Courage Spell

[lestodante]

I guess the correct interpretation is to be searched by checking all the version of the cards. In the US version of the Fire spells are weaker than the Eur version but the translation may be doubtful, so I go checking for other versions too. In the 1989 release of the game the Courage lasts only 1 turn, working on the next attack and nothing more. With the second release of the game, in 1990, they clearly increased the potential of the spell (and rock Skin too) by extending the time the spell stay active and the hero can take advantage of its benefit, until the spell is broken. And the spell is broken when that hero can no longer see monsters. So the hero can continue to attack with 2 extra dice for several turns until he no longer can see monsters.
Sometimes the translations are weird: in the Italian edition there was not enough space on the card to write "the spell is then discarded" on the Sleep spell. A player that is reading the text in a very meticolous way may intend that Sleep is never discarded. As we obviously know that this is not correct.

[Gold Bearer]

I guess the correct interpretation is to be searched by checking all the version of the cards.

No, each version is clearly different and has its very own rules specific to that version so you obviously can't use one version to decide how an entirely different version with entirely different rules works.

With the second release of the game, in 1990, they clearly increased the potential of the spell (and rock Skin too) by extending the time the spell stay active and the hero can take advantage of its benefit, until the spell is broken. And the spell is broken when that hero can no longer see monsters. So the hero can continue to attack with 2 extra dice for several turns until he no longer can see monsters.

Exactly, they changed it for that version. They changed it again in the US version, they kept the spell being broken when there's no monster in sight and made the extra attack dice for your next attack.

Sometimes the translations are weird: in the Italian edition there was not enough space on the card to write "the spell is then discarded" on the Sleep spell. A player that is reading the text in a very meticolous way may intend that Sleep is never discarded. As we obviously know that this is not correct.

It didn't need translating for the US edition, they speak English, more or less. They changed the wording for a reason, descriptions tend to have different meanings when they have different words. It doesn't require anything close to meticulous reading to spot that you get the extra dice on your next attack. I'm sure the Italian sleep spell doesn't read as never being discarded.


I still can't find the fraggling gargoyle!

[mitchiemasha]

I still can't find the fraggling gargoyle!

i stopped looking. was sure to find more once i realised how it works. NOPE!

[lestodante]

No, each version is clearly different and has its very own rules specific to that version so you obviously can't use one version to decide how an entirely different version with entirely different rules works.

I probably explained uncorrectly. All the European versions are the same, the only differences are 1989 and 1990 releases. US version is the only very different version.
I meant that if I have doubt on a card it can be because of a bad translation (there are a lot of mistakes in the Italian version) so I go checking for the original release or other translation. But not on the US version because is very different and it will not help me to clear my doubts.
Then it's obvious, everyone can play as he prefers, according to the rest of his team.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Well, that was a rollercoaster of a read!

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.

My

Official

Firstly, in terms of interpreting what is actually written on the card in the NA edition

I agree with many that it is badly written, the EA 1st edition the “break condition” for the spell is clear, it applies to the next time he attacks (i.e. the next time he rolls the attack dice) only, the EA 2nd edition the “break condition” is different but equally clear – the spell is broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player (granted there might be some interpretation challenges around the visible bit and when that applies, but it is clear that the spell effects end when no more monsters are visible to that player) however the NA edition is badly written as it has two different “break conditions “The next time that Hero attacks…” is a clear “break condition”, it applies to the next time he attacks (i.e. the next time he rolls the attack dice) only exactly as per EA 1st edition AND it has a second break condition - the spell is broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player. The presence of two break conditions for a single spell is, I think, unique, unnecessary, and ambiguous and may be considered a boo-boo.

However taking it as it is written, I think the best interpretation is that provided by knightkrawler and Gold Bearer (on or around page 7) and possibly others that the spell allows the target to roll two extra attack dice the next time he attacks (i.e. the next time he rolls the attack dice only) unless at some point prior to that the other break condition is met and the spell is broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player.

It has already been pointed out that the effect of the spell being broken when there are no more monsters visible to that player does prevent preloading however, I think that is an unintended consequence of the change. If it was intended then why were similar changes NOT applied to other spells and items where the pre-loading possibility also exists, the obvious example being the Potion of Strength and Rock Skin

Clarifying with a House Rule

Secondly – with regards to a “house rule” rewrite to remove ambiguity

I would remove one of the break conditions as having more than one is certainly part of the confusion.

(1) One option would be to revert to the UK 1st edition version, and drop the anti-preload clause, which makes sense as the anti-preload cause is not present on the Potion of Strength, Rock Skin or anywhere else where you can preload and for consistency I would also revert Rock Skin (as has been mentioned elsewhere Rock Skin in NA edition has a break condition hat may never be met!) Some may argue that the 1st edition was changed in the 2nd edition either because it was underpowered or because it lacked differentiation between the spell and the Potion of Strength (or both) but underpowered is relative, and the 2nd edition of Courage is, in my opinion, overpowered (and no one has suggested Potion of Strength is underpowered) and secondly other spells like Swift Wind are a direct equivalent of Potion of Speed and these weren't changed so reverting back seems a valid option

(2) A second option is to revert back to the UK 2nd edition version, again that is logically sound, but I’m not going to take that option as it leaves the spell OP in my opinion (I’ve had too many quests where the final battle has been reduced to Wizard casts Courage on Barbarian, Barbarian methodically clears the room, killing the Big Boss with a single blow, whilst the other Heroes perform a side show)

(3) So, I’ll propose a third option…

This spell may be cast on any one player. That player may then throw one extra dice each time he attacks, until the spell is broken. The spell is broken on a future turn when there are no monsters visible to that Hero at the start of his turn. The spell is then discarded.

And with regards to “when there are no more monsters visible to that player” I would suggest that criteria is assessed at the start of the affected Hero’s turn for reasons of consistency.

Also, with regards to consistency, this follows the same logic as NA edition of Rock Skin, that was made less powerful, one extra die instead of two, but was made persistent. That said if you want to go the whole hog then the same logic should be applied to the Swift Wind spell, one extra movement die until...break conditions are met...perhaps until you do anything that is not movement like take an action...

If you consider the other spells (excluding those that are instant effect for example the healing spells) the consistent approach to “break conditions” is that they apply at the start of the Hero/monster affected by the spell, for example if at the start of his turn he is asleep/subject to fear/paralysed/being commanded then he attempts to break those effects at the start of his turn, so I would suggest that if no monsters are visible to the affected Hero at the start of his turn, after he has attacked with the effects of the spell, then the spell is broken.

[lestodante]

it depends by which version of the game you are playing, US or UK. And if you own an UK version, is it the 1st or 2nd edition of the game? I consider the 2nd edition of the UK version as a corrected version of the 1st (bugged), so I usually don't consider the 1st version at all for rules.
I think the UK card (as the Italian version which I grow up with) leaves no doubts to the effects.
With the US version instead the chaos is unleashed! French version instead.... is totally wrong!!!

courage.jpg

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I agree that both EA editions, 1st and 2nd are clear in terms of their effects, and would be happy to leave the NA edition issues around interpretation down to NA players, if it wasn't for the OP effects of 2nd edition Courage, as I have said before every boss fight ends the same, Wizard casts Courage on Barbarian who clears the room, usually killing the boss with a single hit.

Whilst I do like my own option (3) offered above, for consistency this should also involve an edit to Swift Wind and to Rock Skin (to clear up whether it lasts forever) and that involves a significant amount of change, tweaks to a least 3 spell cards to fix one issue...so I'm opting for the simplest approach, as simple is part of HQ's appeal and reverting back to EA 1st edition for Courage and Rock Skin.

[wallydubbs]

it depends by which version of the game you are playing, US or UK. And if you own an UK version, is it the 1st or 2nd edition of the game? I consider the 2nd edition of the UK version as a corrected version of the 1st (bugged), so I usually don't consider the 1st version at all for rules.
I think the UK card (as the Italian version which I grow up with) leaves no doubts to the effects.
With the US version instead the chaos is unleashed! French version instead.... is totally wrong!!!

courage.jpg

Yeah, I admit that the European version is worded much better, the North American one instills some conclusion. ALL the people I've played with and MOST players understand the North American wording to have the same effects as the European version. This just leads to the question of why change the wording? Despite however which way a person tends to read it, I play with the lasting effects.

[lestodante]

so I'm opting for the simplest approach, as simple is part of HQ's appeal and reverting back to EA 1st edition for Courage and Rock Skin.

Hmmm... I find the 2nd UK edition of the spells much more cool than other version. The best spells a Wizard can cast on himself to have some fun and can be, for a limited time only, even stronger than other heroes. That's the power of magic!

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I agree more cool, but less simple and less consistent (and in the case of Courage OP in my opinion).

They changed Rock Skin to reduce its power 2DD > 1DD but extend its duration from 1 turn to many, fine (although the end condition isn't properly defined...), but then they applied different logic to Courage to but extend its duration from 1 turn to many but NOT reduce its power. They didn't make the equivalent changes to the corresponding Potion of Resilience/Defense and Potion of Strength, but assuming that was deliberate to differentiate between spells and potions, then why not change Swift Wind so it isn't the same as the Potion of Speed (doubles movement)