Chests in corridors

[Kurgan]

The official HQ Companion App (v.1.82 anyway) lets you search for treasure and find the contents of the Chest (KK Quest 4), so I'd call that official. In some earlier versions of the App it said you couldn't search (citing the corridor rule), and fans complained, so they have fixed it.

Edit: I tried ROTWL Quest 2 and got the same results: success! Granted, the Companion App isn't always right (it has trouble understanding which corridor you're searching when at a crossroad, or allowing you to pass through another hero standing on front of a door, or letting you search when you can see monsters far off in nearby rooms or corridors despite you not being in the same one with them, let's you pass through certain furniture as a normal thing, etc) but the fact that they fixed it based on feedback makes me take that as a clarification that the old "fan" interpretation was correct ("special room" = room wasn't that hard to figure out).

Great thing about the App is that it allows you to play using many homebrew rules very easily. So you can choose not to search until you walk your hero up to the furniture piece, if you want to.

"Did someone say 'chests in corridors'? The only chest you need is right here!" (flexes)

[The Admiral]

The official HQ Companion App (v.1.82 anyway) lets you search for treasure and find the contents of the Chest (KK Quest 4), so I'd call that official. In some earlier versions of the App it said you couldn't search (citing the corridor rule), and fans complained, so they have fixed it.

Excellent, official confirmation that I'm doing it right. Thanks.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

When you put aside the Treasure Deck (as you're meant to do in 2nd EU rules for the Trial only) then a search for treasure has two outcomes: 1) nothing. 2) whatever the note says.

I think you have misunderstood the Introductory Rules in the Second Edition, no cards are used at all (except for the Monster cards) because the only action that is allowed is attacking. On your turn you can only move, attack and do a few free actions, opening doors and chests, looking. That is it. So a search for treasure doesn't have two outcomes, it has no outcomes as you can't search for treasure. It is the full game rules for use after the Trial that introduce magic, searching and traps.

The problem with introducing later rule clarifications in supplemental releases continues to this day, which is that you then are asking the GM to gather together all these notes and plan things out and you're asking the designers to maintain this jury rigged structure where new additions have to account for (but also change) previous installments. Instead I would just treat each expansion as its own thing and not apply note rules from one quest to the next unless the same book instructs me to do so. The coolness of whatever my inspiration is could lead me to take something invented in 2023 and project it into a quest from 1989 (or change a modern rule in favor of something invented thirty years ago in a secondary work) but that's every GMs prerogative.

And you are entitled to do what you like, but the official policy is that expansions may contain BOTH quest specific exceptions to the general rules AND may contain modifications to the general rules. I appreciate that may not be to everyone liking (I would prefer a living rulebook in this day and age for general rule modifications) but that doesn't alter the official approach which as you say still continues in the current version, so you can't just ignore that and state that quests only provide quest-specific exceptions to the general rules when they don't.

Rather than concluding the Quest is in error in this case and needs to be rewritten, possibly with a revision to all the searching rules (be my guest)

Already done.

It's not a problem, as I will just say you are allowed to search this corridor for treasure because it has a chest in it. I just wondered if there had been an official response, and it would appear not. I don't need to go down the path of saying this corridor is a room/closet/vestibule etc..

I'd say that the official answer is pretty plain and simple: that corridor is actually a room and functions like one. And I don't even need to go on X or discord and ask for a direct quote from AH to know that.

It is a rare moment, but I actually agree with Kurgan on this point although in terms of game play it probably doesn't make any real difference, but the official line is NOT that the presence of a chest in a corridor changes the rules to allow searching for treasure in a corridor, the official line is, and always has been since NA edition of KK and RotWL were released, that these sections of the board that meet the definition of a corridor but have a chest in them are actually rooms, both KK and RotWL explicitly refer to them as "a special room". So whilst this isn't my preferred interpretation I accept that it is the official rule and I wouldn't expect AH to issue an official response as none is needed, the official rule was given at the time.

[The Admiral]

It's not a problem, as I will just say you are allowed to search this corridor for treasure because it has a chest in it. I just wondered if there had been an official response, and it would appear not. I don't need to go down the path of saying this corridor is a room/closet/vestibule etc..

I'd say that the official answer is pretty plain and simple: that corridor is actually a room and functions like one. And I don't even need to go on X or discord and ask for a direct quote from AH to know that.

It is a rare moment, but I actually agree with Kurgan on this point although in terms of game play it probably doesn't make any real difference, but the official line is NOT that the presence of a chest in a corridor changes the rules to allow searching for treasure in a corridor, the official line is, and always has been since NA edition of KK and RotWL were released, that these sections of the board that meet the definition of a corridor but have a chest in them are actually rooms, both KK and RotWL explicitly refer to them as "a special room". So whilst this isn't my preferred interpretation I accept that it is the official rule and I wouldn't expect AH to issue an official response as none is needed, the official rule was given at the time.

Interesting, the two things I never acquired were the NA KK and RotWL, but as you say it actually makes no difference. But on a technical point of view the new rules supersede the old rules, so an official ruling from 1990 is replaced by an official ruling from 2021...in my opinion.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Agreed but I’ve never bothered acquiring the 2021 reprint so if your comments were around that then I have no idea!

[Kurgan]

I disagree with the notion that we were to invent a completely new mechanic for finding treasure in "the Trial." But, if you want to play it like that, you can. You could even imagine that you can keep using it throughout the rest of the game (you're free to do so). So you walk up to a Chest and open it... but you don't know there's treasure inside. Darn! Or maybe you know there's treasure inside and you can pick it up (and so there's no need to search for treasure unless there's no treasure chests in the area)!

But there again, there was nothing wrong with the "Search for Treasure" mechanic to begin with. The Treasure DECK is only ever used when there is an instance of searching but NO SPECIAL TREASURE designated in the notes. Hence, if there's a special treasure in the notes (as there is with "the Trial" in 2nd edition) it makes perfect sense. It doesn't mean that if you can't use the cards, that there's no way to get treasure, or you have to open chests manually to get it, that seems an odd way to approach it. I think the NA's version simply allowing everything again (including allowing the use of Magic again) was an improvement, in any case as it's a very tough quest as is, even moreso for a party's first outing.

I can't demand anyone accept that I'm right about this, because their personal preference will trump my private opinion. Even if AH announced it was official, people could still freely reject it. Yet, I think the simplest and most logical explanation of what they intended is once again, self evident. Nobody is forcing you to use it of course...

It's kind of nice to have the designers of the game (even if they aren't the original designers) available to answer questions and give their clarifications and whether they said X or Y about something, that's a factual thing that can be researched, regardless of how we personally feel on their "ruling." Back in the day if something was misunderstood and none of our friends corrected us, how were we to know? If there was something broken or vague, we just fixed it ourselves according to our imagination and experience. A few people wrote letters to Milton Bradley (and at least one published an answer, some of which was contradicted by later releases even before the Remake edition) and some asked at conventions. To me that's a bit like someone asking George Lucas what planet he thinks Yoda is from. He's most likely to make up an answer on the spot because he thinks it'll please the audience at the time, not it has any real bearing on the stories already out there. I get that we're talking game rules here. In the end we don't NEED an official explanation for anything, but to many it matters what the designers intended and they want to take that into account. When I'm making a ruling at my table, I will make my decision based on what I think is best, even if all of the internet were against me and even if the designers of the game think I'm wrong... because I have that right and those same designers acknowledge it.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I disagree with the notion that we were to invent a completely new mechanic for finding treasure in "the Trial." But, if you want to play it like that, you can. You could even imagine that you can keep using it throughout the rest of the game (you're free to do so). So you walk up to a Chest and open it... but you don't know there's treasure inside. Darn! Or maybe you know there's treasure inside and you can pick it up (and so there's no need to search for treasure unless there's no treasure chests in the area)!

I disagree with that notion too, but I'm not sure who is suggesting it.

In First Edition and Second Edition, you search a room (or passageway in First Edition but not Second Edition) for treasure and draw a treasure card unless the quest notes say that the room contains special treasure that is taken instead of drawing a card.

Entirely separate from that, you move adjacent to a chest and open it retrieving the contents, in exactly the same way that you move adjacent to a door and open it, both "free" actions that can be done with monsters present and as many times on your turn as your movement allows, nothing to do with searching for treasure, the two are independant mechanisms.

You find out what is in the chest by opening it and using your eyes, no need to search the chest to find out what is in it, you just open it and see the contents (or lack thereof in an empty chest) but opening a chest and seeing what is inside is not connected to searching the room and finding a Potion of Healing in an old boot in the corner of the room, why would they be, if the boot isn't in the chest.

You can search the room for treasure before or after emptying any chests, or without opening the chests, as the presence or absence of any treasure in the room itself is independent to the presence or absence of any chests. Placing a treasure chest in a room, or removing one, makes no difference to the presence of said old boot containing a Potion of Healing.

When I'm making a ruling at my table, I will make my decision based on what I think is best, even if all of the internet were against me and even if the designers of the game think I'm wrong... because I have that right and those same designers acknowledge it.

Keep beating that drum but the OP was around the official ruling.

[The Admiral]

Entirely separate from that, you move adjacent to a chest and open it retrieving the contents, in exactly the same way that you move adjacent to a door and open it, both "free" actions that can be done with monsters present and as many times on your turn as your movement allows, nothing to do with searching for treasure, the two are independant mechanisms.

You find out what is in the chest by opening it and using your eyes, no need to search the chest to find out what is in it, you just open it and see the contents (or lack thereof in an empty chest) but opening a chest and seeing what is inside is not connected to searching the room and finding a Potion of Healing in an old boot in the corner of the room, why would they be, if the boot isn't in the chest.

You can search the room for treasure before or after emptying any chests, or without opening the chests, as the presence or absence of any treasure in the room itself is independent to the presence or absence of any chests. Placing a treasure chest in a room, or removing one, makes no difference to the presence of said old boot containing a Potion of Healing.

Now I'm confused. This is how I've always played it because it made sense, but has that ever actually ever been official in any edition of the EU or NA rules?

[Kurgan]

What he's describing is homebrew... and would help the heroes because a Treasure chest room would get an action-less search of each chest PLUS someone could draw a card in the room (unless they draw a bad card of course).

The simple rule of thumb is that when you're performing a legal treasure search, the GM is looking at the notes. If there's no note of a special treasure, you draw from the Treasure deck. Where you're standing in the room doesn't matter (unless you're next to a monster, then you can't search, presumably even if he's in an adjoining room/corridor).

In the EU rules each room can only be searched for treasure once, while in the NA it's per hero (unless the notes say otherwise).

I may have been wrong about the 2nd edition version of "the trial" as it says "If the character player asks to look inside the Treasure chest..." which kind of sounds like what you're talking about. Why not just write "if... searches for treasure..." but apparently this is the one off mechanic for this quest. I stand corrected on that point Warrior, although it doesn't say the hero has to first move adjacent (irrelevant because there is no possibility of walking into a "trap" of any kind in this quest since the Treasure deck is not used at all). I guess this could mean you could look inside while monsters are still around, too (just not "next to" or "adjacent" to your figure). The rest of the quests though, no.

Again I have no problem with people playing the game how they want to (neither does AH!) but if you want to know what the rules were... here's how EU second edition renders it:

[Kurgan]

Here is how first edition ('89) renders it... and as we know it was the Maze which had no special rules noted. Note the terminology "characters" refer to "heroes" in these editions. EU editions don't have the wording "the first hero who searches for treasure..." because each room (or "passage" aka corridor in 1st edition as mentioned) can only be searched ONCE for treasure (rather than per hero, as in NA/remake editions).