As Encarmine would remind us... consider what it says, and what it doesn't say. That makes what could be answered in a sentence take multiple pages of discussion to hash out.
Another thought here, again, I'm not seeking to improve upon anything written back in the day, just try to understand it. My goal here is not to create a unified ruleset, just note the differences (or apparent differences) in what it actually says in these various editions. To me the "why" is of secondary importance, though I admit it's interesting too. It's cool to learn how people interpreted them over the years.
I think there comes a point (I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself) being overly analytical about the texts and trying to rationalize imperfections out of existence (or read them in where they don't have to exist). There are some famous examples out there, but take for instance a recent development...
Avalon Hill actually felt the need to print into the First Light rulebook that Furniture doesn't necessarily block movement (not just line of sight, MOVEMENT) ... that is... unless you want it to. I remember a guy on the AH discord arguing this point, saying hey, it never says you can't just pass through furniture. I mean, most of us just assumed you couldn't (because of real life physics), until the Companion App let you toggle on intangible furniture (easy to understand as a debug feature). But who played it like that back in the day?
How could one possibly resolve an issue like that? I mean they have a point, it never says you can't walk through bookshelves and tables in the rules anywhere. Obstructed line of sight only seems to ever reference a door (open, its clear, closed, it blocks) or a wall. But the very fact that Avalon Hill put magical items into Jungles of Delthrak that (for the first time) let you pass through furniture, indicates they assumed (rightly) that this was never a question for most players.
I could kind of see a little more why they bothered because First Light uses flat tiles (as most dungeon crawlers before HeroQuest did back in the day, if not printed directly on the board!) rather than 3d models. In the mechanics of the game it's not feasible for the Dwarf figure to balance on top of the weapon's rack (though he can still balance on top of other things without too much difficulty), but maybe he's just standing on the tile, why not? I know, not everything Avalon Hill decides has any relevance to the old game rules because Avalon Hill didn't create the old game. I've argued with them too disagreeing with how they interpret things from the past sometimes (though there it's more like I don't LIKE how they use Courage, that I think it should operate differently than they intend, even though I can accept that's how they intend it to work now). They absolutely did change the text from the NA edition in 2021, and they changed it yet again in 2025. Why change it? To make their preferred interpretation, their intention, more clear, even knowing anyone could change it, or unintentionally misread it into something else.
So there you go. Elixir of Life was never explained in depth in the NA edition. I could easily imagine it was probably intended to bring a dead hero back to life who had died in that same quest (who had failed the other methods of escaping death present in that edition), and First Light once again was a place where they revised the text to further imply that understanding. Does that mean a person can't read it some other way? Absolutely not. The fact that they left it so vague invites a variety of interpretations and over the years people have their favorites. So you give the opportunity to players who would jump at the chance to have two Barbarians in a quest, or revive the name of an old favorite who died several adventures ago.
The whole walking up to a chest to open it is one of those things I can easily see as something that was probably "always intended" but it was never actually written down. Yeah, I mean, here I can be overly pedantic and analytical and stubborn and say, well it doesn't say that "looking into a chest" or "opening a chest" requires you be next to it, does it? Just like it never says you can't pass through a fireplace or a cupboard as you move through the dungeon. Is that probably what somebody had in mind at one time? Sure, I can easily imagine that. But clearly, later, it's not what was intended. Even Stephen Baker himself admitted this. You can say, oh well, maybe he's trying not to confuse people because he's working on the new HeroQuest now that has different rules... or maybe he just doesn't remember exactly what he had in mind (or wrote down) 35 years ago. But I still consider that a big clue that despite the logic, the realism, and the way some kids interpreted it ("open the chest" obviously must mean the character needs to get close and we imagine them doing it and then of COURSE they pick up the treasure, how else could they acquire it?), it means treasure chests are no different than any other search really... the furniture piece is just a CLUE that there might be some special treasure in this room, but watch out, there might also be a trap on it to protect that treasure!
The game logic isn't always consistent with real life physics. When you search a room or corridor, you search the whole thing, regardless of what else is in there with you (as long as there are no enemies present to prevent it!), and yet you do this without moving. When you disarm something you move, but we have people who argue it never says for a furniture trap (in the NA edition, since in EU its removed automatically) that you have to stand ON the square of that piece of furniture, but we always did, since it's fun to balance a figure on top of a chest! But does moving onto that square require a regular role and expending of squares to get there? (here I can see what they probably intended, vs. what it actually says, but I could be overly pedantic and stubborn and say we should assume you can just teleport onto the square and still use your movement roll before or after, assuming your disarm is successful). Sometimes I have to simply bow to the whim of the designer (even if I can homebrew it differently in my game if I prefer some other way) as to how it was intended, and for many things we simply don't have a directive from above. Avalon Hill usually gives a definitive answer when asked, for how they view the game today, but other times they've straddled two positions (here I'm thinking of the coy responses of Twitter "Zargon" whom we now know to have been Avalon Bill all along... allegedly). And yes, anything can be rationalized after the fact... passing through furniture seems silly without magic... is the Barbarian crashing through the bookcase? You could just imagine that he's carefully shouldering his way past it, always staying as close to the path as he can. We don't freak out when a huge hand reaches in from the sky and grabs the door, ripping it from the foundations and slams an open doorway in its place... it's just simulating something in the fantasy of the game world. But little fun things intrude to enhance the experience... there's no rule that says you have to knock the boss figure down when he dies, but it's fun (especially for chess players). To me the walking up to chests is just another one of those fun little simulations, not required, but fun. Even some of my players do it, even though they all know it's not required mechanically.
Why harp on The Trial as a special case? Because it is a special case in that it gets rid of all the cards except the monster deck, meaning no treasure deck. So what happens if you search for treasure? You can't draw a card, so I guess Morcar would say you find nothing? Or does he say you can't search? (there are no secret doors or traps either, so he could just say that every time and give you your "action" back). You can't search for treasure, except in Treasure chests? Players are supposed to figure out that they don't get cards but they could imagine a treasure chest might have... treasure in it, and ask to open it. Etc. But why assume this special arrangement must continue to other quests? I guess a similar issue arises in the Japanese edition where they introduce different levels of magic as the play progresses... at first you get a basic healing spell that can be used over and over, then an intermediate spell that can be used over and over, and finally the familiar cards we all know and love (that can be used up). But it never actually says that the previous spells "go away" does it? So a player could believe he still has all three levels of healing if the GM (Grimdead in this case) allows it!
I don't mind the walk up to mechanic, even though it's not part of the version I play the most. I'm just not convinced it was intended as the universal rule in 2nd edition. Would players of the Trial be thus primed to do the same thing in each quest thereafter? I could imagine that, and that's probably where this all came from (other than a desire for more realistic roleplaying within the game). I'm reminded of another thematic difference between the European and North American versions of the games here... the competitive aspect of the original. The players are "primed" to be rivals, having been put through two (optional) arena battles in 1st edition, and then playing "the Maze" where the entire goal is to get out and get the reward first. From then on them cooperating is kind of assumed, but not required. One of them could go rogue and steal Prince Magnus' gold, preventing the others from getting the reward and become an "outlaw" (and how does that affect their team dynamic for the next several quests?). It's fun to imagine the fallout from something like that. But in the NA edition nope you're not allowed to attack one another, and the game is basically structured so that you would have to go out of your way not to be a team player. But, in the switch from the Maze to the Trial (and erasure of the arenas), even the competitive EU HeroQuest was nudged in the direction of teamwork. So it does set a precedent. I could imagine how players would form habits in that first quest and carry them to others. But I see the lack of cards as a gimmick for that particular quest, similar to the teleportation mechanic of the castle of mystery, or the the bounties of the bastion of chaos. It's just meant for that quest only, but since it's the first quest, it might feel like it should stick around. So is there some ambiguity about it and could I be wrong? Yes, of course, I admit it could be so.
What convinces me that there's some merit to the "walk up to the chest to open it" is how often we find a trap (usually a pit trap) next to a treasure chest. I admit I was less familiar with the EU renditions of GS, KK, ROTWL when it comes to noting instances of this happening. And yet, nowhere, in any version of the game (except the Japanese edition) is it explicitly stated that you must walk up to a chest to open it OR to acquire what is inside. That's an inference, yes, a perfectly reasonable one, from 2nd edition, when looking at The Trial, but in isolation. Why am I trying to make it the exception, rather than draw a general rule form it? Because typically that's not how it works with any HeroQuest rule. Yes, there are exceptions (unarmed combat for example, but only in the NA edition, and it comes up pretty rarely overall). You generally don't have to reference a specific quest to find out how something works, instead it's part of the general rules, or it's on a card.
I know that for the NA edition Mike Gray met with Stephen Baker at the beginning, but otherwise Baker wasn't involved in those versions (and especially not the 1992 expansions I'm about to discuss below since by then he had left Hasbro), but still, I think it helps illustrate my point. I think the short version is that if it was the universal rule, I'd expect some kind of statement about it being changed. Instead it seems they were thinking of changing it TO walking up to chests (but didn't, in the published version). That makes it seem less likely it was always there, and more that they were thinking of adding it.
Frozen Horror infamously references a past quest (in the same booklet at least) about how a specific tile room works, which annoys players to this day, but there it is. To me the "trap next to a treasure chest" is just an error, a brain bug, perhaps a remnant from that "it's logical to do it this way" memory of some time in which it was intended to be the treasure searching mechanic to include moving up next to the chest. Instead you have a perfectly serviceable mechanic already for such things, the furniture trap. A search for traps will reveal (and in EU editions, automatically remove) any other traps in the room already. The only time such a trap will be effective is either if the player is obsessed with miming their opening of the chest OR if there are monsters in the room and they are trying to gain the treasure in the midst of battle (which also won't work because you have to search for treasure to get the treasure!). At least when it comes to Frozen Horror, where there is the infamous example of the arc of spear traps surrounding a non-trapped chest, I can understand why they did it, when seeing the draft notes for that quest... they wanted the heroes to get thrown off, but they hadn't thought it through completely and were contemplating changing the rules to require movement up to the chest to search it which they acknowledged would be prevented by having a monster in the room.
In the '92 drafts the US designers also discussed allowing the searching of individual furniture pieces separately (traces of this idea can be seen in how the Elf quest pack describes the Avenger sword in Quest 1 in the notes). Why bother if these were already established rules? Yes, I know, this is the NA edition, and we don't have the draft notes to view for the European sets, unfortunately. But what we do have are Stephen Baker's comments, and that combined with the logic of the game (departing from real world logic) it makes sense to me. Others can disagree of course. That's why I'm so stuck on it, it's not really a big deal. It means the difference of maybe an extra turn to get the treasure. I'm not sure it does anything to increase or decrease the competition aspect of it all (you could place a chest in a corner so that it would only be possible for two heroes to flank it, but the first one is going to get the treasure anyway, while otherwise the first to search for treasure is going to get it). Now if you limit treasure searches to one per room, period, I guess there's competition there. The NA edition had the competition for the "first" search since that gets whatever is in the notes (but sometimes the card can be better than that reward anyway, depending upon the hero).
Some things in the booklet are just not explained. Take for example how in the NA edition when you find certain things, like the Wizard's Cloak it says this should be given to the Wizard. Well what does that statement mean exactly? Does it mean that the Barbarian should roll, move adjacent to the Wizard (making sure no monsters are adjacent) and then on his turn transfer the item? Or does it mean that Zargon says "okay Wizard, even though another Hero found this, you have it now, write it on your sheet" and shows the card? Or does it just mean that only the Wizard can use it, so he "should" get it just in some objective moral sense, because it does nobody any good to hang onto it but him? Which was probably most likely intended by the designers? Or are they just leaving it up to the GM, what he thinks is best?
Or what about the directive to "divide large gold rewards" to "avoid conflict between players"? Well heroes can't fight each other in the NA edition, so do they mean arguments at the table between the humans playing the game? I guess so! What does "divide" mean? Does that mean if I open a chest that has 500 gold, I should immediately divide it (or be ordered by Zargon to do so) among the hero players? (each hero adds 125 gold to their sheet)? Or does it mean later, between quests, we remember that everyone should get 125, not the one guy keep all 500?
Again I'm sure the designers had a specific interpretation in mind for all of these things, but because they didn't actually write it down, it's left up to us to imagine it. So in a sense we "really" should be doing this just with quotations only. As soon as we paraphrase we're interpreting it. Oh it says here your playing piece is removed from the board when your body points reach zero. Oh but this one says your hero dies when he gets killed. Okay fair enough.
Sorry, again not to promote an argument. People are going to disagree with me, that's part of the discussion, I accept it.
May I also say here something that's been bugging me for awhile. I LOVE Doug Hopkins. He comes across as a very cool guy, a very passionate designer and player, and I really think he's doing an amazing job on Avalon Hill's HeroQuest team (he is not taking Chris Nadeau's aka Encarmine former spot, but he is kind of a visible "leader" for lack of a better term, though he'll always clarify he's a writer and designer) but as I know he writes the rules in the new HeroQuest, sometimes I feel like he has trouble conveying what he means with these things. Maybe it's not entirely his fault, like somebody else prepares the copy that goes onto the cards and such. But you can see it in the playtests... he'll write something, especially when it's something brand new, and people will misunderstand it, and then he'll change it later. I am glad he revises it (and if revisions were not allowed, I'd be in big trouble on forums... the first thing I write is rarely perfectly what I meant to say!), but that ambiguity thing strikes hard. I guess the online HQ community is so full of pedantic, analytical types, that it makes his job more difficult (sorry Doug!). Maybe if we had social media, discord, etc. back in the 90's there wouldn't be so many of these endless rule debates that we have now (and lets be real, aren't they just a little bit fun to have?). 
= one hit
= one hit & pushback
= cancels one hit
