by wallydubbs wrote:I generally go with the 3rd approach. You can't count monsters too, that's what Veil of Mist is for.
Otherwise Cloak of Shadows (from Rise of the Dread Moon) wouldn't need to make the distinction that the Cloak possesses the combined power.
I think I agree, as a native "1989 Original" player I would go with approach 1, but if I was a native "1990 US Remake" then approach 3 would be my natural go to approach. However both of these options still leave the following questions unresolved so I'd be interested in your point of view (I have included mine in brackets).
c) Would you allow passage through closed doors (secret or normal) under the influence of this spell? (I would)
d) How would you as EWP handle monsters revealed by this spell that are trapped as they "cannot" open doors? (I would allow monsters to open doors in this situation)
e) How would you handle the situation where squares behind the wall contain taller furniture that presumably blocks the moving figures vision? Would you still reveal the room contents as they look through the wall or make them step into the room, onto the furniture tile first, before revealing the room? (Under approach 1 I would lay out only the tall piece of furniture, under approach 3 I think I would lay out only the tall piece of furniture and would only lay out the rest of the room contents, if they moved "onto" the square occupied by the furniture)
Markus Darwath wrote:There is a slight difference though. The Dwarf opening a door with a monster immediately inside isn't attempting to occupy the square the monster is in and being halted/rebounded with opaque matter in between. Basically, it could be seen as a question of whether the hero has time to observe the whole room in the instant that he leans through the wall and finds himself with a facefull of monster. Again, seems like a Zargon's call kind of situation depending on the playing style of the group. I could even see someone going as far as using the hero's MP as a basis to decide how much they're able to notice in that situation. Certainly if this were a complex game like D&D the scenario would call for a skill check to determine how much was noticed besides the monster.
I can say that IRL I'm not very good at the game of briefly glancing at a picture and being able to identify what was in it. But again, that leans into the basic question of how much immersion/role-play does the group want in the game, given that HQ is a board game, but is also a dungeon crawler. Presumably, players are choosing HeroQuest precisely because it has a different feel vs. something like Sorry or Monopoly.
I think this is over-complicating the situation.
There is no suggestion that the time spent looking, or any other aspect of the looking function, would be any different whether through an open door or through a wall whilst under the influence of this spell, and the rules already state that other figures do not block seeing.
The Dwarf under the influence of the spell, like the Dwarf opening a door, isn't necessarily attempting to occupy the square the monster is in, he may choose different next steps depending on the outcome of the looking, but initially he is just looking. And the opaque nature of the material is irrelevant as he has already poked his head through it to look and under the influence of the spell he won't be halted/rebounded in his attempt to look, only to move onto the occupied square and we don't yet know whether he will attempt to do that. I don't think you can change the rules for the "looking" aspect based on what the figure may do, or may not do, next following the outcome of the looking. This seems illogical to me, what you see being based on what you choose to do after you have seen.
For me ideas like using the hero's MP as a basis to decide how much they're able to notice in that situation, whilst any house rule can be applied by an EWP at their own table, are too complex to be included in a HQ basic game, and to include them whilst under the influence of this spell, but not include them when looking around a figure in any other situation would just be introducing an inconsistency.
= white skull, one "hit"
= black skull, one "hit"
= shield, cancels out one "hit"
