Is "see" the same thing as "line of sight?"

[Onan]

My reasons for giving the example that I did in my last post wasn't so much to understand how you would handle it, although that is always interesting, it was more to demonstrate that your interpretation would lead to more changes being needed, so is less simple to implement. This doesn't mean necessarily that it is wrong, or bad, just that it isn't the best interpretation for a clarification document.

The way I explained to handle it is in line with my interpretation of "visible" for placement, which I consider a valid interpretation of 1st edition rules, not a house rule. I don't see where my interpretation needs any change of the rules, just an interpretation of "visible".

Fair point, I should consider the second edition to have three rules rather than two, but it doesn't change the fact that your interpretation adds an extra rule on top of the THREE rules under my interpretation.

Which one? I don't think I have added any rule. I just use "Opening Doors" and "Moving Around the Board", and I interpret "visible" in "Moving Around the Board" in a way that both situations lead to the same result: the revealing of the complete new area.

Yes but for me it isn't about creating the simplest ruleset (that falls under the remit of house rules), it is about finding the simplest valid interpretation of the existing rules.

The simplest valid interpretation would be to take the rules as written, and use visibility for "Moving Around the Board" but not for "Opening Doors". You also have the desire to create the same result for "Opening Doors" and "Moving Around the Board", because it leads to a simpler ruleset.

I think your interpretation of the rules is valid, just as mine. The rules are not clear, so as Zargon we have to decide ourselves what to reveal in which situation.


@Parzival:

When a hero reaches the penultimate square of a corner in a corridor, the square just around the actual corner becomes visible, and any block, door or monster on that square is revealed. When the hero advances to the square at the corner itself, he can see down the entire length of the corridor, and all blocks, doors, and monsters in that straight line of vision are revealed without regard to LOS rules.

This sounds like a valid interpretation of the US rules:

When a Hero opens a door, place on the gameboard the monsters, treasure chests, and any other items that belong in that room.

=> No LOS for revealing rooms

Looking gives you the opportunity to see what is directly within your line of sight, such as closed doors, blocked square spaces, and monsters.

=> LOS for looking

So sight is a fairly broad interpretation in some instances (revealing what is there) but very specific in others (searching a room or corridor).

That's also my opinion. The heroes` sight is just one aspect for placement. The monsters also have interest in revealing an area. And it feels odd not to reveal a monster in a corner just because the heroes can't see it. The monster knows that the heroes are there: they have just opened the door to its room. It wants to react, but it can't because the heroes decide what is revealed when using LOS. So instead of the heroes or the monsters, there is a neutral element that decides on what is reveled: the door. When not using LOS for placement, the open door decides that both of its areas are to be revealed. This feels fair.

[Onan]

BHW, I kept thinking about the corner case you showed in your last diagram. There is line of sight to the when opening the door, but it is not placed because it is not in the corridor behind the door. I have checked the official quests, and this situation occurs only once, in MotM "The Elven Prospector":

https://heroscribe.github.io/heroscribe/?c=MM&r=US&m=3

When the heroes open the door next to the , the gre: is not revealed, because it is in another corridor.

This is true for BOTH interpretations. Even if you add the word "visible" to the "Opening Doors" rule you would still not reveal the goblin:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any visible pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

So if you want to reveal anything in LOS of the door opener, you would have to modify the rule to:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any visible pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

And this leads to another problem of your interpretation: visible to whom? You would say of course to the guy who opened the door. I would say "anything not secret", so I would reveal the whole board if you omit "for that room or passage". So to be clear you would have to modifiy the rule again:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces visible to the opener of the door shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

And this leads to another problem, because it sounds like traps and secret doors are normally visible to the opener of the door. So you would have to modify the rule again:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces visible to the opener of the door shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book(apart from traps and secret doors).

With this in mind I would say that the simpler interpretation is that in "Moving Around the Board" they used "visible" with the same meaning as "apart from traps and secret doors" in "Opening Doors".

[Bareheaded Warrior]

As an insight to the current rule interpretation, let’s have a look at how the Companion App handles things:

The Companion App is another implementation of the remake rules (1990/2021) and those rules are different to the 1st and 2nd edition that we were discussing, so you are correct that the Companion App may provide an insight into the current rule interpretation but it won't provide any insight into the 1st/2nd edition ("classic edition") that was under discussion. That said, discussion of the current rule interpretation is a perfectly valid discussion but for me personally as I only have a simple brain, I'm not yet going to source a copy of the remake rules and start thinking about that too, as I'll then get thoroughly confused between three editions, whereas two is hard enough, others with a bigger brain capacity from mine will, I'm sure, respond and I'll get round to it once the 1st/2nd edition anomalies in this area are resolved!

The way I explained to handle it is in line with my interpretation of "visible" for placement, which I consider a valid interpretation of 1st edition rules, not a house rule. I don't see where my interpretation needs any change of the rules, just an interpretation of "visible".

If I was to attempt to sum up my (current) interpretation under the 2nd edition (allowing for insight and input from the 1st where needed) it would be something along the lines of (working draft):

The 2nd edition has three rules for visibility, two of which are similar but very slightly different, which can cause confusion, they are found on p9 "What can be seen?" and p11 "Casting a Spell"

#1. "Miniatures in the same room are always visible.": This rule is used for visibility in terms of both placing miniatures on the board and for casting certain spells when the miniatures are in the same room and is found on both p9 and p11.
#2. "Miniatures in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the two miniatures. If the line passes through a wall or a closed door then the miniature is not visible.": This rule is used for visibility in terms of placing miniatures on the board when miniatures are not in the same room and is found on p9.
#3. Miniatures in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the two miniatures. If the line passes through a wall or a closed door or another miniature then the miniature is not visible.": This rule is used for visibility in terms of casting certain spells when the miniatures are not in the same room and is found on p11.

Note: Blocked square markers are treated as being a square surrounded by walls with solid rock in the centre and as such the walls block line of sight.

For clarity insert the word "visible" as indicated below, referring to the definition of visible given in the following section on p9 "What can be seen?"

p4 Outline of the Game "Therefore, when a character player opens a closed door he must pause to give the evil wizard player the chance to consult the Quest map and place onto the board anything visible that is shown for that room or passage.

p8 Opening Doors "As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place onto the board and visible pieces shown for that room, or passageway, on the map in the Quest Book"

(and for simplicity I'm ignoring any reference to hidden traps & secret doors for the moment but that may need to be factored in as a note)

Your interpretation adds a fourth rule, along the lines of (and you might be able to phrase this better than me), when you open a door to a room or passage then you place on the board all monsters, furniture etc that are shown on the Quest map for that room or passage.

I'm not suggesting that this is anything other than a possibly valid interpretation, I was just making the point that this fourth rule is one more than the three under my interpretation.

Where this fourth rule has an issue, in my opinion, is as follows (and this is where I was referring to the need to add extra rules that aren't in the original "house rules")

The squares on the board are divided into two types of area: rooms and passages. The rooms are enclosed by white lines (the walls). The passages are shown by the areas with light grey flooring.

When you open a door to a room, you would put all the stuff shown on the map as in the room onto the board, whilst I don't agree with this, it is a clear instruction because rooms are defined in the rulebook in such a way that you can clearly differentiate between them, each distinct room is fully enclosed by white lines, so it is clear what is "room A" and what is "room B" and the difference between them, so a clear instruction.

However when you open a door to a passage, you would put all the stuff shown on the map as in the passage onto the board, however whilst the rules provide a definition and a way to differentiate between passages and rooms, and between individual rooms, they don't provide any way to differentiate between different passages, what exactly is "passage A" and how is that distinguished from "passage B"

Case 2 Monster Passage Visibility ignoring LOS.png

In this example:

Monster A is in the same passage as monster B
Monster B is in the same passage as monster C
So you might think that means that monster A is in the same passage as monster C, but that isn't the case because unlike rooms, passages aren't mutually exclusive, monster B is in two passages at once, but a monster can't be in two rooms at once.
Equally is monster D in the same passage as monsters A & B? sort of "yes", but sort of "no".

This means that under your interpretation you would have to, and you have, added extra information around passage definition, and the role of blocked square markers in splitting a single passage into multiple passages, which aren't in the existing rules (hence "house rules")

Under my interpretation, accepting the fact that for searching I've applied a slight dodge of retaining the wording from the 1st edition, you don't have to add this extra information, because you only ever place what is visible in passages, so you don't ever need to determine whether things are in the same or different passages, the only criteria that matter is whether they are in the same room, if so apply rule 1 for placement, or if not apply rule 2 for placement.

The monsters also have interest in revealing an area. And it feels odd not to reveal a monster in a corner just because the heroes can't see it. The monster knows that the heroes are there: they have just opened the door to its room. It wants to react, but it can't because the heroes decide what is revealed when using LOS.

There is a different way of looking at this situation, the monster knows that the heroes are there, or at least one of them, but also knows that the hero cannot see it, so it waits in the shadows, until the hero steps through the doorway in the room (thus losing the tactical advantage of the doorway) and then makes its move. As I mentioned before this is even more pronounced in the 1st edition with the rule that prevents you from leaving the room for a turn, but even without that rule, you may still be stuck in the room for a turn due to having no movement left to step out again, you may still be literally trapped if there is a trap behind the door, and even if you are not stuck or trapped then wasting two points of movement by moving into and then back out of the room, may make the difference between been caught and attacked by pursuing monsters or not.

[Onan]

(and for simplicity I'm ignoring any reference to hidden traps & secret doors for the moment but that may need to be factored in as a note)

This note would be interesting. If you just add "visible" to the "opening doors" rule, you would get:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any visible pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

So either "apart from traps and secret doors" is meant as an exclusion (traps and secret doors are visible but should not be placed), but that doesn't make sense. Or "apart from traps and secret doors" is meant as a clarification what "visible" is supposed to mean. The latter is also my interpretation.


BHW:

Your interpretation adds a fourth rule, along the lines of (and you might be able to phrase this better than me), when you open a door to a room or passage then you place on the board all monsters, furniture etc that are shown on the Quest map for that room or passage.

I would phrase this rule like:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

This is from 1st Edition rulebook. Why do you think that I have added this rule?


BHW:

This means that under your interpretation you would have to, and you have, added extra information around passage definition, and the role of blocked square markers in splitting a single passage into multiple passages, which aren't in the existing rules (hence "house rules")

I wouldn't consider this a house rule, just an interpretation of "visible" in "Moving Around the Board". But either way you have to use the same "house rule" in your interpretation:
BHW:

you only ever place what is visible in passages, so you don't ever need to determine whether things are in the same or different passages

I don't think so. According to the rules you only place stuff when the hero enters a new passage:
1st Edition rules:

If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

So you have to decide if the part behind the blocked square is a new passage or not. If not, the stuff inside would stay hidden forever, which doesn't make sense. So you would need the same "house rule" as I that the blocked square splits the passage in two.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Your interpretation adds a fourth rule, along the lines of (and you might be able to phrase this better than me), when you open a door to a room or passage then you place on the board all monsters, furniture etc that are shown on the Quest map for that room or passage.

I would phrase this rule like:

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

This is from 1st Edition rulebook. Why do you think that I have added this rule?

If you choose to interpret that piece of text as an instruction to the EWP that refers back to the visibility/placement rules already covered in the document, then it is an instruction that refers to existing rules and doesn't add or require any new visibility/placement rules, just the ones that already exist. If you choose to interpret that piece of text as an instruction to place all pieces even if they are not visible (according to the previously stated visibility rules) then you are creating a new rule, either a new visibility rule that says that "you can see all monsters in a different room even though you don't have LOS" or you are creating a new placement rule that says "even though they aren't visible (according to the previously stated visibility rules) then place them anyway". It is the interpretation of the wording that produces an additional rule.

you only ever place what is visible in passages, so you don't ever need to determine whether things are in the same or different passages

I don't think so. According to the rules you only place stuff when the hero enters a new passage:
1st Edition rules:

If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

So you have to decide if the part behind the blocked square is a new passage or not. If not, the stuff inside would stay hidden forever, which doesn't make sense. So you would need the same "house rule" as I that the blocked square splits the passage in two.

That would be true if, and only if, that instruction around "the first player to enter a new room or passageway" was the only instruction in the rulebook covering when you place things onto the board. However if that was the case then your interpretation around how you determine what to place on the board when you open a door would be irrelevant, as you would only place things when you enter the room or passage and NOT when you open the door.

Fortunately, for both of us, that is NOT the only instruction in the rulebook covering when you place things onto, take the one below for example:

As the players move their models, the evil wizard player must keep checking the map and put out any pieces that become visible.

[Onan]

As the players move their models, the evil wizard player must keep checking the map and put out any pieces that become visible.

OK, I have overlooked this one. It is in the chapter about playing The Maze. Not the best idea to put extra placement rules there. So yes, your interpretation of checking for reveal on every step a hero takes is valid, no matter the definition of corridors. I will refer to this rule as the "keep checking" rule.

If you choose to interpret that piece of text as an instruction to the EWP that refers back to the visibility/placement rules already covered in the document, then it is an instruction that refers to existing rules and doesn't add or require any new visibility/placement rules, just the ones that already exist. If you choose to interpret that piece of text as an instruction to place all pieces even if they are not visible (according to the previously stated visibility rules) then you are creating a new rule, either a new visibility rule that says that "you can see all monsters in a different room even though you don't have LOS" or you are creating a new placement rule that says "even though they aren't visible (according to the previously stated visibility rules) then place them anyway". It is the interpretation of the wording that produces an additional rule.

Ok, I see. But in fact it was not me who added an additional rule, it was the revisor who created the rules for 2nd edition. The "What can be seen" rule was not there in 1st edition. In 1st edition you have many references to "visible" in the context of placement, searching, casting spells and missile weapons, but only one definition of visible in "casting spells".

You could argue that in 1st edition you were supposed to use the "casting spells" visibility for all other contexts, but I don't think this was the intention, because:
1. Monsters would block visibility for placement, which is awkward
2. For missile weapons the rules say:

Your target must be visible, as with casting a spell.

So in this case there is an explicit reference to the "casting spells" visibility rule. For placement "casting spells" is not referenced.

This means in 1st edition you're on your own when deciding what visible means for placement. The "opening doors" rule implies that visibility is not even a criterium for what should be placed. It is sufficient to be in the room or passage behind the door.

But as you stated there is the problem of blocked squares in the middle of a passage. In most cases the area behind the blocked square is greyed out, but sometimes in the base game you will reach the other side at a later point. It seems that they consider both sides as belonging to the same passage. In the chapter about "Searching" 1st edition says:

A whole room or all visible squares of a passage may be searched in one turn.

This implies that the invisible squares are part of the same passage.

So strictly speaking the "opening doors" rule instructs you to place everything in the new passage, regardless of blocked squares. This is clearly not intented. Maybe the following is a good fix for the "Opening doors" rule that avoids the conflict with the "apart from traps and secret doors" clause:

Onan's "opening doors" rule fix (in italics):

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or all visible squares of that passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

With this fix it is not about the objects being visible or secret, it is just about which squares should be revealed, and it uses the same wording as for "searching".

There's still no definition of what "visible squares of a passage" means, so in 1st edition I'm still on my own. I would use something like "the squares from the player up to the next blocked square". And I wouldn't care if the player is already in the passage or still behind the door. This means that I reveal the whole passage up to the blocked square at once when the hero opens the door, which is in line with the "opening doors" rule.

But now comes 2nd edition. They probably realized that people were confused if they should apply "castings spells" visibility to placement. And probably all they wanted to say is "no, of course you place stuff behind monsters, the in the passage doesn't hide the behind." So they copied the existing "casting spell" rule and removed "another model", thinking this would be an easy fix.

Deciding what can be seen by a player character is very important in determining what should be placed onto the board. Miniatures in the same room are always visible. Miniatures in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the two miniatures. If the line passes through a wall or a closed door then the miniature is not visible.

How sloppy! They don't even mention blocked squares, only walls. They mention visibility in different rooms, but for what reason? The "opening doors" rule already covered the placement of an adjacent room in a simple way. Since you're in a different room when you open the door, is the new rule supposed to replace the "opening door" rule? What about the blind spot in the corners next to the doors they created? Am I really supposed to keep these squares hidden until the hero steps in? If so, why don't they even mention this situation? Why do they leave me alone again?

The only reason I can think of is that the guy who wrote second edition didn't really think it through. He wanted to create a simple fix for an existing problem of monsters hiding behind monsters, but all he managed to do was create conflicts to other rules and create side effects like the 2-step reveal.

When I see this slightly modified copy&pasted rule, my inner voice screems "RULE SMELL". Like code smell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell), but for rules:

In programming, a "code smell" is a surface indication of a potential deeper problem in the code, usually related to poor code structure or design. It's not a bug, but rather a signal that the code might be difficult to maintain, understand, or extend. Think of it as a warning sign that something needs attention or refactoring.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Ok, I see. But in fact it was not me who added an additional rule, it was the revisor who created the rules for 2nd edition. The "What can be seen" rule was not there in 1st edition. In 1st edition you have many references to "visible" in the context of placement, searching, casting spells and missile weapons, but only one definition of visible in "casting spells".

I agree that the 2nd edition added an extra rule, there are two in the 1st edition and three in the 2nd so without doubt an additional rule has been created but my point was that your interpretation adds an extra rule on top of that, so three in the 1st edition and four in the 2nd edition, so both statements are correct, the revisor added an extra rule and your interpretation adds another.

You could argue that in 1st edition you were supposed to use the "casting spells" visibility for all other contexts, but I don't think this was the intention, because:
1. Monsters would block visibility for placement, which is awkward
2. For missile weapons the rules say:

Your target must be visible, as with casting a spell.

So in this case there is an explicit reference to the "casting spells" visibility rule. For placement "casting spells" is not referenced.

I can and indeed I am, because referenced or not (and I agree it should be, but there are many examples of things not being referenced in the rules when it would have been better if they had been) I think that there are only two visibility rules in the 1st edition both covered in the "casting spells" section, one for same room, one for not the same room, so all cases of visibility must use those rules, as there aren't any others. I'm not suggesting that those rules were perfect or couldn't be improved, your point 1 identifies one clear problem, but the fact that the rules had an issue doesn't mean that they were intended, just that they weren't perfect, hence the "fix" introduced in the 2nd edition.

But as you stated there is the problem of blocked squares in the middle of a passage. In most cases the area behind the blocked square is greyed out, but sometimes in the base game you will reach the other side at a later point. It seems that they consider both sides as belonging to the same passage. In the chapter about "Searching" 1st edition says:

A whole room or all visible squares of a passage may be searched in one turn.

This implies that the invisible squares are part of the same passage.

In terms of blocked squares, I think the intended interpretation was that the edges of the marker were to be treated as "walls", again it would have been great if that had actually been stated, but I don't see any other way of treating these that makes sense logically or in-game to me so that is how I treat them.

It does get frustrating sometimes and I often find myself wishing that the designers just wrote down what was in their heads on a piece of paper and labelled it "the rules" rather than just vaguely waving their hands in the general direction of an approach and leaving the rest of us to figure it out what they might have meant. But sometimes the wording is actually clear but it is hidden assumptions on our part that cause the confusion, and these have to be surfaced and examined.

The squares on the board are divided into two types of area: rooms and passages. The rooms are enclosed by white lines (the walls). The passages are shown by the areas with light grey flooring.

If you close your eyes and picture the empty HeroQuest board (no cheating), how many rooms does it have and how many passages?

22 rooms and 1 passage

I know we tend to think of it as having several passages that are joined together, but it is effectively one single long winding continuous passage, which is why the idea of monsters being in "the same passage" or a "different passage" to a character doesn't make any sense, which is why the rules don't ever specify and don't ever need to specify whether monsters are in the same passage as a character, only whether they are in the same room, and if not whether they are visible.

The only reason I can think of is that the guy who wrote second edition didn't really think it through. He wanted to create a simple fix for an existing problem of monsters hiding behind monsters, but all he managed to do was create conflicts to other rules and create side effects like the 2-step reveal.

Except it does fix the issue of monsters hiding behind monsters and the 2-step reveal is already present in the 1st edition.

[Parzival]

The squares on the board are divided into two types of area: rooms and passages. The rooms are enclosed by white lines (the walls). The passages are shown by the areas with light grey flooring.

If you close your eyes and picture the empty HeroQuest board (no cheating), how many rooms does it have and how many passages?

22 rooms and 1 passage

I know we tend to think of it as having several passages that are joined together, but it is effectively one single long winding continuous passage, which is why the idea of monsters being in "the same passage" or a "different passage" to a character doesn't make any sense, which is why the rules don't ever specify and don't ever need to specify whether monsters are in the same passage as a character, only whether they are in the same room, and if not whether they are visible.

One could argue that the board, as is, has 1 passage and 0 rooms— because it only has a room if a door is placed (or the heroes begin inside the room).
But I will note that if blocking tiles are placed in the corridor (as is the case with nearly every quest), then the number of potential independent, unconnected passages increases drastically. It’s possible in this case for a corridor to consist of 1 square!
And it could be three, at a corner!:D

[MonsterMotor]

It does get frustrating sometimes and I often find myself wishing that the designers just wrote down what was in their heads on a piece of paper and labelled it "the rules" rather than just vaguely waving their hands in the general direction of an approach and leaving the rest of us to figure it out what they might have meant. But sometimes the wording is actually clear but it is hidden assumptions on our part that cause the confusion, and these have to be surfaced and examined.

Maybe, but if you look into the BQ and EQ books, you will find the following text passage there: „Zargon, study this book carefully! Although it is your guide to running these adventures, it may not answer every question you have during play. When in doubt, use your experience and imagination to make the best choice. Remember that you are the ultimate authority in your HERO QUEST world.“

A wise passage, in my view, and actually an official rule. It should have been printed already on the first page of the main rulebook (and also applied to other games that are not too abstract). At least I treat it this way and would recommend others to do so as well. It gives us more time to play the game and reduces need to "repair" it first. Not that I would discourage people from being clear and accurate when writing down rules. I also do a lot of rule writing/editing myself and try to be accurate for the most part. But once rules reach a certain degree of complexity due to interactions of different mechanics, this often offers viable solutions for conflicting rules or ambiguities without tediously dissecting the matter into their very elements. This is the beautiful advantage we have with board games, in contrast to computer games based purely on algorithms.

[Onan]

If you close your eyes and picture the empty HeroQuest board (no cheating), how many rooms does it have and how many passages?

22 rooms and 12 passages. Now draw the board without looking at it. If you get the room sizes AND colors right, you know that you have played too much HeroQuest in your life

I know we tend to think of it as having several passages that are joined together, but it is effectively one single long winding continuous passage, which is why the idea of monsters being in "the same passage" or a "different passage" to a character doesn't make any sense, which is why the rules don't ever specify and don't ever need to specify whether monsters are in the same passage as a character, only whether they are in the same room, and if not whether they are visible.

This sounds like the Buddhist view of the passages: "they are all one" But you are right, this is one possible interpretation, since the rules lack any definition of passage boundaries. And also the European rules avoid spell effects in the same passage. They would rather forbid certain spells in passages than define passage boundaries.

The only hint we get is that

The passages are shown by the areas with light grey flooring. Passages may be one or two squares wide.

So it sounds like there are different passages, and they are either 1 or 2 squares wide.

One could argue that the board, as is, has 1 passage and 0 rooms— because it only has a room if a door is placed (or the heroes begin inside the room).

This is getting more and more philosophical. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
If there is no quest map telling which rooms are greyed out and which not, is there a room on the HeroQuest board?

But I will note that if blocking tiles are placed in the corridor (as is the case with nearly every quest), then the number of potential independent, unconnected passages increases drastically. It’s possible in this case for a corridor to consist of 1 square!
And it could be three, at a corner!:D

Or it might be that these squares look like different corridors, but in fact they are visible parts of the same corridor oneness.

Maybe, but if you look into the BQ and EQ books, you will find the following text passage there: „Zargon, study this book carefully! Although it is your guide to running these adventures, it may not answer every question you have during play. When in doubt, use your experience and imagination to make the best choice. Remember that you are the ultimate authority in your HERO QUEST world.“

This is a good practical advice (especially with the US rules ). The funny thing is that a 7 year old can run HeroQuest as Zargon, and I would say he does so without any mistakes, but his father still wonders if he is playing HeroQuest the right way.

I don't think this discussion between me and BHW is because we don't know how to handle things over the board. BHW is writing a rules clarification document, and I am working on a playable browser version. So we both want to know at which point we are using official rules or house rules. Also, this discussion is not about rules creating complex situations, but about the very basics of the game. It's like rules for Ludo missing a clear statement if the rolled number is the fixed distance or maximum distance to be moved.

In some way BHW and I are like Lilliputians: divided into those breaking the shell of a boiled egg from the big end or from the little end.