To start with, I am well aware of the official ruling on Immobilize.
I personally dislike it for being both rather metagami-ish and also confusing to many players.
I am curious to know if houseruling it is common practice as I am thinking of doing so myself.
Both sides, heroes and overlord have their fair shair of "immobilize breakers", meaning, both can ignore immobilize with certain skills, heroic feats, overlord cards or monster special actions.
In the base game, heroes are quite defintiely more favoured (knight skills, the disciple skill granting movement points and fatigue, Jain Fairwood's and Tumble's heroic feat...), but the overlord does gain a sufficent number of monsters and Basic II (Blinding speed, which grants movement points) once some expansions are used.
The thing is though, it can open a lot of necessary strategizing that I do see to overtax less experienced overlords in particular.
Most of all, it can lead to ugly arguments of "spirit of the rule VS wording of the rule".
Thus, my intention is to reword immobilize as follows:
You cannot gain movement points nor apply any effect that makes your figure move any distance. You can still have your figure removed from the map and placed on a different square or be moved by another figure. Discard this card or token at the end of your turn.
Effectively, this eliminates most of the effects that let you move while immobilized.
It still allows "teleporting" effects and effects like that of the crossbow or similar that gives another figure the power to move you.
It also would prevent the harpies flock ability, as this instructs each applicable figure to move (as opposed to the sorcerers summon).
I know that it makes immobilize more powerful in the sense of being less easy to circumvent.
However, as there are still many abilities to entirely remove conditions, I prefer it this way myself by a large margin.
What are your thoughts, do any of you have experience with similar house rules?