Search – The Binding Topic

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Just to be clear, the original post above isn't intended as a list of suggestions to modify the search rules, it is intended as a suggestion to completely replace the existing search rules, so whilst you may choose to try it or not, it is a complete mechanism for searching rather than a pick 'n' mix. I do generally prefer small tweaks to remove flaws, inconsistency and lack of clarity, but as I have said before in this particular area of the rules there are so many flaws that a small tweak for each one adds up to a greater change that a complete rewrite.

Of course those all sound nice, not so much to make the game any simpler, but they would certainly make the game EASIER.

if I recall correctly, only two types of traps do instant, unblockable damage (and only two leave a "permanent hazard" though one does leave a persistent hazard that can be later disarmed if desired). Heroes already have to roll dice to see if the other types of traps really do damage, and so you'd be giving them yet another chance to avoid damage (and even remove the trap, which is unnecessary in the case of all but the persistant hazard traps, meaning basically a Pit or Fallen Block trap and to a lesser extent the Swinging Axe trap).

Under Second Edition rules, if you search an area for traps, then the traps are found and either automatically "made safe" or in the case of the Falling Block and Pit, the corresponding feature is placed on the board (if they are placed as a result of a search then they don't do any damage, generally). Only if you choose to 'disarm' (i.e. remove these two features) them under Second Edition is there a risk of damage.

Under North American Edition rules, if you search an area for traps then the position (and in some cases the type) of any traps is revealed. You then get the choice as to whether to avoid, jump or disarm them. Attempting and failing to jump or disarm them leads to the trap being activated. This means that typically a trap gets activated on a failed jump (a skull so 50%) or a failed disarm (a skull so 50%).

My proposed rules above as standard you need a 5+ on a D6 to "detect and disarm" a trap so you fail 4/6 times (67%).
Also under North American edition rules if you search for and find a trap then you have the choice of letting someone else deal with it, maybe you have low BP and don't want to take that risk, under my rules if you search or just move onto the trap then you have to handle it so I'm not convinced that this would make the game easier across the board (although it might in certain circumstances, such as a trap behind a door that in the official versions is undetectable)

I do think that it makes the game simpler, replacing three different sets of "search" mechanisms under the North American edition, treasure, traps and secret doors each of which has slightly different 'criteria', on of which involves the treasure deck and two of which don't, one of which can only be done in rooms, the other two in both rooms or corridors, replacing all this with one unified consistent "search" mechanism seems simpler to me

As Zargon I am perfectly fine with reminding the heroes if they already searched a room, so there will never be a problem with having to search for traps or secret doors multiple times (except on those very rare quests where special rules limit searches, see Forsaken Tunnels of Xor Xel).

I don't think, and I'll check as there are quite a few flaws listed previously on this post, that I included searching for traps and secret doors multiple times as a problem.

A hero searching a room for treasure isn't going to trigger floor traps, only active furniture traps.

Are you saying that a hero can stroll around the room searching every nook and cranny for treasure without any risk whatsoever of stepping on a floor trap located in that room?

I don't require players to walk up to a piece of furniture to search it or obtain the treasure contained therein.

This is a rule edition difference, I play Second Edition when you do need to be adjacent to a chest (or door) to open it (or disarm a trap on it), you play North American edition where you don't need to be adjacent to a chest to open it (but you do need to be adjacent to a door to open it, and you do need to be adjacent to a trapped chest to disarm it, possibly...)

It is a very rare case (I think two instances come up, both within the Frozen Horror, which I consider to be errors due to lack of playtesting) where the Disarming function can be used to "cheat" and avoid a trap one might otherwise trigger if one had to use movement squares to reach the trap in question.

I don't know what you mean here, could you please provide a little more information on this point.

EQP & BQP are fond of the "undetectable" traps, but even there my one concession (not required by the base rules) is to say there is some sense of danger (without noting the specific square). This alerts them at least that they should probably be jumping squares, but there is no guarantee they will avoid the trap, it simply gives them another "chance" to avoid them, using an existing, and even planned mechanic from the draft notes. Most heroes don't think to use it, so I have yet to come across any "bunny hoppers." Rolling a white shield is rather difficult, so jumping two squares (in the hopes that they are not traps) is not much of a cheat, in my mind.

My issue with "blind jumping" and "double blind jumping" isn't so much that they are a cheat, just that they are unnecessary and inefficient.

Both the disarm and jump mechanisms are existing mechanisms, the difference is that the North American edition expanded heroes ability to jump (previously restricted to pits only in SE) so that it covered discovered but not yet disarmed or activated traps (because there was no other way under NA rules for heroes that were not the Dwarf or didn't have a tool kit to handle them), my version covers this same gap by extending "disarm" so that all heroes can use it. This avoids the need for heroes to jump detected but not activated traps, and squares that may or may not have a trap on them, and even double squares of which one or the other or both or neither may or may not hide traps (a situation that is possible on every square on the board). My mechanism is far simpler, step on the square, if there isn't a hidden trap then you carry on, if there is a hidden trap you get a chance to make it safe, fail and it is activated.

So yeah, you choose you how play, I don't think I'll implement any of those. The one idea I think appealed to me was the one where if you happen to step on the exact square of a secret door tile, you find it, but to me that simply removes the need to expend an action to search... that will just encourage heroes to walk around the perimeter of each room, and doesn't end up saving any real time. Most heroes I see just move through a room, they don't stop to maneuver around unless they are doing so in combat.

You are adding your assumption to my proposal, that it is intended to save time, and then disagreeing with your added assumption. The purpose of these proposed changes isn't to save time, it is to simplify, clarify and fix flaws within the existing search mechanism.

Occasionally I will get heroes who like to role play walking up to chests, but I have had the interesting fact of heroes regrouping to reduce the impact of Wandering Monsters. These packs LOVE to give them in multiples... so edging your hero into a corner, and the other heroes providing a protective screen (or at least bunching up in corridors) helps prevent them getting picked off and killed in this fashion (especially the poor Wizard!). That to me is just good strategy to beat what was put out before them. I could simply rewrite the quest to remove all the times they'd want to use that I suppose, but I'd rather see if they can win it the way it was written.

I agree it is a valid tactic, the issue that I have with this particular exploit is that it doesn't make sense. The monster cannot sneak up and attack me because I am boxed into a corner protected by a wall of heroes, fine, so how did I remain in that position of safety whilst searching the whole room?

[Daedalus]

Turning to NA Edition for inspiration – what has changed in this area?

2. Why do you need the complicated addition of declaring that you are intending to movement onto a suspect square in order to attempt to disarm it, what other possible reason would there be for moving onto a suspect square?

A Hero has a reason to dodge a spear trap so that he can avoid damage and continue movement. This matters in the case of the Dwarf whose successful die results differ between dodging and disarming. If he opts to disarm (anything but a ), he will end his turn on the trapped square whether the disarm attempt is successful or not. If he instead opts to dodge the trap (anything but a ), he may continue movement if successful. Unless a declaration is first made when moving onto the spear-trapped square, a less-than-honest player is free to tailor his choice to the die result after rolling and claim the action that suits him best. Roll a or : "the Dwarf dodges and continues moving" / roll a : "the Dwarf stops and disarms the trap."

3. Under NA edition rules you don’t have to move adjacent to a chest in order to retrieve the contents, you just search the room for treasure, so why should you have to move adjacent to a trapped chest in order to disarm the trap.

This ruleset leads to some situations that range from the slightly odd to the really bizarre, some examples below.

A. Player 1 walks into an otherwise empty room, containing a chest, and being the cautious type, he stops just inside the door and uses his action to search for traps, revealing that the chest is indeed trapped. This ends his turn 1. On his next turn he uses his movement to move adjacent to the trapped chest and attempts to disarm the trap. For this example, let’s assume he is successful, and the nasty spring-loaded dart trap is now made safe. Using his action for the disarm ends his turn 2. Turn 3 he decides to move back to his former position by the door ending his movement and then uses his action to search for treasure, remotely picking up the treasure from the chest on his way out. Odd and slow, 3 turns in all.

B. Same scenario but once player 1 has, on his second turn, successfully disarmed the chest trap, the next player, player 2, moves into the room, ending his movement on the square just inside the door, and then uses his action to search for treasure, remotely stealing the contents of the now disarmed chest, literally right under the nose of player 1, from across the room. Again odd.

C. Same scenario but this time player 1 enters the room, moves to the square adjacent to the chest and then searches for traps, revealing the trapped chest and ending his turn. Player 2 then moves into the room, stopping on the square inside the door, and decides to use his action to search for treasure, this has 2 consequences, first it sets off the trapped chest, the spring loaded dart, zipping around the head of player 1, darting across the room and hitting player 2, second the 50gc held within the chest jumps out and the shower of gold coins whips passed the head of player 1 and darts across the room into the backpack of player 2. Player 1 is presumably dodging and weaving like Neo at this point, which may explain the lack of missile weapons in the hands of monster in the game system, as presumably they wouldn’t stand a chance of hitting our heroes…

I think there's room for interpretation as to where a Hero is positioned when disarming a chest trap: he must either be adjacent to the chest as you suggest or he may be anywhere else in the room. I arrived at the latter understanding for a few reasons:

1. Traps are various, but as to where the Hero must be for a disarm attempt they come in two types. The first, located on an apparently empty square/squares, is triggered by movement while the second, located on a chest/furniture, is triggered by a premature search for treasure.
2. A Hero figure isn't moved as part of any of the three search actions, but assumed movement is basically detailed in the Search For Treasure section and the concept can easily apply for searches for traps and secret doors within rooms as well. (At least, I prefer it to a separate concept of remote searching by sight alone. Yet long corridors and otherwise inaccessible features can require imagining remote searching by sight as the best explanation.)
3. Heroes and monsters may not occupy the same square space as a chest/piece of furniture unless specifically called for in the Quest Notes.
4. The Disarm A Trap section on p. 21 specifies that a Hero must move onto the trapped square (adjacency is not mentioned).
5. Since #3 and #4 aren't compatible, normal movement can't be used. Like the search actions, I figure that assumed movement is in play.

Though requiring an adjacent chest disarm is both a valid and intuitive judgement, implementing the concept of assumed movement largely solves the oddness of your three examples:

A. Player 1 takes three turns to search for a chest trap, disarm it, and then find the treasure. This is all done from the same empty square. It's slow, but at least consistent. If one chooses, the Hero can be thought to move to the chest, find a trap, disarm it, loot the treasure, and then finally return to his starting location on his third turn (even though the figure never changes location on the gameboard, that must be hand-waved).

B. Both player 1 and player 2 can attempt their actions while starting from across the room, even next to each other. When player 2 moves in to grab the treasure, player 1 isn't at the chest as his assumed movement has already returned him to his starting location.

C. Both player 1 and player 2 may be positioned next to each other from across the room, so no weird dodging is necessary. Player 2 can be imagined to be struck by the dart during his assumed movement to the chest as he opened it (part of his search for treasure action). Player 1 can safely chuckle at his fellow Hero's foolishness, as his assumed movement had already returned him to a safe viewing distance on his own turn.

Of course, assumed movement requires partially suspending immersion in favor of rule simplicity. My group was initially was bothered by this, but we came to accept it over time, partly as a trade-off for its slightly quicker play. Though it's just speculation, I suspect this gamey element was introduced as a result of GW playtesting with Jervis Johnson, someone I have read at the Inn was known for reductive rules back in the day. But I suppose Stephen's playtests with kids could have been enough to implement this apparent ammendment instead.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Just mentally dusting off this area of my brain to remember what this topic was about!

Essentially I, and I suspect most of us, intuitively get most areas of the HQ rules, the details of exactly how some of them work, and why, might be a little patchy, but the basic concept behind attacking, defending, moving, opening doors, casting spells, disarming traps and so on are all relatively easy to grasp. Even searching a room for treasure, you look around the room and identify areas that have the potential for holding loot, a pile of bedding in a corner, an old boot, a wall hanging that might be concealing something behind it, an item of furniture that might contain something of use, and then you move to, investigate and potentially find something, or nothing. All simple enough to grasp, however when it comes to searching for traps, I seem to struggle to grasp the concept.

The dungeon containing hidden and devious devices to entrap the unwary, is absolutely fine, and the idea that when heroes move around the dungeon they would need to keep their eyes peeled for indicators that a trap might be hidden somewhere on their path which they may or may not spot before it is too late is again fine. However given that traps are hidden, are not laid out on the board in the same way as other things (furniture, doors, monsters), suggests that they are not visible, at least not from a distance, in the same way as most other things. The idea that you can stand inside the doorway of a room, or at the end of a passage and visually scan the area, revealing hidden traps, makes no sense to me as they are hidden, if they were visible then they would have already been placed on the board. So standing still and scanning doesn't make a lot of sense, so perhaps movement is involved. If searching for traps includes movement (actual or assumed) then you could consider the following:

1) If movement and searching for traps go hand-in-hand then, outside of a combat situation, why wouldn't heroes when moving always be scanning for traps, as traps are hidden and you don't know where they are located, why would you ever stroll along oblivious to the possibility of something that might result in you being injured or maimed? The logic doesn't make sense to me...

Wait, I'm searching this passage for traps
Why?
Doh, because I think there might be a trap
What makes you think there might be a trap here?
Errr... the absence of any indication of the presence of a trap...
Didn't the last passage also have no indication of the presence of a trap?
Well...yes
In fact don't all passages have no indication of the presence of a trap?
Well...yes
So do you search all of them?
Err...no
Why not?
It makes the game take too long and makes it boring
Stay in character!
Sorry...errr...I don't know and this conversation is making my head hurt, fine I won't search this passage for traps
steps forward and is decapitated by a swinging blade
which is exactly why the Barbarian should always lead the way!

2) If searching for traps whilst moving (combined) was a thing then you would imagine it might take place at a cautious pace, at a reduced speed than just standard movement or combat movement, perhaps D6 squares rather than 2D6*, but in fact the rules work in completely the opposite way, you can search for traps and your assumed movement covers a far greater area than you can move in a single turn, up 30 squares (this figure varies based on rulesets and interpretations) and then having completed the search with assumed movement, you can then still on the same turn move 2D6 squares. It makes no sense to me that a turn in which you both move and carefully search for traps, you can cover far more ground than a turn in which you just move.

*In fact in HQ the real-time taken to complete a turn isn't ever specified (technically a complete round of turns) unlike in some games where a turn might represent a minute of real-time or 5 minutes or whatever. Some games similar to HQ, like AHQ, for example split turns into two distinct categories, combat and exploration, and the real-time that a turn or round takes is defined differently, a typical combat round lasts around 10 seconds whereas a typical exploration round lasts around one minute. HQ simplifies all of this and just has one standard turn type but there is nothing that suggests the real-time is "fixed" in the sense that a turn that takes place with all four heroes in a room with half-a-dozen monsters might represent 10 seconds of real-time, whereas a turn that takes place with all four heroes wandering through empty passages might represent one minute of real-time. This allows us to imagine that moving 2D6 squares in a combat situation, in a 10 second period, represents rapid movement, where moving 2D6 squares in a non-combat or exploration turn, over a one minute period, represents slower, more cautious movement (hence why you can't spot traps when monsters are present)

As already mentioned in earlier posts you also have the problems with "search for traps and movement" around finding a pit trap located after another pit trap in a single-square passage, finding traps located on the other side of a junction, whilst not revealing the monsters hidden around the corner and various other inconsistencies.

3) Other innovative suggestions around how searching for traps is supposed to work include rolling a rock (or the head of an enemy) down a passage in order to safely trigger traps remotely, whilst very imaginative, is still flawed (finding a pit trap located after another pit trap in a single-square passage), the fact that according to the rules found traps are NOT triggered because they can still be disarmed and so on.

So it is an area of the rules where I just don't really get the concept, so at my table I have just scrapped the search for traps (and search for secret door) actions entirely and incorporated the ability to spot or "detect & disarm" into standard movement, opening (doors and containers - certain types of furniture) and searching (for treasure in rooms)

Turning to NA Edition for inspiration – what has changed in this area?
2. Why do you need the complicated addition of declaring that you are intending to movement onto a suspect square in order to attempt to disarm it, what other possible reason would there be for moving onto a suspect square?

A Hero has a reason to dodge a spear trap so that he can avoid damage and continue movement. This matters in the case of the Dwarf whose successful die results differ between dodging and disarming. If he opts to disarm (anything but a ), he will end his turn on the trapped square whether the disarm attempt is successful or not. If he instead opts to dodge the trap (anything but a ), he may continue movement if successful. Unless a declaration is first made when moving onto the spear-trapped square, a less-than-honest player is free to tailor his choice to the die result after rolling and claim the action that suits him best. Roll a or : "the Dwarf dodges and continues moving" / roll a : "the Dwarf stops and disarms the trap."

Good spot, and you are correct in terms of a direct response to my question but it is still an interesting area. The 1990 remake rules;

1) add an exception for the Spear trap to the common rule that triggering a trap ends your turn.
2) add a rule that disarming ends your turn whether successful or not (I'm not that familiar with the 1990 remake rules so I'll take your word for this).

As a result of these two additions, they created exactly the loophole that you describe, so had to...

3) add a third rule to close that loophole, by ensuring that you declare your intentions before moving onto a trapped square.

Three new rules, the first of which appears to be, in my opinion, of limited value, how much improved gameplay results from making this exception to the working of a Spear trap? The second the limit on the dwarfs ability to disarm multiple traps (and the inconsistency between that and the Tool kit, and the possibility that the Dwarf could use the Tool Kit to disarm multiple traps) again this seems of limited value, especially when you consider the only reason that I can think of to limit the dwarf's ability in this space (and personally I wouldn't) is because of his increased odds of success, but it was the 1990 remake that also

4) increased the odds of the Dwarf successfully disarming a trap from 50% to 83%

So rule change (4) creates the very issue that needs rule change (2) to be introduced to fix it, and rule changes (1) and (2) in combination create a loophole that rule (3) needs to be introduced to fix. So 4 new rules introduced, or at least rule changes, and the net result is minimal, if any, improvement in gameplay in exchange for an increase in complexity. I'm not sure that for me this meets the principle of only introducing more complexity where the result is a significant improvement in gameplay.

I'll come back to your last point around positioning in relation to opening chests later...