Removing Falling Block Traps

[MonsterMotor]

Alright, I was very brief in my comments. So, let’s make the long story medium. I take the 1st edition as basis here, and I hope to get the explanation concise but accurate. Won’t do citations but I presume you have the book in front of you.

First, we have a few general statements of relevance. These stand for themselves and are not in conflict with each other, so they are generally in effect:

1. Under „searching:“ When a hero searches for traps, Morcar must reveal it. (That could mean putting down a marker or just pointing to the square with a finger. This is what I had meant with indicating where the trap is.)

2. Under „screen:“ Traps are triggered when a hero steps on a trapped field … or opens a trapped chest (not relevant here). This one should be crystal clear.

Maybe we also need:
3. Also under „screen:“ Blockades are defined, where they come from, and that they are impassable.

So far, so good. These general statements hold, but they can be further specified or even overridden. Specifications can always be made at will. However, overriding a general rule must be done explicitly. Otherwise, there is a conflict in which the general rule has the higher authority than a special one in such a case. For example, the wandering monster trap overrides the search mechanics in the BQ and EQ. That one is fine.

Will post the second half concerning our specific example later. But maybe you know already where I’m aiming at.

[MonsterMotor]

Now on the falling block trap: it has 2 spots in the text where it is specified further. This is where the problem arises:

a) The back of the screen contains the description what exactly happens when the trap is triggered. This description is clear and is not conflicting with any general rules, so it’s ok, and I won’t repeat it here.

b) The second and problematic specification is that a marker should be placed where the trap is located. That alone would not be an issue if one would use just a neutral marker, like a coin. The problem is that the required marker is elsewhere said to be a blocked square marker, which creates a conflict with general rule 3: the trap square itself is definitely not a blockade, and neither does the sentence b) redefine it as such.

Now let’s address the wrong way to resolve this because this is the main subject of the current debate. It is not allowed to assume that the trap was triggered by this search only because rule b) tells Morcar to place a certain marker that would have appeared also if the trap was triggered. The reason is that this would override rule 2, and that would be required to be written explicitly (e.g. „if the trap is found, apply the mechanics as if it were triggered“). It is mere (and unfortunate) coincidence that the mandated placement of the blocked square marker after a search is also part of the mechanics of the trap being triggered. Actually, even that is not fully correct because the marker would go on the trap square as result of the search (see 1) but on the arrow square as part of the trigger mechanics (see a).

Now, knowing this does not resolve the problem yet. There may be several solutions, but they must all result in b) either being truncated to create concordance with rules 1-3 (theoretically also a, but there is no conflict here) or being expanded to explicitly override them, which could lead to arbitrary alterations of the trap. This is pure houseruling now, and we don’t want that excessively here, so we aim for the smallest necessary modification.

Thus, the simplest way is actually to just slightly truncate rule b), i.e., indicate the revealed falling block trap by unspecified means different from the blockade marker, e.g., the coin mentioned above. If you do this, rules 1, 2, 3, a, and truncated b) can all live together in peace, plus the disarm rule, too. The result is the correctly repaired ruleset for playing the falling block trap with the smallest amount of arbitrariness inside.

I hope all this makes sense to you and you can see where exactly houseruling has to come into play and where it should not. (This was long story long, actually.)

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I’m trying, but failing to get my head around this topic (the issue is almost certainly my head rather than the topic…)

There's no contradiction in the rules as written that I can see. They're silly rules, but they do fit together. The trap tile you place on the board for a falling block trap is a fallen block. Trap tiles can be removed by the Dwarf or with a Tool Kit.

So first a recap

When I trigger a Falling Block (trap) either by searching for it or moving onto the square that triggers it, the Evil Wizard Player places a single blocked square marker onto the indicated square.

When I trigger a Pit trap either by searching for it or moving onto the square that triggers it, the Evil Wizard Player places a pit trap marker* onto the indicated square.

*Logically, if setting off a type of trap that results in a tile being placed on the board, then the tile placed isn’t itself a trap but is a “feature”, however the text used in the rulebook confuses this logic (for example the tile placed following the setting off of a pit trap is called a “pit trap marker” but should really be called a “pit marker” )

As a Dwarf or other Hero equipped with the Tool Kit I can “disarm traps”, which means remove the associated markers (referring to this as “disarming a trap” is a poor choice of words, as you are in fact removing the “feature”, the marker that was placed as a result of a trap being triggered, you are not disarming the trap in any way, but this is poor wording but isn’t neccesarily a flawed mechanism)

If, as a Dwarf or other Hero equipped with the Tool Kit, I can remove single blocked square markers that were placed as a result of a falling block trap being triggered, but I cannot remove single blocked square markers that were NOT placed as a result of a falling block trap being triggered, then I think that there is a contradiction here as the same marker is used in both instances and I have no way of being able to tell the difference leaving me in a position where I CAN and CANNOT remove a single blocked square marker.

1. Under „searching:“ When a hero searches for traps, Morcar must reveal it. (That could mean putting down a marker or just pointing to the square with a finger. This is what I had meant with indicating where the trap is.)

In both First and Second edition the term “reveal” is used as a shorthand for the evil wizard player placing the corresponding component (figure, furniture piece, tile, door and so on) onto the board, such as revealing the contents of the room, so within this context “revealing” a trap means placing the corresponding marker, unless of course for consistency you choose to just point at a square and tell players that it contains a closed door, table or monster rather than using the pieces provided with the game, but that wouldn’t be my preference.

b) The second and problematic specification is that a marker should be placed where the trap is located. That alone would not be an issue if one would use just a neutral marker, like a coin. The problem is that the required marker is elsewhere said to be a blocked square marker, which creates a conflict with general rule 3: the trap square itself is definitely not a blockade, and neither does the sentence b) redefine it as such.

Maybe we also need:
3. Also under „screen:“ Blockades are defined, where they come from, and that they are impassable.

If I understand this point correctly in that you are stating that placing a single blocked square marker onto the indicated square as a result of triggering a falling block trap contradicts general rule 3, then I would challenge this on the grounds that the general rule 3 doesn’t appear in the rulebook, to the best of my knowledge, so the contradiction whilst true, isn’t relevant within the context of the rules.

[Zenithfleet]

Alright, I was very brief in my comments. So, let’s make the long story medium. I take the 1st edition as basis here, and I hope to get the explanation concise but accurate. Won’t do citations but I presume you have the book in front of you.

OK, thanks. I think I see where you're coming from now.

I don't agree with your interpretation, though.


Firstly, what do you do about pit traps? The rules say that if you find a pit trap while searching, you place the pit trap tile onto the board. Suddenly there's an open pit where there was nothing before. The trap is placed on the board in an active state, even though it wasn't triggered by stepping on it. Does that bother you?

If you're OK with putting the open pit trap onto the board when it's found, then why not put the fallen block onto the board when it's found? The pit opens just because of searching. Why wouldn't the falling block trap fall just because of searching? Shouldn't the two traps be treated the same way?


Secondly, going into detail about your response:

I think the part that you refer to in b) should be higher up on the list of rules to follow. It isn't just an extra detail about the falling block trap. It's an important general rule for traps (as well as secret doors) on page 12.

Here's the full quote:


"Secret door tiles are only placed on the board if a player character finds them by searching. Trap tiles are only placed if found by a search or if triggered by a character moving onto the trapped square.
Spear traps are always disarmed when found, so there are no spear trap tiles. Pit traps and falling block traps are placed onto the board when found. They may later be disarmed and removed by the Dwarf or any character with the Tool Kit equipment card."
(1st edition UK, page 12)


This whole thing should be under your basic rule 1.

It's important because it tells you:
- what to do if you find a trap by searching
- what to do if you trigger a trap (which is explained in more detail in other places like 'The Screen' and on the back of the actual screen).

In both cases, you place a trap tile onto the board. Except for spears. (If the trap was triggered, there will be other consequences too, like getting hurt.)


So I don't follow your logic here:

It is not allowed to assume that the trap was triggered by this search only because rule b) tells Morcar to place a certain marker that would have appeared also if the trap was triggered. The reason is that this would override rule 2, and that would be required to be written explicitly (e.g. „if the trap is found, apply the mechanics as if it were triggered“). It is mere (and unfortunate) coincidence that the mandated placement of the blocked square marker after a search is also part of the mechanics of the trap being triggered. Actually, even that is not fully correct because the marker would go on the trap square as result of the search (see 1) but on the arrow square as part of the trigger mechanics (see a).

But the trap is not being triggered by the search. The trap has been found by a search.

It doesn't override your rule 2, because your rule 2 only covers what happens when traps are triggered. It only covers half of the possibilities.

The page 12 rules are higher level. They cover both of the possibilities: triggering and finding. 'When a trap is triggered, do this,' and 'When a trap is found, do this'.

In both cases, you place a trap tile onto the board.


I think this is the key point of confusion. In your first reply upthread, you said this:

I don't see anywhere in the rules that detecting a falling block trap and indicating the square on the board means that the trap is triggered immediately.

It doesn't. Detecting a falling block trap with a search doesn't trigger the trap. It finds the trap. And if you find a trap, you place its tile onto the board.

You place the trap tile if it is triggered or if it is found. The same for both pit traps and falling block traps. The only 'trap tile' for a pit trap is a pit trap tile. The only 'trap tile' for a falling block is a fallen block (blocked square). Both of these tiles show the trap already 'finished': an open pit or a fallen block.

Therefore, the part that you say should be written explicitly is already built into the rules as written. If you find a trap, it ends up just the same as if it had been triggered. It wasn't triggered, but it's still placed on the board in its 'finished' state. You must place its tile onto the board when you find it, and the only tile available is the 'sprung' trap. There are no tiles for unsprung traps.

The end result is the same. But you get there by two different routes. It's like starting in Melbourne and either driving to Sydney or flying to Sydney. You end up in Sydney either way.

(You could explain this in terms of theme by imagining Indiana Jones rolling a baseball down the passage and setting off all the traps one after another. Sproing! Sproing! Crash! He 'finds' the traps by safely setting them off from a distance. But in rules terms you're not actually triggering the traps--you're finding them and placing their tiles.)

Actually, even that is not fully correct because the marker would go on the trap square as result of the search (see 1) but on the arrow square as part of the trigger mechanics (see a).

That's a good point, and another reason why the rules as written are silly when it comes to falling block traps.

However, you could infer that since pit traps go on the board in a 'finished' state once found, and falling blocks are meant to be treated the same way, you should place the fallen block tile on the arrow square.

Thus, the simplest way is actually to just slightly truncate rule b), i.e., indicate the revealed falling block trap by unspecified means different from the blockade marker, e.g., the coin mentioned above. If you do this, rules 1, 2, 3, a, and truncated b) can all live together in peace, plus the disarm rule, too. The result is the correctly repaired ruleset for playing the falling block trap with the smallest amount of arbitrariness inside.

We both agree that this is a better way to play. We just disagree on whether this is a house rule or just a careful fix/interpretation of the rules.

In my view, what you're doing (which I also do) is a house rule that directly contradicts what the rules say we should do. To me the rules are clear, but silly.


Oh well, if we both get trapped together by a cave-in one day, we'll have something to argue about while we turn into zombies...

[Zenithfleet]

I’m trying, but failing to get my head around this topic (the issue is almost certainly my head rather than the topic…)

If it helps, my original point was that the UK/EU rules, in 2nd edition at least, let you disarm and remove open pit traps and fallen blocks. This renders falling block traps fairly pointless. However, the quests are designed as if falling block traps are permanent once they've fallen. Except, possibly, for Against the Ogre Horde, where some of them would be quest-breaking if they're permanent, but not a problem if played by the rules as written. It's as if the designers suddenly remembered that fallen blocks can be cleared away.

MonsterMotor then raised an objection about the wording of the 1st ed rules, which I wasn't too familiar with. I am now, though!

When I trigger a Falling Block (trap) either by searching for it or moving onto the square that triggers it, the Evil Wizard Player places a single blocked square marker onto the indicated square.

When I trigger a Pit trap either by searching for it or moving onto the square that triggers it, the Evil Wizard Player places a pit trap marker* onto the indicated square.

Just a point of order: in the 1st ed rules, you don't 'trigger' a trap by searching for it. You find it and place its tile onto the board.

MonsterMotor's first reply/objection was that there is no rule in 1st edition that you trigger a trap just by finding it. And that's correct. But it doesn't matter, because finding and triggering both do the same thing. They put the tile onto the board.

(I haven't always been as careful about this language as I should have been.)

[MonsterMotor]

I had feared this could get out of hand. Long story long means I really don’t intend to expand on this further, as I have to get other things off the table, including a bit of HQ stuff. I have not read the new prelude to the thread we were posting in originally and won’t do it now (if ever).

But I will respond to your 2-3 posts and then likely bury this topic. It just does not interest me enough for the time investment to formulate such explanations. And we don’t have a disagreement here on the practical solution anyway.

Before we start, I checked my two posts again for any errors, but they seem fine. This does not mean it is the only route to resolve this issue with the rules, but it contains about the shortest one that I could find.

Generally, rules stand by themselves, independently of all the game components. You could buy an empty HQ box and fill it up with your household items to represent all the things defined in the HQ rules. Importantly, the set of components must be able to represent the rules properly. While you may have a goblin miniature with an axe and another one with a sword to represent a goblin rules-wise, you may not use a single component to represent 2 different things. You can only do that if these 2 things follow the same rules. And this is the root cause for the (legitimate) confusion here (rules pg. 3, upper right entry). One must not represent a blocked square and a falling block trap with the same token because these are different things by the rules (they differ from each other in several aspects).

To Bareheaded warrior:

I believe you understood my explanations for the most part. However, as I explained, it is not possible to trigger a trap by searching. Only if the trap description would say so explicitly, such an event would be possible. I don’t know any type of trap that does it, and certainly not the traps from the base game.

I don’t understand your comment about my point 3, but it does not seem critical. What I call blockade is implicitly defined by the component „blocked square markers“. Such implicit definitions are not ideal, but acceptable to me. I was not sure how much of my point 3 I would really need in my explanations beyond the mere existence of the blockade, so I just wrote it down as a separate point. Initially, I had another route of explanation in mind, but that one would have been longer than what I later wrote up in my second post.

Will respond to Zenithfleet next time.

[Zenithfleet]

I had feared this could get out of hand. Long story long means I really don’t intend to expand on this further, as I have to get other things off the table, including a bit of HQ stuff. I have not read the new prelude to the thread we were posting in originally and won’t do it now (if ever).

That's a shame, but I understand. I find the topic interesting, because until now I hadn't talked to another EU rules player who shares your view. I thought it was commonly held that you put fallen blocks onto the board when found by a search, and that the Dwarf can remove/disarm them.

However, I also know that the more carefully I try to explain something, the more complicated it ends up seeming.

In fairness, though, you brought up the objection in the first place...

But I will respond to your 2-3 posts and then likely bury this topic.

Please do respond! I'm interested to know what you think. Especially about pit traps.


I'll reply to this comment now because otherwise it may get lost:

Generally, rules stand by themselves, independently of all the game components. You could buy an empty HQ box and fill it up with your household items to represent all the things defined in the HQ rules. Importantly, the set of components must be able to represent the rules properly.

I disagree with this statement. For some games, the components are important and the rules can't stand independently from them. For example, the component might be a particular shape so that you place it the right way up on the board, or so that you can tell it apart from other components. The rules don't always mention this sort of thing. I sometimes read a rulebook and think, "This doesn't make sense!" Then I pick up the physical component and think, "Oh, I get it now."

In the case of HeroQuest, consider the combat dice. The rules, at least in the 2nd edition, don't precisely define these dice. They don't tell you how many skulls, white shields and black shields are on a combat die. They just call them "special combat dice (with skulls and shields)". They mention white and black shields, but not the ratio.

If you just had the rulebook and nothing else, you might buy some blank dice and draw some skulls and shields on the faces. But you wouldn't know how many of each. You might guess, and draw two skulls, two white shields and two black shields. In that case you would completely throw off the balance of the combat system without realising it.

The rulebook never bothers to define the number of symbols on the dice. It assumes that if you have the rulebook, you also have the official combat dice that come with the game. Only by inspecting the dice themselves will you realise that it's easier to roll a skull than a shield, and that heroes are better at defending than monsters. Neither of those things are mentioned in the rules because the component itself takes care of it.

Effectively, the rulebook saves space by putting part of the 'rules' onto the dice themselves. The dice are part of the rules. To represent the rules properly, you must have the actual component (or at least you must have seen one so that you can make a copy with the same ratio of skulls and shields).

[...] you may not use a single component to represent 2 different things. You can only do that if these 2 things follow the same rules.

Plenty of games use a single component to represent two or more different things. For example, the boardgames Eldritch Horror and Cosmic Encounter both include a kind of 'generic' token. In Eldritch Horror it's a little round token with tentacles on it. That token has no intrinsic meaning. Every time you use it, it means something different. Sometimes the game tells you to put one on a space on the board, and what to do if you land on that space. Sometimes it tells you to put one on a card, and what it means in that case. And so on. In a single game you might have three or four different meanings for these tentacle tokens.

In HQ, we use the Chaos Sorcerer miniature for Sir Ragnar and the Witch Lord. But I think you mean two different things in the same Quest. In that case, you could have two treasure chests on the board, one in room A and one in room B. The chest in room A is a regular treasure chest... but the one in room B is a shapeshifting monster pretending to be a treasure chest, which will move and attack you! Same component in the same quest, but two different rules.

And this is the root cause for the (legitimate) confusion here (rules pg. 3, upper right entry). One must not represent a blocked square and a falling block trap with the same token because these are different things by the rules (they differ from each other in several aspects).

Oh wow, that's fascinating! I hadn't noticed the components list on page 3 of the 1st edition rulebook. It says "8 Single blocked square/falling block trap tiles."

That changed in the 2nd edition's components list, which only says "8 Single blocked square markers."

Once again the 1st edition is even clearer that you place a block when you find a falling block trap. It literally says that those are the falling block trap tiles. I had been inferring it because they're the only possible tiles available, but I didn't even need to infer it. It says so right there!

In that case, you're arguing that you can't represent the two things with the same token, but the rules explicitly do represent the two things with the same token. I find this a bit strange. Aren't you directly going against what the rules clearly state?

Overall it seems to me that you have a general philosophy or preconception about how games are supposed to work. When HeroQuest's rules as written don't fit your general view, you decide that the rules must have errors in them. But there are many different philosophies about how games are supposed to work.

However... a counterargument you could make is that, since the components list changed its wording from 1st to 2nd edition, there really was an error here and the designers changed the wording to fix it. But they still referred to 'trap tiles' for falling blocks in the trap and searching rules, which suggests otherwise. There is no other possible trap tile for a falling block in the game. They could have added a new component for a falling block that hasn't fallen yet, but they didn't.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Detecting a falling block trap with a search doesn't trigger the trap. It finds the trap. And if you find a trap, you place its tile onto the board.

Just a point of order: in the 1st ed rules, you don't 'trigger' a trap by searching for it. You find it and place its tile onto the board.

I'm not sure if that distinction really exists or if it does, whether it actually matters because whether you find a trap through searching (the easy way) or through moving onto the indicated square (the hard way), then exactly the same process ensues...
(1) The trap tile, if there is one for that trap type, is placed on the board
(2) A character in the square affected by the trap suffers the effects (as per the details of the effect)

This approach explains why the Spear trap is treated differently, assumed to be automatically "rendered harmless" if found through a search, as there is no situation in which a character could be in the square affected by the trap (step 2 above) because if a hero has already moved onto the Spear trap then they will have triggered it so it can't be found through searching at this point, if a monster is on the square containing a Spear trap then you can't search.

In your Indiana Jones example, he triggers the traps either (the easy way) without standing on them or (the hard way) by standing on them, in either case the traps end up being triggered.

And in the case where one hero searches for traps and finds a falling block trap, the result of which is that a single blocked square marker is placed into the adjacent square marked with the arrow on the quest map, and that square is occupied by a second hero, then I'm not convinced that the second hero will feel any comfort in knowing that the falling block that he is being hit by has resulted from the trap being "found" but not technically "trigerred"

Actually, even that is not fully correct because the marker would go on the trap square as result of the search (see 1) but on the arrow square as part of the trigger mechanics (see a).

Whether you find a falling block trap through searching or through stepping on to the square containing a falling block symbol, the single blocked square marker is placed into the adjacent square marked with the arrow on the quest map (under Second Edition rules), under First Edition rules I don't recall any mention of the "adjacent square marked with an arrow on the quest map" (what I refer to as the non-local effect) at least not in the rulebook, but it may be on the screen, as I haven't checked that for many decades.

If it helps, my original point was that the UK/EU rules, in 2nd edition at least, let you disarm and remove open pit traps and fallen blocks. This renders falling block traps fairly pointless. However, the quests are designed as if falling block traps are permanent once they've fallen. Except, possibly, for Against the Ogre Horde, where some of them would be quest-breaking if they're permanent, but not a problem if played by the rules as written. It's as if the designers suddenly remembered that fallen blocks can be cleared away.

Yes and I get that point (unless the falling block lands on you in which case it does have a point, even if it is blunt...) and I agree that there is room for house rules to improve, but before applying house rules I wanted to make sure that we were all agreed on the rules as written first, before looking to change them.

Generally, rules stand by themselves, independently of all the game components.

In theory a set of rules that is sufficiently comprehensive could exist independently of the game components, but only if that set of rules included all the constraints around the components (for example limiting how many of a component was available, defining the size of components e.g. a pit tile must only cover a single square on the board - as otherwise the rule for jumping a pit in the rulebook don't make a lot of sense if the pit marker used covers a 20x20 square area). In reality, and of more relevance here, in HeroQuest, the rules in the rulebook are less comprehensive as they are further detailed ON the components included, in terms of additional text on character boards, the screen, monster card, equipment cards, spell cards, and so on, or THROUGH the components included e.g. the rules don't need to state that you can't have two barbarians in the party, this is made clear by the fact that only one barbarian component is provided.

it is not possible to trigger a trap by searching

This is semantics only, if you define the term "trigger" as what happens when you move onto a trapped square, and "found" as what happens when you search for traps then you are correct, but as the process that results from both of these is identical, then the point is a semantic one only.

I don’t understand your comment about my point 3, but it does not seem critical.

I think perhaps that we are saying the same thing in different words...

The single blocked square marker (as labelled in the Second Edition component list) is used both to represent a blocked square that CANNOT be removed AND to represent the result of a falling block trap that CAN be removed. And this IS a problem...as it isn't always clear which is being represented, especially not to the (hero) player.

For example in the case of the “Barak Tor” situation, the tile CAN be removed in Quest 12 (as it was placed as a result of the falling block trap) or can be left in place if you wish, but by Quest 14, the same tile could arguably still be removed as it was placed as a result of a falling block trap in Quest 12 or cannot be removed as it was placed as a feature from the Quest Map in Quest 14...or, if it was left in place at the end of Quest 12, perhaps some monsters cleared in out the way and replaced it with a different but identical looking block between the two quests, in which case it can't be removed under the rules in Quest 14.

All of this feels overly complicated, and even to a certain extent presents a metaphysical paradox..."if a block falls in a dungeon and no one is there to hear it, can it later be removed?"

Fortunately fixing this problem is simple, you just use a different marker to represent the falling or fallen block marker that CAN be removed and the single blocked square marker which CANNOT be removed.

Interesting it appears that from the inclusion of two distinct types of markers in the North American remake, that they spotted this issue and implemented exactly this fix, however unfortunately having done this, they later revised the rules in this area, rendering the distinction no longer needed.

[MonsterMotor]

Now my belated brief response to Zenithfleet:
- Yes, you place the pit trap tile on the board when found by searching. No, the pit does not open because of searching. It was always there from the beginning, but it is concealed (maybe well camouflaged). Its danger is revealed by searching, and the marker indicates this by its presence (not by its appearance). Neither does the falling block trap initiate the collapse on its neighbouring square when the trap is found. Only the danger it poses is revealed by searching. Searching does not change the status of any trap. (It does so only for the spear trap, but that is written down explicitly.) So, yes, all traps are treated the same way.

- No, b) is a specification of 1 and holds only for the falling block trap, so it is less general. Each of the other traps have their own specification.

And on rules and components:
Yes, I agree with both of you that implicit definition of game rules by its components (and how they naturally function in the physical world) is a very natural and sensible thing to do, if done properly. I am fine with that and I would not want to read something like a novel just to have the all the ideal mechanics of a game written down exactly, either, only to a necessary minimum.

But if you write down a rule, it has a higher authority than what mere game component would naturally suggest you to do with it. And you may always substitute a component less suited to represent such a rule with another one that fits better (for example replace ill-manufactured dice.) This is what I meant by „stand for themselves.“ Does not mean that the rule cannot be flawed itself.

That should be all from me here. All have fun collapsing their dungeons!

[Bareheaded Warrior]

MonsterMotor wrote:
[...] you may not use a single component to represent 2 different things. You can only do that if these 2 things follow the same rules.

MonsterMotor wrote:
And this is the root cause for the (legitimate) confusion here (rules pg. 3, upper right entry). One must not represent a blocked square and a falling block trap with the same token because these are different things by the rules (they differ from each other in several aspects).

Plenty of games use a single component to represent two or more different things.

Amusingly you are both correct here, HQ and other games do use a single component to represent different things, but you can only do that IF the two things follow the same rules OR you specify each time it is being used what it is being used for (like the Chaos Sorcerer miniature which always comes with a description of what it is representing on this occasion)

The issue here is that the same marker is being used for BOTH a single blocked square marker (which CANNOT be removed) and the result of a falling block trap that has been triggered or found and has resulted in a block being placed that CAN be removed.

OR depending on your interpretation the same marker is being used for BOTH a single blocked square marker (which CANNOT be removed), the result of a falling block trap that has been triggered (which CANNOT be removed) and the result of a falling block trap that has been found but not triggered (which CAN removed)

- No, b) is a specification of 1 and holds only for the falling block trap, so it is less general. Each of the other traps have their own specification.

Now my belated brief response to Zenithfleet:
- Yes, you place the pit trap tile on the board when found by searching. No, the pit does not open because of searching. It was always there from the beginning, but it is concealed (maybe well camouflaged). Its danger is revealed by searching, and the marker indicates this by its presence (not by its appearance). Neither does the falling block trap initiate the collapse on its neighbouring square when the trap is found. Only the danger it poses is revealed by searching. Searching does not change the status of any trap. (It does so only for the spear trap, but that is written down explicitly.) So, yes, all traps are treated the same way.

Yes - The pit was always there and what makes it a trap is the fact it is hidden, and therefore finding it removes its "trap" status and just reveals the pit, at which point the marker is placed on the board, hence my point around it being a "pit" marker and not a "pit trap" marker, and the rules cover how you handle a pit (again "pit" not "pit trap" through the 'jumping a pit' mechanism).

But when we turn to the falling block trap then this same logic doesn't seem to apply...(I've just copy and paste the pit text and replaced the word pit with block)

The block was always there and what makes it a trap is the fact it is hidden, and therefore finding it removes its "trap" status and just reveals the block, and the rules cover how you handle a block...

This doesn't make sense as I don't think there are any rules to handle a situation where players know about a block that is suspended in the air waiting to drop on someone. The rules only seem to cover

a) How to handle the situation where the trap is triggered and the block actually falls (on someone or not)
b) How to handle the situation where the trap is found (but not triggered if we are keeping that distinction) but the marker is still placed on the board.

However yours is an interesting interpretation that hasn't occurred to me before so I'll try and get my head around it.

Focussing on falling block traps initially (and imagining that the game designers were considerate enough to provide two distinct tiles, the single blocked square marker AND a falling block marker as per the North American remake)

You could interpret the rules, so that searching for traps where a falling block trap is present would result in a falling block marker being placed and this marker would represent the presence of a falling block trap (but note the block has not yet fallen, the trap has not yet been triggered)

The Dwarf or Tool kit user could then disarm this trap, rendering it harmless, at which point you would presumably remove the falling block marker from the board and continue happily on your way without ever having placed or removed the single blocked square marker. And the Dwarf or Tool kit users could be said to have actually disarmed the trap rather than just removed the feature (the fallen block) as that was never placed.

The issues I have around this being a valid interpretation (although I agree that it may be a better end result - separate discussion around house ruling to follow once we have established how the actual rules work!) are:

(1) A separate marker wasn't provided although this point applies equally to both interpretations
(2) This interpretation gives a genuine "disarm" function to the Dwarf and the Tool Kit user, in the sense that they are disarming a trap and not just removing a feature, which is great...however as this doesn't apply to the pit (trap), where the trap isn't disarmed, but the feature can be removed, this introduces an inconsistency between the rules for the two different types of trap and the disarming of them, which is confusing! (this is a similar siutation as with the line of sight rule for looking and the line of sight rule for targetting with missile weapons, which are very similar but subtly different and which have caused and continue to cause decades of confusion)
(3) Which square are you supposed to place the falling block marker on, the square indicated on the quest map by the falling block icon OR the adjacent square where the arrow indicates that the block will fall, the rules don't seem to state this, but I would assume the latter.
(4) How you are supposed to handle this "hanging block" if the Dwarf isn't present (dead or not joining in this quest) and you don't have a tool kit available? Assuming it is blocking your route the only option appears to be to voluntarily step onto the trigger square and set it off, blocking the route (which may be fine)
(5) If you disarm it by being adjacent to the trap then which square do you need to be adjacent to, the square that sets the trap off or the square on which the falling block lands, if you fail.
(6) Whether you disarm from the square adjacent to the trigger square or adjacent to the square that the block will land on, if the disarmer fails the trap is trigerred onto a different square, so why do they lose BP? (tool kit user in First Edition, and both Dwarf and Tool Kit user in Second Edition)

Interpretation 1

Falling block trap: If you find a falling block trap through searching / or if you move onto the marked square then the "falling block/blocked square marker" is placed on the square that the falling block has fallen onto. At this point it is a fallen block (feature) and is no longer a trap.

Pit trap: If you find a pit (trap) through searching / or if you move onto the marked square then the pit (trap) marker is placed on the square containing the pit (trap). At this point it is a pit (feature) and is no longer a trap.

A Dwarf or Tool Kit equipped hero can remove the fallen block / trap feature from an adjacent square.

Interpretation 2

Falling block trap: If you find a falling block trap through searching then the "falling block/blocked square marker" is placed on the square that the falling block will fall onto, but representing the falling block that hasn't yet fallen, the trap that has not yet been triggered. At this point it is still a falling block trap.

A Dwarf or Tool Kit equipped hero CAN remove the falling block trap from an adjacent square.

Falling block trap: If you find a falling block trap by moving onto the indicated square then the "falling block/blocked square marker" is placed on the adjacent square indicated, but representing a fallen block (feature), the trap has been triggered. At this point it is a fallen block (feature) and is no longer a trap.

A Dwarf or Tool Kit equipped hero CANNOT remove the fallen block (in the same way that they cannot remove any blocked square marker)

Pit trap: If you find a pit (trap) through searching / or if you move onto the marked square then the pit (trap) marker is placed on the square containing the pit (trap). At this point it is a pit (feature) and is no longer a trap.

A Dwarf or Tool Kit equipped hero CAN remove the trap marker from an adjacent square (even though it is now a feature and not a trap)

Are we there yet?

Bearing all this in mind, and having I hope, arrived at two possible and possibly valid interpretations of the mechanism both of which I think are flawed, is it time to consider house ruling to fix yet?