Potions, Traps and Throwing Weapons

[knightkrawler]

I replace room or corridor with area, unless it's specifically 1 or the other.

Exactly my terminology.
A corridor section includes both corners/crossings.

[Daedalus]

As I stated earlier, I allow a thrown weapon to be recovered as a special treasure search action that may also be done in corridors (I use NA rules.) Then Anderas' post sparked an idea...

For treasure search, i state that you:
* Take a treasure card
* find thrown cards if the enemy that you threw at was in this room
* find dropped equipment and equipment of dead heroes
if the room was never out of sight since the throwing, dying or dropping took place.

So throwing and finding is two actions in total, whereas the finding is put together with the treasure search, so it shouldn't stretch the game.

...and GimmeYerGold's next post confirmed it:

Combining the recovery of thrown weapons with another search is a good idea to speed things up, and fits thematically. Since the hero is drawing a treasure card as well, with a chance for finding treasure or trouble, I feel that it is reasonable that a Hero may encounter a Hazard or Wandering Monster while searching for their lost dagger or handaxe as well.

My reworked rule is to allow thrown weapons to be recovered by a special treasure search action in a room or corridor, as before. In addition, the Hero draws a Treasure Card. If the card is treasure, discard it. Wandering Monster and Hazard cards apply as usual.

The idea is to include a cost for retaining a valuable weapon. Losing a treasure search action isn't enough of a penalty, in retrospect.

[mitchiemasha]

So does this mean we can make it an official Forum rule. I vote yes... "Thrown weapons are found if the room is searched"

[HispaZargon]

3 Throwing Weapons

According to the rules- When you throw a spear or hand axe you lose it.

I don't think this makes much sense either. Why would you lose it? Surely you would just go and pick it up, or pull it from your victims body?

We play it so you can re-use thrown weapons, I don't see anything wrong with this. The location of the thrown wepon is marked with an upside-down tile. Monsters can also pick the weapon up and throw it back, if they have the intelligence to.

About this topic, yes I also think it is unbalanced, so this is how I play: The weapon is only lost forever if at least one Black Shield is rolled in the Attack rolling of the hero. Otherwise, the weapon could be later found by a search action in the area of the board where the target was placed.

This rule fix will consider the weapons which rolls more attack dice would be lost easier, but I like it to avoid having too overpowered throwing weapons which cannot be lost as easy as in the official rules, otherwise they could break the game. Additionaly, we can interprete that probably their weight is higher so probably they could be broken easier. For me losing them does not mean only that they cannot be found, it could also be that they could be broken.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

The weapon is only lost forever if at least one Black Shield is rolled in the Attack rolling of the hero. Otherwise, the weapon could be later found by a search action in the area of the board where the target was placed.

This rule fix will consider the weapons which rolls more attack dice would be lost easier, but I like it to avoid having too overpowered throwing weapons which cannot be lost as easy as in the official rules, otherwise they could break the game. Additionally, we can interpret that probably their weight is higher so probably they could be broken easier. For me losing them does not mean only that they cannot be found, it could also be that they could be broken.

Throwing weapons are only lost/damaged beyond repair if you miss i.e. all shields on your attack roll, but otherwise can be recovered by moving to the target square or automatically if the area is searched.

This encourages the use of throwing weapons and therefore actually increases the gold drain for Heroes as 'throw it and lose it' tends to translate into 'don't throw it'. This method also means the cheaper weapons such as daggers that roll less dice are more likely to be lost / damaged beyond repair which seems appropriate.

I think we are very closely aligned on this, just leaning in opposite directions, your approach makes the higher AD presumably more expensive weapons more likely to be lost (and therefore less likely to be thrown or bought), mine goes the opposite way making the higher AD, more expensive weapons less likely to be lost (and therefore more likely to be thrown and bought). Both increase the likelihood that throwing weapons will be purchased and used compared to the official rules, but unsurprisingly I prefer my leaning...as yours moves more towards the original as the AD increases...which whilst that has a neat application of the law of diminishing returns making hypothetical higher AD throwing weapons less appealing, it also makes them less likely to be bought or used which for me reduces the effectiveness of the rule change which is to make throwing weapons more likely to be bought and used). Also, smaller weapons you would think are more easily lost...

Crunching the numbers to see what the actual difference is between these two approaches

Dagger/Throwing Knife (1AD) - at least one black shield = 16.67% v all shields = 50%
Hand/Throwing Axe (2AD) - at least one black shield = 30.561% v all shields = 25%
Hypothetical Throwing Weapon (3AD) - at least one black shield = 42.136% v all shields = 12.5%

[HispaZargon]

Well, it is true that my first idea probably penalizes in excess the bigger weapons, however I think your method penalizes in excess the smallest ones since it does not give the change to recover them if they do not impact the target (= rolling skulls), which I think is too unrealistic. Therefore I think probably the best solution would be in a middle point of both approachs.

Then, what if the weapon is only lost if all Attack dice roll White Shields? This would give us the following probabilities of losing the weapon:

Dagger/Throwing Knife (1AD) all white shields = 33.33%
Hand/Throwing Axe (2AD) all white shields = 16.67%
Hypothetical Throwing Weapon (3AD) all white shields = 8.33%

Another point we have not talk about is if we should limit the range of the throwing weapons. Attending to the miniatures size compared with the squares size, for me has been always quite difficult to believe that a dagger may be thrown in a perfect straight line and keeping all its poor aerodynamic properties through 25 squares of the board, so my answer is their range should be limited. In my games I use to limit it to the same number of squares as the number of starting Body Points the Hero who throws the weapon has (8 squares range for the Barbarian, 7 for the Dwarf, etc.).

And finally those all previous thoughts have remember me the Bandolier official rules of the remake. They basicaly suggest that the Bandolier has infinite daggers inside, well, of course if the Bandolier is not magical, that should be imposible, and maybe the real meaning of those rules is the Rogue probably uses to recover most of the daggers he throws, so we can assume he has access to infinite ones, but he does not own infinite ones there. Then, again it seems that the classic rule of losing the weapon when thrown has been always a bit crazy and now Hasbro tries to bypass it in some way with this item because they wanted to have a Hero specialized in throwing weapons. Just thinking aloud...

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I think your method penalizes in excess the smallest ones since it does not give the change to recover them if they do not impact the target (= rolling skulls), which I think is too unrealistic.

Perhaps but if a Dagger/Throwing Knife only costs 25gc then as a hero I'm not that bothered whether I have a 50-50 chance of losing it, I'd still buy and use it when required. A Hand/Throwing Axe at 150gc would be a harder call and is more where this rule needs to be focussed.

Then, what if the weapon is only lost if all Attack dice roll White Shields? This would give us the following probabilities of losing the weapon:

Dagger/Throwing Knife (1AD) all white shields = 33.33%
Hand/Throwing Axe (2AD) all white shields = 16.67%
Hypothetical Throwing Weapon (3AD) all white shields = 8.33%

I did originally consider this and I think it is workable, my only concern (and it is a minor one) is that my proposal uses an existing idea, a "miss" that is already detailed in the game as "rolling no skulls" so I'd prefer to re-use that than need to create a new idea of a "miss but still recover" and a "miss and lost/broken"

With my current (more mature) group I use the "Super HeroQuest Rule" that you can see in my signature and under that rule a "miss" only occurs on (white) shields anyway so no discrepancy.

I'm happy to go with the throwing weapon is lost if all white shields are rolled on the attack dice for the Polishing the SE, if there are no other objections/suggestions/improvements

Another point we have not talk about is if we should limit the range of the throwing weapons. Attending to the miniatures size compared with the squares size, for me has been always quite difficult to believe that a dagger may be thrown in a perfect straight line and keeping all its poor aerodynamic properties through 25 squares of the board, so my answer is their range should be limited. In my games I use to limit it to the same number of squares as the number of starting Body Points the Hero who throws the weapon has (8 squares range for the Barbarian, 7 for the Dwarf, etc.).

In terms of limiting the range of throwing weapons, I have toyed with this idea, whether it is really needed or not, and I'm on the fence. That said if the consensus was that it improved the game then I would include it but would limit the maximum range to 9 squares, not a fan of the basing it on BP as that makes things complicated when you consider a monster with a throwing weapon, and if you go with the current BP basis (you specified "starting BP" so this doesn't apply to your suggestion), it also makes the "range" of the weapon vary based on health, which is a neat concept but doesn't sit with all other attacks that are not based on health, so it makes it inconsistent.

Then, again it seems that the classic rule of losing the weapon when thrown has been always a bit crazy and now Hasbro tries to bypass it in some way with this item because they wanted to have a Hero specialized in throwing weapons. Just thinking aloud...

I suspect that is exactly the reason!

[dragon5145]

5.1 SEARCH – If you are in a room with no Monsters in sight then you may search the room provided it has not been cleared already (the EVIL WIZARD needs to mark off cleared rooms). This is a whole turn action and the movement is assumed so you do not need to move your Hero or roll the dice. Declare your intention to search and the EVIL WIZARD will reveal the location of any traps in the room at which point your search and your turn end. If there are no traps in the room or the traps have already been revealed then the EVIL WIZARD will reveal the location of any hidden doors in the room – by placing doors in the relevant places at which point your search and your turn ends. If there are no hidden doors in the room or they have all been revealed then you may draw a card from the Treasure Deck and the room is now considered clear.

Bareheaded you have done an excellent job refining the search function for rooms, as I can agree with the idea that the assumption of movement (I'll need to reread my rule book, don't remember any mention of assumed movement) would allow complete coverage of almost every sized room if rolls are good. It took me a couple of reads to realize you were essentially creating a 3rd option of full turn or combined action were movement is assumed , an elegant solution for the rooms. I think by the way you describe it by find traps or secret doors thru assumed movement you consider the hero to at least have gotten next to said feature trap or door, as I said above I agree this can apply well to rooms. However I believe it breaks down in corridors, depending on the corridor and where the hero starts your description of how search operates would allow for find features far beyond what assumed movement could cover. Does your method allow for finding features up to 12 or more spaces away in two directions (long corridors)? Also with this assumed movement shouldn't the possibility of turning at an intersection be considered as part the moment for what is revealed as well?

As I wrote in another post maybe for corridors, search could also be more of modal combined action that does require the hero to be moved. Just follow the GS rules here to move the hero slowly so the EWP has time to indicate traps or secret doors just like they're supposed to allow time to set up furniture and monsters. This has the advantage of making sure the area searched is the area of the corridors the actually travel. If features block way forward they either continue setting of trap (I play NA rules predominantly so no free disarm/reflex save, already used search action can't also disarm); stop and wait for other heroes to disarm(rules don't say a player has to use all rolled movement); or back track to see what might be found in another direction with what remains of their movement. In all situations as according to the no visible monsters requirement as soon as a monster is revealed the search ends and no further features are revealed even if the feature and monsters could be noticed at the same time.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

However I believe it breaks down in corridors, depending on the corridor and where the hero starts your description of how search operates would allow for find features far beyond what assumed movement could cover. Does your method allow for finding features up to 12 or more spaces away in two directions (long corridors)? Also with this assumed movement shouldn't the possibility of turning at an intersection be considered as part the moment for what is revealed as well?

As I wrote in another post maybe for corridors, search could also be more of modal combined action that does require the hero to be moved. Just follow the GS rules here to move the hero slowly so the EWP has time to indicate traps or secret doors just like they're supposed to allow time to set up furniture and monsters. This has the advantage of making sure the area searched is the area of the corridors the actually travel. If features block way forward they either continue setting of trap (I play NA rules predominantly so no free disarm/reflex save, already used search action can't also disarm); stop and wait for other heroes to disarm(rules don't say a player has to use all rolled movement); or back track to see what might be found in another direction with what remains of their movement. In all situations as according to the no visible monsters requirement as soon as a monster is revealed the search ends and no further features are revealed even if the feature and monsters could be noticed at the same time.

Assumed movement may not be mentioned in the rulebook, it is just a term to cover the assumption that a character needs to move in order to search an entire room, but the figure remains in the same place, hence "assumed movement" rather than standard movement (where the figure moves)

Just a note that the latest version of my house rules are always available from the link in my signature, but you are correct what I posted previously are the rules for handling the "Search Action" which can be carried out by hero (players) as an action in rooms only, so those rules are not applicable outside of that action.

For handling traps and secret doors outside of the search action, for example as part of movement in rooms and passages, the rules for handling these would be covered under "movement" and not "searching" but to save you looking them up here are the relevant parts of my Golden Rules...

#7 Search for Traps and Secret Doors
Note: The existing “Search for Traps and Secret Doors” action is scrapped.

Handling Secret Doors

If, during movement, a hero steps onto a square next to a secret door marker, then...
If there is a monster in the same room or passage as the hero or next to the hero, then ignore the secret door and allow them to continue their movement.
If there are no monsters in the same room or passageway or next to the hero then stop the hero, their turn ends, and the secret door is revealed. Place an open door piece in the appropriate position and reveal the contents of the area beyond the secret door.

Handling Traps

If, during movement, a hero steps onto a square marked by a trap icon, then...
If there is a monster in the same room or passage as the hero or next to the hero, then the trap is triggered, and the hero suffers the consequences (detailed as per trap type). This ends the hero's turn.
If there are no monsters in the same room or passageway or next to the hero, then stop the hero and tell them that they have found a trap, and they must try to disarm it (see #3 Action Dice Mechanism). This will result in either the hero successfully disarming the trap or triggering the trap and suffering the consequences (detailed as per trap type). Either way this ends the hero's turn.

Note: The same rules apply if a hero tries to open a door or chest that is shown as being trapped.

You'll notice that this approach does meet your requirement for the figure to be moved, after all it is part of movement, but it also avoids the scenario that occurs under the NA remake ruleset where anyone can find a trap, but the discovered but not yet triggered trap may be blocking the way forwards, but neither the Dwarf or a Tool Kit equipped hero are available (e.g. Dwarf is dead, RIP, no one bought the Tool Kit etc) which leads to a very unsatisfactory resolution, that someone has to bite the bullet and just move onto the trapped square and take the hit. I find this is a problem as in that scenario why wouldn't the character have a go at disarming the trap, after all worse case is that it is going to be triggered and they will suffer the consequences, which will happen if they just step on it any way, so nothing to lose...