Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!
Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.
Make a small donation to Ye Olde Inn!
Every cent received goes toward Ye Olde Inn's maintenance and allows us to continue providing the best resources for HeroQuest and Fantasy Gaming fans.
wallydubbs wrote:Jafazo wrote: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?
mitchiemasha wrote: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.
Maurice76 wrote: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 ...
Maurice76 wrote: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 wrote:reference of 'next'
Jafazo wrote: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.
mitchiemasha wrote:Jafazo wrote: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.
Jafazo wrote: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
Jafazo wrote:but it seems silly to believe
Jafazo wrote:I supported the claim with facts. In ways, that's what goes on in my brain.
Jafazo wrote: "I'm wrong right and everyone else is wrong." isn't my
wallydubbs wrote: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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest