Ye Olde Inn

I see your point but they also toned down ball of flame and fire of wraith by making them twice as easy to defend so they could have done the same with courage. Maybe this was because the game was mainly played by kids who they were naturally drawn to always using the fire spells (I was when I first played) because fire seems the coolest element. Unless fire of wraith and ball of flame were originally supposed to be defended on either shield, then they could have toned to courage to make up for improving the other two.

I think the rules as written are very clear, two extra dice only on your next attack and only if los to all monsters isn't broken before that attack and anything else is a house rule. If you start saying 'well they wrote this but I think they meant something different then you can rewrite any rule you like.

mitchiemasha wrote:... the game was made for 10 year olds.

Sshh.

Daedalus wrote:munchkining

Gold Bearer wrote:fire seems the coolest element

Two gems within two posts. I love this forum.

Gold Bearer wrote:I see your point but they also toned down ball of flame and fire of wraith by making them twice as easy to defend so they could have done the same with courage. Maybe this was because the game was mainly played by kids who they were naturally drawn to always using the fire spells (I was when I first played) because fire seems the coolest element. Unless fire of wraith and ball of flame were originally supposed to be defended on either shield, then they could have toned to courage to make up for improving the other two.

I think the rules as written are very clear, two extra dice only on your next attack and only if los to all monsters isn't broken before that attack and anything else is a house rule. If you start saying 'well they wrote this but I think they meant something different then you can rewrite any rule you like.

The cited EU Fire of Wrath spell is a good example of rule interpretation. Either case is valid, depending what you think the meaning of "shield' refers to: a black shield for monster defense or any shield. I may prefer any shield, while someone else may reason a black shield should be used. Due to the vagueness of the spell wording, neither camp can definitively say they are the only one playing the rule correctly. Reasoned thought can be offered supporting a choice as better (such as two opposing reasons for balancing Fire spells), but we each choose how to apply rules in our own game, regardless. Our forums run and thrive on this principle.

A rule interpretation doesn't add to the game as a house rule does--there is no rewrite. Instead, interpretations are limited to working with what is already written. Neither I nor you have added anything to the wording in our interpretations. Both are valid, even though my current reasoning differs from yours. I can understand and respect your logic while ordering my own. Neither reading detracts from the play experience, but rather they both separately enrich it with alternate intention.

I was wondering about what can end the Courage spell.

EU 1st edition	EU 2nd edition	NA version
. Courage This spell may be cast on any one player. That player may then throw two extra combat dice the next time he attacks. The spell is then discarded.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	Courage This spell may be cast on any one player. That player may then throw two extra dice each time he attacks, until the spell is broken. The spell is broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player. The spell is then discarded.	. Courage This spell may be cast on any one Hero, including yourself. The next time that Hero attacks, he may roll two extra combat dice. The spell is broken the moment the Hero can no longer "see" a monster.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The EU 1st edition is simple: the spell ends after the Hero next attacks--no issues there.

The EU 2nd edition spell is broken after no more monsters are visible, with the possibility of multiple prior attacks, but at least one.

The NA spell may end after the next attack or multiple attacks, depending the interpretation. Either way, if the Hero can't "see" a monster, the spell is broken. I want to focus on the "...The spell is broken..." part that is in common with the EU 2nd edition spell.

For me the question is what constitutes a monster not being seen by the Hero. Must the Hero "see" a monster at all times, or should the test apply only during the Hero's turn when he potentially needs it to attack with the effect? Some gray areas:

1. another Hero crosses the LOS path but starts and ends movement without blocking LOS
2. after the only LOS monster is killed, another Hero moves clear and reveals LOS to a previously blocked monster, all before the Hero with Courage has his turn
3. another Hero kills the last visible monster, but Morcar/Zargon moves another monster into LOS on his turn
4. M/Z uses a Command spell to block LOS to a monster with the Hero under his control
5. LOS Crosses a Wall of Flame or Ice Wall
6. the Hero or monster lie within a Cloak of Shadows
7. LOS within a Blinding Sleet spell
   [-edit]

8. the Hero with the Courage effect can "see" a monster at the start and end of movement, but breaks LoS temporarily while moving past another Hero
9. after the last monster "seen" is killed--but before the turn of the Hero with the Courage bonus--a Wandering Monster appears
10. The Hero falls in a pit trap or long pit trap or the monster enters either one
11. The Wizard casts Clairvoyance after the last monster is killed
12. The Wizard casts Wall of Stone across LoS
13. Escape moves the Sorcerer out of the affected Hero's LoS but still in view of a Hero
14. Summon Undead, Summon Orcs, Summon Skeletons, Summon Mummy, Summon Goblins, or Summon Wolves places figures out of LoS of the Hero but visible
15. Raise the Dead or Reanimation as 13 above or Raise Dead cast immediately following the killing of the last monster in LoS (same turn)
16. Earthquake affects a monster, breaking LoS?
17. Cloud of Chaos paralyzes the Hero and a monster attacks from behind
18. Werewolf's Curse transforms the Hero into Wolf form, or another Hero (without Courage) transforms into Wolf form
19+. special cases in Quest notes
[-edit]

That's not fair!

There are two line of sights. The greedy one that is used for discovering, which crosses other models without stopping to discover more and more, and the lazy one for shooting, which stops at the fist little obstacle.

I guess you can use the greedy one for the spell. That guess is a feeling with no major proof behind.

Based on that I would say number 3 5 6 are stopping the spell, the others continue.

If you use the lazy line of sight, each of your situations would stop the spell.

Yeah, I'm pretty bad that way. I've added a seventh case that had been forgotten, which probably behaves almost like Cloak of shadows but with adjacency.

It seems to me "Greedy" LOS is discussed in the NA Instruction Booklet on p.13 under Looking And Opening Doors. "Look" is even a quoted term as "see" is on p.15 under Action 2--Cast A Spell (Elf And Wizard Only), where LOS is discussed. (I don't have my EU reference handy on my phone.) Since "see" is covered under the section for spell LOS, I figure that is the best one to apply to Courage.

Daedalus wrote:

Gold Bearer wrote:I see your point but they also toned down ball of flame and fire of wraith by making them twice as easy to defend so they could have done the same with courage. Maybe this was because the game was mainly played by kids who they were naturally drawn to always using the fire spells (I was when I first played) because fire seems the coolest element. Unless fire of wraith and ball of flame were originally supposed to be defended on either shield, then they could have toned to courage to make up for improving the other two.

I think the rules as written are very clear, two extra dice only on your next attack and only if los to all monsters isn't broken before that attack and anything else is a house rule. If you start saying 'well they wrote this but I think they meant something different then you can rewrite any rule you like.

The cited EU Fire of Wrath spell is a good example of rule interpretation. Either case is valid, depending what you think the meaning of "shield' refers to: a black shield for monster defense or any shield. I may prefer any shield, while someone else may reason a black shield should be used. Due to the vagueness of the spell wording, neither camp can definitively say they are the only one playing the rule correctly. Reasoned thought can be offered supporting a choice as better (such as two opposing reasons for balancing Fire spells), but we each choose how to apply rules in our own game, regardless. Our forums run and thrive on this principle.

A rule interpretation doesn't add to the game as a house rule does--there is no rewrite. Instead, interpretations are limited to working with what is already written. Neither I nor you have added anything to the wording in our interpretations. Both are valid, even though my current reasoning differs from yours. I can understand and respect your logic while ordering my own. Neither reading detracts from the play experience, but rather they both separately enrich it with alternate intention.

I do see your point and I'm not trying to be argumentative but I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything more than your next attack, that's what it says. I don't see how it can be interpreted as multiple attacks.

As for when the spell ends, that's a different story and not entirely clear. Personally I'd apply the strictest rule interpretation due to it being worded as "broken the moment the Hero can no longer "see" a monster."

If there is a 'known' monster on the discovered board then the heroes who are aware of said monster are 'in combat' until the monster is killed or escapes.
Thus the spell stays in effect until the heroes are no longer in a combat situation.

^ My ruling.

a couple extra dice for a fight is no big deal on the long term of the dungeon

But that's not what it says. This is about how the official rules work, not what works best.

Besides that ruling is a little ambiguous as written although you might have just used a brief summary. Who is 'aware' of the monster?

Gold Bearer wrote:But that's not what it says. This is about how the official rules work, not what works best.

Besides that ruling is a little ambiguous as written although you might have just used a brief summary. Who is 'aware' of the monster?

I'd say that the wording is bad because "no longer" contradicts "the next time".
Now, why do these wordings (seemingly) contradict each other and what was the intention?

My interpretation: NA version was written after EU 2nd, so there must have been an intended change for the re-wording as a concept to make sense at all.
My strong guess is that they felt the EU 2nd spell was too powerful and they wanted to downgrade it.
Every variable stayed the same except the "how many attacks" variable, which is interpretable.
But the intention must have been to limit it to one attack, which makes me agree with Gold Bearer here.

What they didn't notice was the failure of the second sentence which they bothered to parallelize with their rulebook nomenclature "see",
but made the mistake to include at all, and which seemingly contradicts the intended length of effect for the spell from the first sentence.
The second sentence does have the effect though that the spell can just puff into thin air before it even takes effect,
which Gold Bearer has also pointed out, which makes me fully agree with him.

The contradiction was unintended, the side effect unthought of, but this interpretation is the only one that takes every piece of wording into account in a way that still makes sense as a unit of text.
My

I think the Author's Intention Approach to interpreting text is a veeeeery valid one for HeroQuest.
We need it time and time again.
I wrote a rule system because of it, with a lot of training by Daedalus, by the way.