wallydubbs wrote:Yeah, I had my fiancee read it over and give me her opinion. She's not an expert player so it took me by surprise when she pointed out something I hadn't noticed. In this new edition Courage uses the singular form of "Monster", not monsters. "The spell is broken when the hero can no longer see the monster." This would insinuate a single attack. But it also makes the spell much less effective.
Which edition do you have? (some changes were made in the Jan '22 slim box) In my Haslab version it says "a Monster" (not "THE monster") meaning it isn't explicitly referring to a singular opponent or single attack. I could imagine if they were trying to clarify how it stacks with "Heroic Brew" (which gives you two attacks... but only one of the attacks would have the bonus dice).
Anyway...
When I compare this to the Bard "bonus defense" issue... where they meant one thing and wrote another, I come to the opposite conclusion, because Doug Hopkins, Avalon Bill, Encarmine, etc. didn't make the original HeroQuest. Their remake is explicitly based upon the 1990 NA edition. I would default to those rules as written unless changed. Here they are coming in after the fact with a digital update saying yeah we meant something else other than the plain reading of the card.
Like the Crossbow thing, I can understand if that's what they wanted, but it's inferior to the earlier reading (I chalk up the Crossbow thing to a simple oversight but I can't prove it, so I could imagine like the Mentor on the Zargon screen thing, it was just something they presented poorly), so I'm not going to follow it, even if it's explicitly what they meant (while the Bard thing I can respect more because it was their original creation and there's proof they had something else in mind in the earlier edition and you can understand they goofed up in the wording).
If we were playing 1st edition and it's only supposed to be one boosted attack, fine, let's do that. But then let's also go back to Rock Skin being two dice for one defense, and let's go back to finding Treasure in corridors, not needing LOS for spells on targets in the same room, 2 MP bonus for Talisman of Lore, Shortsword hits diagonally, etc.
Rock Skin and Courage are just use USEFUL spells, and they worked so well in 2nd edition, and since the NA edition didn't contradict that earlier interpretation, I was fine with it in both cases. So it feels now like nerfing it. The Bard clarification makes him stronger and the old interpretation made less sense strategically even though it was the natural plain reading of the text like offering you a stronger weapon that was cheaper than a weaker one but wanting you to choose the worse option.
The whole chest thing, like so many other things in the game, for me comes down to how it affects the play experience. If it encourages discovering, adds to the suspense, and foster more of a "role play" thing that people like, that's great, those are all wonderful things that can enhance the experience. Does it make the game more challenging? To me it only makes the game longer. In a few instances where normal searching rules are not allowed it makes sense as a work-around. I could see the situation where opening a chest in the midst of battle might adhere to that. I can understand if a person played it a certain way in childhood and feel nostalgic about that method, that goes a long way!
As Zargon I'd set the general rule and expectation for the players ahead of time (there will always be individual quests that weak various rules for that session). I don't see as much utility in offering that chests need to be opened like a door (instead of saying Treasure search covers the entire room, with the furniture just serving as a "clue" there may be special treasure in this are) but as always, your table, your rules.
= white skull, one "hit"
= black skull, one "hit"
= shield, cancels out one "hit"
