Courage Spell

[wallydubbs]

Well, not that we always go by the pictorial reference, but in this case is shows a lone hero in an alleyway confronted by a bunch of unseen enemy with spears... so you get the assumption that the hero is outnumbered and it might time take more then 1 attack to resolve the heroes bravery.

[Maurice76]

If you ask me, the duration of the spell and its effect are two different aspects of the spell.

The duration is quite simple: it lasts on the Hero (not the player, that's meta-gaming ... and assumes the one controlling the Hero miniature suddenly becomes courageous until he can't see monsters anymore - where would they'd be? Hiding under the kitchen table? Below his bed? In the closet?) until that Hero doesn't have any monsters within sight anymore. This aspect is active from the moment the Spell is cast and simply defines the expiration condition. So, if it's cast on a Hero who doesn't have any monsters within sight at that exact same moment, the Spell immediately expires. If this condition is met at any later stage in the game, it expires then and there.

The other aspect is somewhat more ambiguous: why have such an explicit expiration trigger, if it's only one attack? I suspect they had to include this for situations where the next attack made by that Hero is multiple turns down the road after casting, possibly a number of them without monsters around to provide a plausible threat to the Hero. It's also weird to have it expire mid-fight, as it would limit this spell in effectivity - why lose courage after some monsters have been defeated? Having fewer enemies left should boost morale, not reduce it, after all.

Combined, I am of the opinion that the spell expires when the Hero it's cast on doesn't see any monsters in his surroundings, effective from the very moment the spell is cast on him. While active, it adds 2 attack dice to his attack rolls.

[Jafazo]

If it meant what we all know it should mean it would read, "The next time that Hero attacks, he may increase that attack by 2 extra combat dice."

Well, as long as you know what it should mean.

The card was just worded oddly because America was just somewhat lazy in differentiating the game from Europe. Like I said, the game was probably never play tested in America because all the bugs were already worked out in Europe. I've sighted the Trial's difficulty as a main example. But you also just need to look at America's attempt at the Barbarian and Elf quest packs.

I prefer AarynB and Ethica's point of views, why put a limit on it if it's just going break after the first attack?

So your response is, "America was lazy, they never play tested it, it worked fine in Europe, look at how hard the quest 'The Trial' is" and, "Look at the US Barbarian and Elf quest packs."

America didn't word anything, the publishers hired by Heroquest developers did & some of those individuals could've easily been from another country or origin. Stephen Baker's the one who oversaw the whole thing and he's from the UK so hell, even if someone from the US did mess up, so did he. Unless you or anyone knows who exactly handled translation, it's radical to point the finger at 'America' as a whole. By that style one could argue that the fault lies with Europe because they were too lazy and cheap to properly screen their chosen translators and paid some half asses to do the job to save money. See, that's just not productive.

Jafazo, you still missing the point!!!

We all know what the word 'next' implies and how it can not mean the coming but 1 that follows, making things even worse. The issue with 'next', is some people believe the US version used this word by mistake, the designers not thinking into it enough... regardless to how much people argue black and blue, using perfectly sound logic, no one can win that debate.

Well, as long as you know what it should mean

If i'm understanding wallydubbs words correctly, i think he's hit it right on there.

Considering the Courage spell works, is properly written and is balanced (even if some of us don't like the spell) I don't cast doubt on professionals who have their work read and reread on an assumed notion that because the spell used to work differently in a previous version of the game (a version the US clearly deviated from in many ways), that it must be because those professionals didn't mean what they wrote.

I haven't read anything in the US version that gives me reason to doubt on grammar. I have read plenty in the UK version that gives reason to doubt on grammar or balance. The US version properly uses the very reference of 'next' everywhere else, so it's safe to say they knew what they were talking about. More importantly, throughout the entire game there's observable evidence that in translation from UK to US the 'bad guys' were made more challenging. It isn't sensible to me to say, "Yeah but, except here. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to make the game more challenging here, they just messed up." Seriously? It's surprising to anyone that part of making the game more challenging would include weakening an unnecessarily powerful hero spell? The change fits perfectly within the overall picture.

The US version addresses and fixes a lot of issues from the UK version if you ask me. They gave monsters more body points, separated searching for secret doors and traps within the same action, they fixed giving players a choice as to whether or not they can let each other pass through one another, they got rid of spear traps automatically being disarmed once found, they removed pit and rock traps being placed on the board when found and being able to be disarmed and removed from the board and more. When you look at the big picture yeah, it seems pretty silly to say, "Eh, I still think they messed up, I mean look at how the UK version of the spell used to work, and look at how hard these quest packs are, it's gotta be a mistake!" Evidence supports that they knew exactly what they were doing, most of the applied changes were improvements.

If you ask me, the duration of the spell and its effect are two different aspects of the spell.
The duration is quite simple: it lasts on the Hero (not the player, that's meta-gaming ...

If we're reading the UK version of Courage then you're mistaken, that example isn't meta gaming. In a nutshell, metagaming is when things from outside a game are used to affect or influence things inside the game. In the case of UK's Courage, something from inside the game is referencing something outside the game to affect or influence things inside the game. It's a broken mechanic due to a grammatical error if we read it to mean exactly what it means, otherwise, we read as intended.

The other aspect is somewhat more ambiguous: why have such an explicit expiration trigger, if it's only one attack? I suspect they had to include this for situations where the next attack made by that Hero is multiple turns down the road after casting, possibly a number of them without monsters around to provide a plausible threat to the Hero. It's also weird to have it expire mid-fight, as it would limit this spell in effectivity - why lose courage after some monsters have been defeated? Having fewer enemies left should boost morale, not reduce it, after all.

Combined, I am of the opinion that the spell expires when the Hero it's cast on doesn't see any monsters in his surroundings, effective from the very moment the spell is cast on him. While active, it adds 2 attack dice to his attack rolls.

The UK version is clear about granting the hero multiple attacks. It needs a way to end the spell though, otherwise the hero gets to keep rolling 2 extra combat dice to attack throughout the whole quest, so the spell ends when the player can no longer see a monster.

In the US version, it's clear they wanted to give the hero a one time bonus of 2 extra attack dice but probably didn't like the idea of a hero carrying that pending bonus with him all day, because after all, if he chooses not to attack, the bonus stays with him forever, right? That introduces a big problem. Like the Wizard casting it on himself, and since he hardly ever attacks, taking that bonus into the next quest, casting it again, repeating that, stacking the bonus to like 20 extra combat dice to attack, then personally punching any big boss out with one fist. They edited the spell's breaking mechanism when they changed player to hero, so we know they looked at it. It's more reasonable to say they chose to leave that original restriction to make sure a hero didn't carry the bonus around forever. I would've chosen a different spell breaking mechanism, but the reason why they left it there is pretty clear. 90's game, not gonna murder hobo these guys over it. They did an exceptional job everywhere else.

[mitchiemasha]

reference of 'next'

Jaf... You still don't get the point. In no way am I defining how the writers intended the word "next". I don't even care about their intention. My point and only point is... Some people don't think as you do, regardless to who is right or wrong, it doesn't matter, equally, no one can claim to be more correct than the other, even if they gave an official ruling.

It's like arguing the side of a coin toss without ever being able to see it, then been told what it was.

If you reread my posts with a clearer understanding of my wording intention, it should click. That's why I agreed to the jokingly "as long as you know what it should" meaning no one can claim to know this.

Edit: My only issue here is your stance of "I am right every one else is wrong", I've never liked that, especially when I can clearly see potential for doubt. I actually believe your stance on the US card but, I still think it was a mistake. Wait for it!!! Not the mistake in using the word. I believe they intentionally made the spell weaker, making the Wizard weaker (the US had a thing against strong wizards at the time (try and ignore that comment)). I believe it was a mistake to Nerf his spells but intentional. Some people believe it wasn't intentional and I can perfectly understand why. Some people believe it was intentional and like it but cry the wizard is rubbish, coming up with ever more complex skill progression.

[mitchiemasha]

Thinking about the wizard character. The other Heroes progress. The Wizard starts extremely strong in comparison... But as a new player, you don't know how to use his powers effectively. It offers a completely different play style to the game. A returning experienced player would break this but that was never the intention of the design, we'd of all moved on to hardcore RPG's by then (although we didn't).

It's very hard to express this but in other words... The best thing about HeroQuest is the Wizard. How he starts as strong as he ends, but you as the player must learn how to truly unlock his potential, as you journey through the game, learning to master the powers at your disposal, when best to use them, to save them and not waste them.

It's like you're unlocking his wisdom by figuring him out, not from being given a reward for time spent at the table randomly throwing dice. This in itself is genius. Really think about it! It's never ending story Immersive (that simile might be a bit lost there)! Especially for those who like wizard characters, he's the only character that needs thinking about to be played well. If he simply gets stronger over time, like the other Heroes, there's no real world connection in the young player actually using their MIND!

That design gets complicated through the revisions as it depends on standpoint. Nerf the wizard as he's too strong at the start of the game, now he's too weak end game. The 1st ed he was too weak, the 2nd made his spells more valuable to the group (adding to the BOLD above) and gave him 2 items, removing from the others. US made the game a lot Harder and the Wizard weaker, which fits perfectly with the panzy boy wizards of things like D&D at the time (Disclaimer: I know nothing about D&D, I've just heard comments thrown about over the years relating to that issue), It's almost like a military conspiracy, everybody had to be a big strong warrior to do well, we don't want wizards!!!

[j_dean80]

That reminds me of the Eragon books where everyone despised magicians but yet relied on them...

[Maurice76]

If we're reading the UK version of Courage then you're mistaken, that example isn't meta gaming. In a nutshell, metagaming is when things from outside a game are used to affect or influence things inside the game. In the case of UK's Courage, something from inside the game is referencing something outside the game to affect or influence things inside the game. It's a broken mechanic due to a grammatical error if we read it to mean exactly what it means, otherwise, we read as intended.

That's nit-picking, you know what I meant. The Spell refers an 'object', that doesn't exist within the game world, namely the player. The guy or girl who's rolling the dice and moving the miniature on the board can't ever be the target of a spell that's being cast by a figure within the game world (and neither in the real world, since spell casting doesn't exist in our world). By explicitely mentioning "player" on the card, they break a boundary between the game world and real world. Unintentional, I guess, since what they meant to say was obviously the character on the game board, controlled by said player, instead.

[Jafazo]

reference of 'next'

Jaf... You still don't get the point. In no way am I defining how the writers intended the word "next". I don't even care about their intention. My point and only point is... Some people don't think as you do, regardless to who is right or wrong, it doesn't matter, equally, no one can claim to be more correct than the other, even if they gave an official ruling.

It's like arguing the side of a coin toss without ever being able to see it, then been told what it was.

If you reread my posts with a clearer understanding of my wording intention, it should click. That's why I agreed to the jokingly "as long as you know what it should" meaning no one can claim to know this.

Edit: My only issue here is your stance of "I am right every one else is wrong", I've never liked that, especially when I can clearly see potential for doubt. I actually believe your stance on the US card but, I still think it was a mistake. Wait for it!!! Not the mistake in using the word. I believe they intentionally made the spell weaker, making the Wizard weaker (the US had a thing against strong wizards at the time (try and ignore that comment)). I believe it was a mistake to Nerf his spells but intentional. Some people believe it wasn't intentional and I can perfectly understand why. Some people believe it was intentional and like it but cry the wizard is rubbish, coming up with ever more complex skill progression.

In my very first post I went into detail about why I felt misuse of the word "next" wasn't to blame. I did that because throughout the topic it's mentioned how badly worded the spell is and how "next time" contradicts LOS etc, so I wrote out my thought process. It isn't written badly, it doesn't contradict, and I supported the claim with facts. In ways, that's what goes on in my brain.

In no way within my last post am I saying anyone is defining how the writers intended the word "next", I am saying that considering they used the word next properly everywhere and the spell works and follows the theme of making things more challenging, I not only feel they didn't mess up but it seems silly to believe they did. I hadn't contributed my opinion so that's was my opinion in a nutshell. I realize everyone's entitled to their opinion and never gave any indication I felt otherwise. Your assumption about my stance is incorrect, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." isn't my stance in the slightest. And don't worry, I'm not worried about your weaker wizard comment, it's trivial compared to the thing you have for the US, which you've made evident within many of your posts. Good edit by the way.

[wallydubbs]

Jafazo, as I said earlier, Zargon gets the final say when it comes to the extent of this spell.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on the interpretation and intent of the spell.

Although I have doubts on American playtesting, I'm not saying the European version is perfect or even better. I happen to prefer monsters with multiple body points and Choas spells. However I don't particularly care for separate actions regarding traps and secret doors.

Whichever way one chooses to look at the spell is fine, I think the wording could've been more clear either way.

[mitchiemasha]

In no way within my last post am I saying anyone is defining how the writers intended the word "next", I am saying that considering they used the word next properly everywhere and the spell works and follows

My point is... you are defining their intention by the claims you make.
My point is... My post was never to make a claim which was the correct view. I simply highlighted some.
My point is... I respect all views. Including yours, which I actually believe was the designers intention (if i had to bet on it).

but it seems silly to believe

I supported the claim with facts. In ways, that's what goes on in my brain.

IS!!!

"I'm wrong right and everyone else is wrong." isn't my

You're implying, you have the facts (that goes on in your brain) and everybody who thinks different, is silly.

I'm not saying the European version is perfect or even better. I happen to prefer monsters with multiple body points and Choas spells. However I don't particularly care for separate actions regarding traps and secret doors.

Whichever way one chooses to look at the spell is fine

100% agreed and is the "consensus" I referred to earlier, where ever that was.