Empty Treasure Chests ! (unmarked, official quests)

[Kurgan]

Unmarked is unfinished, in my view. Either put a note saying "empty" (or just a trap but no treasure, etc) or put something in it in the note. No note is a flub.

As Eudoxio pointed out in the HQF Discord, having a "Nothing" card on hand is always good for those kinds of situations (to annoy the heroes).

But seriously in the EQP it seemed pretty obvious they intended to put stuff in the chests even if those notes never appeared in the drafts either (it's easy to see how a mistake can be missed multiple times, especially by tired people on a deadline, been there, done that!) as they tended to be heavily guarded or at the end of a long gauntlet rather than just kind of out in the open as a decoy.

That and the blind trap jump/double jumping mechanic seem like things they really were working on, but ran out of time and nixed at the last minute not worrying about the consequences. Same with the odd searching mechanic in some of the BQP quests.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Having read this thread I’m a little puzzled (which for me isn’t an unusual state of being), if I understand the rules of both the US and UK editions then I think the following statements are true

1. You find treasure in a room by searching the room for treasure
2. You find traps in a room by searching the room for traps
3. The searching for treasure rules apply the same whether the room has no furniture, has furniture irrespective of whether that furniture is a cupboard, chest, bookcase, table, or any combination of furniture
4. Some rooms in the Quest Notes state that they contain specific treasure and that is the thing that is found when searched, some rooms state that they are empty / contain no treasure, and that ‘no-thing’ that is found when they are searched. Other rooms, the majority in fact, don’t have a statement either way.
5. For rooms that don’t have any statement, the rules clearly state that the searcher draws a treasure card which reveals the thing that is found (or nothing, explicit card in UK deck, and assumed from Hazard/Trap and Wandering Monster cards from both decks)

Bearing in mind the above I don’t understand the problem with ‘unmarked’ treasure chests. As j_dean80 made the point earlier in this thread this isn’t a problem. It makes no difference in the searching for treasure rules where in the room any treasure is located, so there is no need to indicate where any treasure found was located. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the Quest Creator adding some flavour with extra detail as to the dark dank hole that you may have to put your hand into to locate the gem, but there is no need within the rules to state where in the room the treasure is located.

In fact, when you really think about it, unmarked chests are not a problem, whereas chests that are marked as empty (as opposed to unmarked) are the ones that really don’t make any sense. If a Hero searching a room for treasure finds something and it doesn’t matter where in the room that treasure is found, then why add the statement that it isn’t found in the chest. It also may not have been found in the cupboard, on the table, in the bookcase, or any other furniture in the room, why state one of the practically infinite number of places where treasure potentially isn’t found? If I made a quest and added a Quest Note to a room, to state that any treasure found in this room, wasn’t found in the chest or the cupboard or the bookcase or on or under the table, then I think people would understandably find that very odd.

[Kurgan]

In HeroQuest, furniture is simply decoration (pretty obstacles that take up space)... until it isn't. To me it's not so much that unmarked chests break the game, that they make it boring and they reveal an obvious oversight on the part of the writer. Why place a Treasure Chest at all unless you planned to put a note with it? The designers of the EQP did this often enough that the Avalon Hill remake team addressed it in the book itself, and I am glad they did, not because the game was unplayable or we couldn't have fixed it ourselves, but it seems to lower the quality we expect from the game without it.

Meaning, the real deal in HeroQuest are the quest NOTES. These can be almost anything the quest writer desires. He can make all sorts of exceptions to the rules here too. Sometimes in a rush, one forgets to put the notes connected to the letter, leaving that particular encounter generic, even boring. A goblin in a room is just a goblin in a room until you add "H: This Goblin is a wizard who can cast firestorm and tempest." Suddenly the event is vastly different. But goblins aren't expected to have magic, so this is more of a surprise or plot twist. Treasure Chests on the other hand suggest hidden treasure so it's more about expectation...

All the Treasure Chest plastic piece is, is a suggestion, clue, hint, etc. that there may be a special treasure here. Yes, there are chests that are "empty" (that's what the note says) meaning the first person to search gets nothing. The other people who search get to draw a card as they would in a completely undecorated room or one with any other combination of furniture.

Other times you run across examples of treasure "hidden" inside a cupboard, or whatever, so it's not as if Treasure Chests are the only rooms that may have special (notes) treasure, it's just a suggestion, a tease, a hint... that by tradition Treasure Chests either contain something special that's good or bad (maybe both as in the case of a furniture trap that also contains a potion or something).

To me it's a bit like having a Weapons Rack, but every single time the weapons are chipped, rusted and broken there is nothing here the Heroes would want. At some point I'm going to want there to actually be a good weapon that can be found by searching, or else why would they even bother? (except to get that first "useless" search out of the way so that the other three heroes can start drawing cards, hoping for a potion or gold rather than the hazard or wandering monster!).

"Unmarked chests" is when using the NA rules the quest designers put a treasure chest in a room, especially if they surrounded it with powerful monsters... AS IF they were guarding something that when searched, provided a big reward (past tradition) and yet there is no note at all. A clear oversight. Even if the note simply said "sadly, the chest was a decoy, there's nothing new inside it" at least that would be something. The designers forgetting to put a note there leaves it open for Zargon to put whatever he likes, yes, but he can also change what might have been printed there. "A potion of healing? No way, I say it contains 5,000 gold coins and a potion of speed!"

Taking the game literally with no intervention or editorial oversight by Zargon (which is his perrogative) yes, an unmarked chest simply means "draw a treasure card" when searching (since there is literally no note, so no special treasure or trap), but that's the most boring solution, most I think would agree.

Some Zargons like to modify the quest and make it their own (or sometimes are forced to make adjustments on the fly due to some oversight of the writers). Others like to just play it as written.

Now in the draft notes for BQP/EQP/etc it seems the designers were toying with the idea of implementing some kind of targeted searching... such that you could search each individual piece of furniture of itself (I guess similar to how you can search a pit trap that you are in as a room unto itself) but no further details were given. Some might choose to play this way just as some choose to make acquiring the contents of a treasure chest an action (you have to "walk up" to the chest and then use an action to open and take whatever out... even though in the official rules picking things up is not an action or is a free action if you will).

Some little details in this game annoy people, while to others its a nostalgic part of the game. I'm not sure who really enjoys treasure chests that are just background decoration. No, most of the time you get excited because it might be something cooler than a card that says you found 25 gold coins (and in theory that card is still out there waiting for you to draw it, since the treasure chest search was its own unique thing, via the quest notes).

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I understand the desire to spice up some of the Quests and to correct where you think that the Designers missed something by mistake and that is absolutely fine and as you say it is the GM's prerogative but I'm really talking about trying to fully understand the official rules and make modifications to fix faults. For example,

All the Treasure Chest plastic piece is, is a suggestion, clue, hint, etc. that there may be a special treasure here. Yes, there are chests that are "empty" (that's what the note says) meaning the first person to search gets nothing. The other people who search get to draw a card as they would in a completely undecorated room or one with any other combination of furniture.

I understand that you are playing the default US rules here that allow each Hero to search a room once (rather than the one search per room, not one per Hero per room that I play) but that said I don't understand why a chest marked as empty means that a Hero searching the room would find nothing, he is searching the entire room, the fact that the chest is empty does preclude him finding treasure anywhere else in the room (indeed subsequent searchers do exactly that), surely in the official rules he would just draw a treasure card?

Now in the draft notes for BQP/EQP/etc it seems the designers were toying with the idea of implementing some kind of targeted searching... such that you could search each individual piece of furniture of itself (I guess similar to how you can search a pit trap that you are in as a room unto itself) but no further details were given. Some might choose to play this way just as some choose to make acquiring the contents of a treasure chest an action (you have to "walk up" to the chest and then use an action to open and take whatever out... even though in the official rules picking things up is not an action or is a free action if you will).

Agreed, there are a number of instances, mostly in later quests, particularly around monster and trap placement around chests (and the otherwise illogical Quest Notes that mention that a chest is empty) that kind of imply that there is an alternate rule version in play, intentionally or otherwise, in the minds of those creating those quests, which isn’t present in the rulebook or as far as I am aware isn’t documented elsewhere, so just out of curiosity what do we think that alternative ruleset is?

Off the back of this realisation I exclude chests (and later Tombs as both are 'sealed' containers) from the general room search in my own rules and introduced a new "LOOT" action, so that a Hero that is adjacent to a chest or tomb can as an action choose to 'loot' it, i.e. crack it open and pocket the contents (provided no monsters in the surrounding squares). I must admit that having played it this way now for a long time, it feels natural, but even the first quest that I played with this new rule, it felt natural, it felt to me and my players (and all the new players that I have introduced to it over the years) like this is how it should have been played from the start, giving treasure chests the special distinction that they deserve!

[j_dean80]

I rule it as if a note specifically says the chest is empty that there is no treasure in that room. Otherwise why specify? I don’t let any Hero draw a treasure card in that room.

[Kurgan]

Certainly that is one way to fix it.

Some people like the NA rules, some don't. EQP & BQP were made for the NA rules and so unmarked treasure chests mean they are the same as any other room... draw a card. That's just boring. The laid out treasure chest that's heavily guarded by powerful monsters leads the heroes to believe that there is a nice treasure stored there. They will even search for traps first to make sure it's not a furniture trap.

It was a clear oversight on the part of the designers since unmarked treasure chests really aren't a thing in the other official quests up to this point (the lone exception I found was the clear screw up in the NA edition of Lair of the Orc Warlord). Other chests will have some note about them, either a trap, "empty" or some sort of treasure. So when I see an unmarked chest I could "play as written" and just draw a card. Or I would, to keep it with the tradition of the game, as Zargon modify it by adding a note (which is the solution AH has chosen for the EQP lately... other than putting in a generic 200 gold in case they missed any!).

Again, Treasure Chest isn't a guarantee of a good treasure, but it is a visual clue of one. If it's "empty" or a trap only, then the notes will reflect that, normally. These packs were not well playtested at the time of original release. Other than Treasure Chests and Weapons Racks, no other furniture really has that reputation. The other furniture minis could indicate the room contain something but usually they're just dead weight... space fillers on the board for aesthetic variety only. But a room is a room, so you still get a card in those cases.

Otherwise are they saying that all four heroes each get 200 gold? I don't think so, and since they caught all the examples in the book, it won't happen, but it could save the honor of any Zargons writing new quests for this pack I suppose.

It's all Zargon's call in the end though. I mean you can search a room for traps and "no traps" still doesn't mean there are no "hazards" (which were literally called "traps" in the EU editions). Treasure found by the first hero in the NA rules are not found by the second hero (who could find different treasure and so on). Up to four treasure searches per room (4 heroes)! So the first person gets the notes, the others get the cards. I think we can agree that Zargon can make on the fly fixes, but it's better if he doesn't have to.

[j_dean80]

I think the bigger oversight/problem is chests surrounded by traps. It is pointless.

[Kurgan]

Indeed... at one point I think they were thinking of changing the rules, but they didn't, so it is a trap that is easily dodged... unless you are operating under the assumption (not spelled out in the rules) that you have to walk up to a treasure chest to search/open it.

[HispaZargon]

If I remember well, to open a treasure chest in the Japanese Edition requires to be adjacent to the chest as said in the Beginner Rules.

This is another point why I think the Japanese Edition tried to polish those topics from previous versions of the rules which could be improved.

Other clear improvements I remember in Japanese Editoon (could be more):

- Trap searching inside a room is allowed from outside, from the door, which allows fiding traps just adjacent to the door.

- Leveling-up rules for the heroes.

- Healing Potions can be bought in the Armory.

- Adjacent/Surrounding squares clarification included.

- etc.


This also remember me one of the big questions I have about HeroQuest story since I edited the translation of the Japanese Edition: Was Mr. Baker involved in the Japanese Edition design? I guess no.. but there are several details like those improvements which let me wondering he could be involved. If yes, maybe we could consider the Japanese Edition as the Director's Cut rules system? The final one he really would like to see on the boards?

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I rule it as if a note specifically says the chest is empty that there is no treasure in that room. Otherwise why specify? I don’t let any Hero draw a treasure card in that room.

I think if you are playing the US rule of one search per room per Hero (which I don't) then that interpretation certainly makes sense, but my question was less around "how do you handle this situation" and more around what do you think the motivations of the Quest Creator's were when they started to add "This chest is empty" to Quest Notes when I think that we all agree, in the context of the published rules that statement makes no sense.

Perhaps they meant "This room is empty of treasure" which is your assumption/interpretation but personally I think (or hope or prefer or choose wilfully to misinterpret) that perhaps the direction of travel was towards a distinct action to loot a treasure chest by a Hero from an adjacent square.

Just out of interest and I will check myself but when is the earliest example of this statement made?