around online I also tend to find patterns, but that doesn't necessarily tell me what I'm going to like or even what most players actually like, it just tells me what people who are willing to share their opinion (or post their custom armory or custom cards) are willing to share. HeroQuest was popular right at the beginning of the internet becoming popular, so there's probably plenty of stuff that just never got shared (though many of those people eventually came online and they have memories that work hopefully, and those things can get re-shared in a way which is awesome).

One person's definitive, final, perfectly polished resolution to all conflicts is going to differ from another's. It takes some courage to put that out there and stake your claim. I think a truly definitive errata would present all the issues, but it would really have to show that there are often multiple alternate explanations, even if the author really believes one is the best and maybe another is probably what was most likely intended (or was intended then changed based on feedback or a different team being in charge with different views of what players would accept) and those may not always be the same thing. One small thing doesn't change must about the game often, but other times it really can, and it all can fit together like a jigsaw puzzle... with the picture changing quite a bit after you lay it all out.

It's all good, I actually use the term "classic" to refer to all the official stuff from the original run of the game (1989-1993), although I use it more loosely when referring to stuff like Legacy of Sorasil and Wizards of Morcar (the former because it was kind of an outlier for the franchise as a whole not ever having a board game equivalent, and the latter because many agree it felt incomplete and wasn't so well beloved as the others). Everybody (outside Japan) remembers the main game and the first two expansions, but after that it's a crapshoot.

So I know what you mean, but it reminds me of when people say "the original HeroQuest" today. Well, there's actually only one original HeroQuest, the first edition. But a person could be referring to their local regional edition, or even the 2021 version (see First Light's booklet). Even Avalon Hill remembers that you remember the past though, as they reference the original ATOH in the remake ATOH.

I am personally interested in seeing those ambiguities (the first challenge for me it seeing where those actually are... we've all see it happen where someone, not just me, takes something for granted, then suddenly you find people arguing over and it think to yourself well gee I guess you could read it more than one way!), and thinking about solutions. If you're playing as Zargon (or Morcar in this case) you have to make a ruling one way or another, though as always that suites the needs of the moment. The reader gets to decide how much he likes the solutions presented or comes up with his own, whether it came straight out of Stephen Baker's mouth or not.

Before the end of the year I am hoping to run a campaign where we play using the 1st (not sure about 2nd*) edition rules with a group online, which would be a first for me.

* we may resort to that while running "the Trial" since it was written for 2nd edition, haven't finalized that plan yet.

[Kurgan]

BHW, seems I misunderstood what this project was about, I apologize. I was imagining more of a list of errata from the old editions and some kind of definitive collection of clarifications (like HispaZargon's remake errata thread... not saying you need to copy him, of course). I responded too hastily, but now skimming through the document you linked it seems more like you've created your own editorial changes to imagine a new version of the game, basically just another homebrew ruleset, but here simply favoring the 2nd edition (something perhaps sorely lacking in our community as so many attempts are to bring everything up to the NA edition). Yes, you've referenced the 1st edition and the "official errata" from 2006, but, and this isn't wrong to do of course not saying that at all, you've come up with your own solutions rather than appealing to some kind of fan consensus.

Like for example, the idea of interpreting pits as being spike filled holes is a cool, imaginative solution (referencing the "Trap!" card from the treasure deck, though no indication is given that this is meant to be an identical hazard to the pit tile, which shows no "stakes" or holes for stakes to retract into if you think it's some kind of mechanical trap rather than just a covered hole or trapdoor to a dug-out). Yes, Avalon Hill put spikes in all their "hazard" cards in the treasure deck of the 2021+ edition, but once again they didn't alter the pit tiles or reference spikes in the rules about pit traps. So this is pure homebrew.

The idea of death saves, again, interesting solution. NA players really love death saves, mostly. A few hate them, thinking it makes the game too easy or Zargon too soft, so they simply eliminate them. I have seen and talked to a few players who like the "but you only come back with 1 BP" solution. I can see the inspiration here, as that's how the Dark Company handles the EU's sole example of an "Elixir of Life." However that single case is ambiguous. The point there seems to be to bring a dead hero back to life, but in the EU rules you could argue a dead hero who just went to 0 BP just now is identical to a hero who died several hours ago in the same game session (the text doesn't specify that it has to be someone who died during that quest, for all we know it could be someone who died 34 quests past! But probably they intended during the Dark Company adventure since a Hero is replaced by another with a different name in the next quest anyway, and they don't assume you have more than one of each miniature available). The Elixir's purpose seems to be for a surviving hero to save a hero who died. In the NA edition it would be to save a fellow hero who failed his "death save." But, barring what the designers probably intended, how cool would it be to play the rest of the quest with TWO BARBARIANS like some kind of power-up. Now the tables have turned!

Sometimes a player dies and it's a relief, because they needed to go do something else, while others "have to" keep playing. They don't want to be left out of the group activity, or miss seeing how the story ends. It's like being in the arcades back in the day and inserting another coin because you want to keep going even though you ran out of lives and your score reset to zero (but you don't want to start all over).

After all, many Morcar players would simply say that while it's great that you have a healing potion, unfortunately your character is dead, and so it's too late for you to quaff that potion. It won't do any good for another hero to pour it down your throat after the fact, because healing potions are for the living, they only heal injuries, not death itself. Letting heroes survive death does change things, most would say making the game easier. Many would say its more fun because having your character die and "waiting out" the quest for the rest of the players to finish (or walking away out of boredom and sadness) ruins it (response: "so get good," lol, but sometimes we're just unlucky!). I'll be curious to see how you handle complete mind point loss, which according to the rulebook means death, but in the actual quests in the expansions almost always means "unconscious" (vs. the "shock" which is favored in the Avalon Hill remake series). And I could be wrong, but there's no way to restore lost Mind Points under the EU rules except rest (they're restored in the next quest). So there's another question then... if you allow the "return to life with 1 BP" by using a healing potion at the last moment, would you allow this too when death was the result of 0 Mind (in Kellar's Keep)? Or can unconsciousness not be avoided? I think it would be cool to have a game where 0 Mind points, means your figure is replaced by an undead creature, under Morcar's control.

Cruising through the Ye Olde Inn site provides an interesting experience. One sees European players adapting the US stuff they "missed out on" into a format that is more akin to their own ruleset... and also American players (see Phoenix's page) adapting the European stuff to US rules for the stuff they "missed out on." Various items from the Japanese set are adapted alternately to European style or American style rules (the latter in the Forums), alongside these homebrews, you have straight up preservations of what the things were in their original context. Some EU players really wanted to use the extra artifacts and spells that the NA edition had, while there are NA players who wanted a deck of EU cards with the extra treasures and equipment they lacked. There's an interpretation of the Elixir of Life "Artefact" card for instance that if you implemented it into your game, could change things, of course you have to find a place for it to be found, or it changes nothing. But I could imagine someone packing all that stuff up and setting off to play "Mage of the Mirror" under a modified set of rules more friendly to the EU style and it coming into play for example, rather than simply backporting the stuff into the familiar EU quests. A lot of us probably just retain a single ruleset we liked, and just tweak a few small things. EVERY GM makes choices when it comes to the ambiguous things, maybe with reference to the wider community or even in spite of it, and that's their right. Others try to construct a comprehensive revision of the rules, where everything fits together (and simply yanking something out of context and bolting back onto the basic rules might cause havoc or confusion).

So while cool, this document goes beyond mere clarification. To me you're creating a new homebrew ruleset here. Again, nothing wrong with that, but I think that goes beyond official clarifications and errata. I figure you could create some kind of booklet that does a survey of the most popular rule solutions among active online fans, but that would require I think a lot more research, surveys, polls, and such, more than a simple cruise through Ye Olde Inn could give a person (and no offense to the actual research you've done, I know this isn't something you just dashed off, you've been talking about these issues for many years on here!).

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I agree that the term "classic" means different things to different people depending on the context, which is why I defined my usage of the term within the context of the document at the very beginning of the document.

This document is a collection of official errata, unofficial errata, FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and clarifications for the classic edition of HeroQuest (classic referring to the original 1989 “first edition” of the game and the 1990 “second edition” but not covering the remakes either the 1990 North American edition or the 2021 reprint of that edition).

In terms of what is "homebrew" or "house rules" as opposed to interpretations and clarifications of "rules as written" is a grey area that is definitely subjective, the course I have taken (and of course not everyone may agree but rather than sit on the fence and continue to procrastinate for decades instead I've decided to adopt a position, lay it out and will of course, as always, continue to welcome feedback and adapt) is probably best explained using an example...

Take the question of what furniture can contain treasure and can be trapped as an example.

When I originally read the rules back at Xmas 1989 I assumed that chests were the only type of furniture that had these special qualities and proceeded accordingly and all was well with the world until a few quests in when I was reading the quest notes in preparation for a game and spotted a cupboard containing treasure, so I assumed that I had made an error in my initial interpretation and that both chests and cupboards were furniture types that could contain treasure and be trapped, so pre-game I explained this to my players, and the game proceeded well. A few more quests in and one of my players asked to open a cupboard but the quest notes didn't state what the cupboard contained nor that it was empty, I improvised on the spot, but made a mental note to explore the rules and discuss outside of the quest (sadly "Ye Olde Inn" wasn't available back then but if it had been I can have trawled here for opinions) and came up with a better way of handling this situation, which is contained within the document, so future EWPs have the option to follow the same well-trodden path through, if they choose to, or not if they don't.

The reason for me creating this document is to identify areas where the rules as written are open to interpretation and/or contain gaps and give players new to the game (at least the CLASSIC edition) another option. The existence of this document doesn't prevent players from hacking a fresh path through the jungle, or sourcing external solutions through the Inn or other media, it just gives them another option, if they wish to take it.

I agree that is some instances this document goes beyond mere clarification but in the context of the purpose of the document I don't see it as being helpful to new players to explain that in a given situation there are two different interpretations that you could take but whichever one you take will result in more issues later on and then not providing any suggestions on how to handle any of the issues. If I took that approach then there wouldn't be much point in producing the document!

EVERY GM makes choices when it comes to the ambiguous things, maybe with reference to the wider community or even in spite of it, and that's their right.

You frequently make this statement, and whilst I agree with it (on each occasion and whilst pointing out that HQ has an EWP rather than a GM), I don't see the relevance, because me producing this document in no way infringes upon that right. Incidentally I do have another separate document which I use to record "genuine" 100% house rules, by which I mean areas where the rules may be perfectly clear and unambiguous, but I have house rules that change the rules of the game in a way that I think is an improvement, others may retain their right to disagree.

Whilst it may not be practical, I certainly could do some form of polling to determine the most popular community interpretations and solutions, but popularity isn't my primary concern. An often referred to example in this space is that of Monopoly where there are loads of "house rules" and popular ones around on the internet, many of which cause the game to go on for much longer than the original, and these same people that promote these house rules complain about how long the game takes to play. I have no wish to publish a clarification, however popular, if encouraging a new EWP to adopt that clarification will just lead them straight into a fresh set of issues with no obvious solutions. Not helpful.

Around the "Healing Save" situation, I think you have misunderstood the motivation for this, it has nothing to do with the Elixir of Life at all. The classic addition states that "potions can be used at any time" and that "a hero reduced to zero Body points is eliminated from the game", some players have indicated that there is a possible area of confusion here, in that at the very instant that your BP are reduced to zero, the very instance that the spear thrusts into your belly, you could quickly swig the healing potion i.e. at any time, could include the very moment that your BP are reduced to zero, the two events occurring simultaneously. However if you accept this way through, then it introduces another issue, as it becomes clear from the point of view of the hero players that keeping healing potions until the point of being reduced to zero BP is the most efficient use of them (or possibly abuse of them), reducing the effectiveness of the potions when used in this context to only restoring a single BP, is a way of allowing the use in emergencies, but encouraging player where possible to use them prior to an emergency to gain the maximum benefit.

Before the end of the year I am hoping to run a campaign where we play using the 1st (not sure about 2nd*) edition rules with a group online, which would be a first for me.

Which makes you exactly the audience for which my document is intended, an EWP (relatively) new to the classic edition, not 100% sure of whether to use the 1st edition or 2nd edition rules, neither of which is perfect. This document is intended to provide you with a 3rd option, of using the "polished" version of the classic rules, 2nd edition with clarifications, polished by input from decades of practise, discussion and other versions. Obviously this is an option and I suspect won't be one that you personally go for, but you might surprise me, but still the existence of the document presents players that want it with a 3rd option.

[Onan]

https://ibb.co/v4k1WXMp

Sorry I'm not following this one, which bit are you referring to? If it is around what you can see then you can see all the squares in a room that you are next to including the first square behind the open door, as that is in the room.

In the FAQ you say that you can see:
All squares in the room or passageway that they are currently in
All squares in a room or passageway that they are next to
All squares that they have line of sight to.

In the above picture the wizard can see the orc, although the direct line of sight would be blocked by the open door. The wizard is next to the room with the orc, so the above rule #2 applies.

But this means that the orc can also see the wizard, which is not covered by any of the 3 conditions in the FAQ. So you would need to add another condition, something like:
The first square behind each open door leading out of the room they are in

This would also have to be formulated for corridor junctions.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Yes you are correct.

I tend to find with these things I start by documenting something and refining it until it is clear and concise and I am happy. Then I realise that the reason why it is clear and concise is because it isn't complete, so I start adding to it. Eventually I'm happy that it is complete but it isn't clear or concise, it is bloated so I repeat the process of refining it again, cutting out unnecessary crap, until it is once again clear and concise, then I realise that I've removed something that was needed so it isn't complete and off I go again!

1. All squares in the room or passageway that they are currently in
2. All squares in a room or passageway that they are next to
3. All squares that are next to the room or passage that they are currently in
4. All squares that they have line of sight to.

Line 3 added, I'll update the document when I get a moment. Thank you.

[MonsterMotor]

1. All squares in the room or passageway that they are currently in
2. All squares in a room or passageway that they are next to
3. All squares that are next to the room or passage that they are currently in
4. All squares that they have line of sight to.

This list puzzles me. I don't want to enter a detailed discussion with examples here, but each one of these measures can lead to strange happenstances of visibility or non-visibility on the board and, maybe, lengthy discussions. Sight/Line of sight rules generally are quite a mess in practice on HQ-like boards (and I do not have a profound solution here, either), but why not truncate this list before defining "line of sight" in detail? Or more specific, why do you use these 4 points combined and not just point 4 alone (which is what I do in my rules) or just points 1-3.