Jumping over occupied pit traps

[Daedalus]

does anyone allow Hero’s an option of not jumping, but taking a turn to climb into the pit and then another to climb out? The idea being they wont take any damage doing it this way but clearly take longer to cross.

I don't.

Taking a turn to climb out of a pit would be introducing an inconsistency to me, pits (and their variants - pits of darkness, long pits and so on) are all consistent in that you can climb out of them for free, making an exception to that based on how you entered the pit would seem strange to me.

Equally jumping a pit brings with it a risk, will he or won't he, and therefore increases the fun of the game, giving an option to bypass this and replace it with something that removes the element of risk and fun and just makes the process slightly longer feels like a move in the wrong direction personally.

Back to the original post, and having read this thread again, I'm still sicking with option D!

Not really familiar with the European rules, but the American rules state more than one hero can be in a pit trap.

I appreciate that under NA rules, the sharing squares rule is suspended for the purposes of pits, but for me that is something of a quick and dirty fix. The restriction on two or more characters occupying the same square is a fundamental one for HQ, an early design principle that a lot of other material was built on top of, making an exception to that principle as a quick fix for a situation that rarely occurs, without considering the unintended consequences, and leaving that for generations of players to try and work through is a cheap shot.

If we now allow two characters to share the same square then...

Do they both suffer the reduced dice effect of the pit or is that meant to be between a character in the pit and a character outside it?

Does that even matter as strictly speaking the two characters cannot attack each other at all, as you are only allowed to attack a character who is adjacent to you and sharing the same square means that they are not on adjacent squares?

But then being not adjacent means that they could attack each other with crossbows, LOS is guaranteed as they are on the same square, and they are not adjacent so shoot away (and for that matter you could throw daggers too, you just wouldn't be able to stab each other with them as you are too close, but room enough to throw apparently)

If one was a spellcaster then presumably they would have LOS to another character on the same square, so they could cast a Ball of Flame, but would they both get roasted?

If another character wants to try and pass through a square occupied by two other characters, a monster and a hero for example, how does the passing rule work in that instance, a hero cannot pass due to the presence of a monster AND simultaneously he CAN pass due to the presence of a hero

And so on...

I also don't allow a Hero to climb in and out of a pit to avoid damage as the NA rules use this example:

In the above illustration, if the X square is occupied by a monster, and you are a Hero without any special armory weapons, you must voluntarily fall into the pit (suffering damage) and do combat with the Monster (at a disadvantage) from in the pit!

I wouldn't go so far as to say the sharing a square exception is a cheap shot, forcing unfair need for adjustment to a rare occurence. I would rather point to the intent, which is to allow a pit to continue to threaten Heroes even if someone has already fallen in or even if the pit is occupied by a monster. More danger=more fun. This extension of danger is a justifiable motive for an exception, as long as it can be understood within the rules.

As an NA Game System apologist, this is how I would play regarding your interesting points, being bound by the NA Game System:

• Do they both suffer the reduced dice effect of the pit or is that meant to be between a character in the pit and a character outside it?
  Yes, as indicated by What Happens To A Hero In A Pit? on p.19: "When in a pit, you may also attack and defend, but you must roll one less combat die when doing so. (This applies to monsters as well.)" That's RAW, but you can look at it as the two combatants being equally hampered by the confining space.
• Does that even matter as strictly speaking the two characters cannot attack each other at all, as you are only allowed to attack a character who is adjacent to you and sharing the same square means that they are not on adjacent squares?
  Attacking is not limited to adjacent attacks. Diagonal and LoS attacks are nonadjacent examples of attacking. I see attacking from the same square as yet another nonadjacent attack. (But see the last bullet point below.)
• But then being not adjacent means that they could attack each other with crossbows, LOS is guaranteed as they are on the same square, and they are not adjacent so shoot away (and for that matter you could throw daggers too, you just wouldn't be able to stab each other with them as you are too close, but room enough to throw apparently)
  I believe the rules prevent a crossbow or thrown dagger attack within the same shared square space. Check A Trip To The Armory which begins on p.14: "These weapons allow you to increase your attack and defend strength and may also give you unique combat advantages. [Continuing on p.15:] For instance, daggers and crossbows are special weapons due to their ability to hit a monster from a distance." Attacking from the same shared square does not qualify as "from a distance", even is LoS exists. Noting that a shared square space is nonadjacent does not address the "unique combat advantage" and only serves to confuse the special purpose of these weapons.
• If one was a spellcaster then presumably they would have LOS to another character on the same square, so they could cast a Ball of Flame, but would they both get roasted?
  No. Ball of Flame is cast on a monster, not the square it occupies.
• If another character wants to try and pass through a square occupied by two other characters, a monster and a hero for example, how does the passing rule work in that instance, a hero cannot pass due to the presence of a monster AND simultaneously he CAN pass due to the presence of a hero
  In your example, a Hero wishing to pass would first need to fall into the pit and take damage. He would then need to satisfy no less than two requirements: pass another Hero and pass a monster. The first requirement is allowed by the rules, but the second isn't. Logically, the Hero may not pass as one of the rules is not satisfied. Falling into the pit is therefore unnecessary and the Hero simply would remain blocked.
• And so on...
  Indeed, other issues may arise with an NA pit. One I thought of is how many Heroes or monsters should be allowed in such a pit? Certainly more than one, as evidenced by the sharing a square rule. As we're looking at one square with four adjacent walls, I'd say extrapolate from the gameboard: 1 figure +4 "diagonal" figures, or 5 figures max may crowd within. If there is a mix of Heroes and monsters, I'd think the confined "adjacency" of a pit would limit attacks to one monster and one Hero as if facing off within a single-square corridor.

My interpretations of rule application are rooted in my own sensibilities, so of course not everyone is bound by them. As for the EU pit, I'd say it's open to a different interpretation, though that's better left to those who play that ruleset.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

General Point

Aside from the specific points raised, I was making a more general point. The 2nd edition rules, whilst open to interpretation (as always), seem to indicate to me (I don't see any other valid interpretation of the rules as written) that you can't attempt to jump an occupied pit, as failure, which is a possible outcome of the attempt, would result in space sharing which isn't permitted in that ruleset. If the attempt could lead to a situation which is not valid under that ruleset then the attempt cannot be made. That said I do consider "how to handle this situation" to be a valid question under a theoretical master list of FAQs for that edition.

If it was the intention of the 1990 remake design team, to clarify this point and answer this outstanding FAQ, in their own edition, then I would regard the attempt as a failure, because a player approaching the team with one single question around handling a specific scenario, ends up walking away with half-a-dozen new questions that need answering about this same scenario, for me that isn't a satisfactory outcome or an effective clarification.

If, however, it was the intention of the 1990 remake design team, to replace this rule with a different one, then I'm not clear on why they want to change the rule or what they were hoping to achieve by the change. Your point around allowing a pit to continue to threaten characters even if it is occupied, I don't think is a valid one, because under the above interpretation the occupied pit would prevent movement through it, would be a threat to the occupant (in terms of the attack and defend dice penalty) and once it became unoccupied (either through the movement of the occupant or their elimination) then it continues to act as a threat anyway.

Jumping Attack

In the above illustration, if the X square is occupied by a monster, and you are a Hero without any special armory weapons, you must voluntarily fall into the pit (suffering damage) and do combat with the Monster (at a disadvantage) from in the pit!

In terms of this specific example, I have resolved this with a house rule. You roll to jump the pit as usual, failure results in you falling into the pit with the usual effects. Success allows you to attack the monster in the X square, if your attack leads to the monster being eliminated, then you land safely on the X square, failure to eliminate the monster results in you falling into the pit with the usual effects. I find this "jumping attack" adds to the drama in a satisfactory way.

Specific Points

I won't reply to all your points, as it was my intention just to demonstrate that the "clarification" leads to more questions than it answers, but there are a couple that I cannot resist!

Attacking is not limited to adjacent attacks. Diagonal and LoS attacks are nonadjacent examples of attacking. I see attacking from the same square as yet another nonadjacent attack...I believe the rules prevent a crossbow or thrown dagger attack within the same shared square space.

I agree that missile attacks would not be valid in a "sharing the same square" scenario, but hand-to-hand attacks are restricted under the rules to adjacent squares only (the four) or if you are suitably equipped the four adjacent and the four "corner" squares (eight in total). No weapon allows attacks on the same square as the wielder, the permitted attacks are against occupants of squares that are either adjacent, adjacent and corner or at a distance, none of which are true in this scenario.

If another character wants to try and pass through a square occupied by two other characters, a monster and a hero for example, how does the passing rule work in that instance, a hero cannot pass due to the presence of a monster AND simultaneously he CAN pass due to the presence of a hero

In your example, a Hero wishing to pass would first need to fall into the pit and take damage. He would then need to satisfy no less than two requirements: pass another Hero and pass a monster. The first requirement is allowed by the rules, but the second isn't. Logically, the Hero may not pass as one of the rules is not satisfied. Falling into the pit is therefore unnecessary and the Hero simply would remain blocked.

I agree with your logic entirely, but this results in a situation where a pit occupied by both a character and a monster, would block movement to any other figure, which is exactly the situation that already exists under the handling in the original ruleset, despite this new rule being introduced to change the handling.

Tangent

A similar situation occurs around another "space sharing" exception, the stairway tile, under 2nd edition rules a miniature never occupies the stairway tile...because at the start of the game "the character players place their miniatures on any square next to the stairway tile", at the end of the game "characters escape the dungeon by landing on the stairway tile" so their figure is removed from the board as they have escaped the dungeon, and "monsters may never land on the stairway tile", so there is no possible situation in which more than one miniature could be on the stairway tile at any one time.

It doesn't feel to me that clarification is required here, so I assume that the motivation was to change the behaviour, but again I'm not clear on why, or what was the intended outcome? That said I have only ever played through "the gathering storm" once under the 1990 remake ruleset, and that was just over a decade ago, so it isn't exactly my specialist area!

[Daedalus]

General Point

Aside from the specific points raised, I was making a more general point. The 2nd edition rules, whilst open to interpretation (as always), seem to indicate to me (I don't see any other valid interpretation of the rules as written) that you can't attempt to jump an occupied pit, as failure, which is a possible outcome of the attempt, would result in space sharing which isn't permitted in that ruleset. If the attempt could lead to a situation which is not valid under that ruleset then the attempt cannot be made. That said I do consider "how to handle this situation" to be a valid question under a theoretical master list of FAQs for that edition.

If it was the intention of the 1990 remake design team, to clarify this point and answer this outstanding FAQ, in their own edition, then I would regard the attempt as a failure, because a player approaching the team with one single question around handling a specific scenario, ends up walking away with half-a-dozen new questions that need answering about this same scenario, for me that isn't a satisfactory outcome or an effective clarification.

If, however, it was the intention of the 1990 remake design team, to replace this rule with a different one, then I'm not clear on why they want to change the rule or what they were hoping to achieve by the change. Your point around allowing a pit to continue to threaten characters even if it is occupied, I don't think is a valid one, because under the above interpretation the occupied pit would prevent movement through it, would be a threat to the occupant (in terms of the attack and defend dice penalty) and once it became unoccupied (either through the movement of the occupant or their elimination) then it continues to act as a threat anyway.

Your general point about an occupied pit not being jumpable in the EU rules is a good one and I agree with the conclusion. Not everybody playing Hero Quest on their own possessed the same insight, so yeah, we could speculate that Mike Gray had access to EU pit questions and was motivated to attend to the issue.

However, Mike Gray only needed his own accomplished game design instincts based on his own experience to want to introduce a space-sharing rule. Maybe this belief is based on my personal experience with my own play of HQ back in the 90s, but I feel it is likely that Mike Gray and any others of his design team intuitively assumed that a pit, "a covered hole in the floor", was deep enough to not only cause damage from the fall but also deep enough to allow a monster or Hero to jump over any figure within. (The introduction of a pit as a searchable area for treasure and secret doors supports this.) As long as the jumper has the movement and an open space to jump to, any Hero can attempt this if willing to risk BP damage in an NA pit. Monsters don't even face that penalty. This freedom of movement and potential BP damage to Heroes at all times (the main threat, penalties aren't always risked) is temporarily suspended with an occupied EU pit. I think Mike G wasn't comfortable with this kind of limitation where intuitively a jump over a Hero or monster--topping off at floor height or a bit above--should be possible.

As an example of what the change achieves, consider a single-square corridor with a Fimir waiting beyond a pit trap. A Wizard (2 AD, 3 DD, 2 BP) stops short, waiting for the sturdier Dwarf (4 AD, 5 DD, 5 BP) to also enter and then engage. The Dwarf charges into the pit, which reduces him to 4 BPs and ends his turn. With the EU rules, the Fimir can only attack the Dwarf who now rolls 3 AD and 4 DD. With the NA rules, the Fimir can automatically jump over the Dwarf in the pit and move to attack the squishier Wizard before he casts a spell, quite possibly killing him. In this case, the option clearly benefits Zargon's side. Heroes might also benefit from jumping immediately in other circumstances (chasing a thieving Gremlin, fore example), and even in the case just mentioned LoS would have benefited the Wizard had the Fimir chose to fight the Dwarf at the edge of the pit.

Specific Points

I agree that missile attacks would not be valid in a "sharing the same square" scenario, but hand-to-hand attacks are restricted under the rules to adjacent squares only (the four) or if you are suitably equipped the four adjacent and the four "corner" squares (eight in total). No weapon allows attacks on the same square as the wielder, the permitted attacks are against occupants of squares that are either adjacent, adjacent and corner or at a distance, none of which are true in this scenario.

Yeah, a RAW interpretation wouldn't allow two enemies to attack each other within a pit as weapons don't include the extra detail of shared spaces. I figure this wasn't added due to the rarity of the situation not calling for an extra detail on armory entries. Not allowing attacks confined within a pit certainly works, but I don't like that those same enemies can attack other figures outside. Perhaps a better solution is to restrict attacks to an unarmed 1 AD, the allowed minimum attack strength when attacking in a pit. Unarmed attacks aren't mentioned under the standard attack rule either, but they make sense in a liberal interpretation of attacking in a pit and so deserve inclusion, in my opinion. Sure, it would have been helpful if this had been clarified in the pit rules, but any interpretation of a rare occurrence seldom matters and so won't break or add much to the game. If I don't like it, I'm free to change or drop it as a house rule.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Maybe, it just feels inconsistent to me, the pit is now deep enough to be a searchable area and to be able to jump over any occupant, but if that is the case then surely a figure in a pit wouldn't block LOS but this rule isn't introduced? A pit is large enough to be considered as "a room in its own right" for treasure and secret door searches (although I still don't get the logic around why anyone will build a secret door within a pit if you need to risk breaking your neck each time you want to use it) then why not allow trap searches too? After all if you can search for treasure and find a trap then why not search for traps?

As an example of what the change achieves, consider a single-square corridor with a Fimir waiting beyond a pit trap. A Wizard (2 AD, 3 DD, 2 BP) stops short, waiting for the sturdier Dwarf (4 AD, 5 DD, 5 BP) to also enter and then engage. The Dwarf charges into the pit, which reduces him to 4 BPs and ends his turn. With the EU rules, the Fimir can only attack the Dwarf who now rolls 3 AD and 4 DD. With the NA rules, the Fimir can automatically jump over the Dwarf in the pit and move to attack the squishier Wizard before he casts a spell, quite possibly killing him. In this case, the option clearly benefits Zargon's side. Heroes might also benefit from jumping immediately in other circumstances (chasing a thieving Gremlin, fore example), and even in the case just mentioned LoS would have benefited the Wizard had the Fimir chose to fight the Dwarf at the edge of the pit.

Equally consider a single-square corridor with a Fimir waiting beyond a pit trap. A Wizard (2 AD, 3 DD, 2 BP) falls into the pit, ending his turn so he can't cast a spell, the Fimir could move to attack the squishier Wizard, quite possibly killing him, but if it is now the Dwarf's turn, under original rules rules he couldn't jump the pit, leaving the Fimir to attack the now even more vulnerable Wizard in the pit, under the remake rules the Dwarf CAN jump the pit and block the Fimir from getting to the Wizard.

There seems to be many scenarios in which the difference between the original or remake rules, may or may not favour one side or the other, but on balance it doesn't feel to me like a change that makes much difference on the whole, the effects appear to be neutral across the board, but in the processes breaks one of the fundamental rules of HQ, not allowing space sharing, which results in a load more unanswered questions.

[wallydubbs]

How would you handle the Warlock in Demonform? She may ignore pit traps, so I assume she can just hover over the trap and just end her movement on the pit traps while another hero passes her... What then?

When running Against the Ogre Horde I ran into this issue. If the trap was identified beforehand I allowed her to swing the Knight (clad in Plate Mail) over the Pit of Darkness safely across. How would you handle that?