Courage Spell

[Jafazo]

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).

The OP asked, "Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?" I gave my opinion about how I felt it was not a mistake, and I provided what I felt were a few supportive facts. That was my contribution.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I respect that, always have, always will. I never accused you of saying your claim was the right one.

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

Fixed, thank you.

"I'm right and everyone else is wrong." isn't my stance in the slightest.

That isn't my stance in the slightest.

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

When I say I feel it's silly to think that, it's exactly what I mean. If I wanted to call someone silly, I'd write exactly that. I try not to imply, or suggest, or hint at things... I say it.
I've done plenty of silly things throughout my life and I suspect I'll do plenty more. I don't believe I'm a silly person though. We've all done silly things, we'll all continue to do silly things. There's no offense here and I never said anyone was 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.

Same way I agreed with that idea a few ways back, wherever it was.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, we agree.

At this point, this exchange seems to be more about you feeling I meant this and that or that I suggested or implied this or that. We're not talking about what we feel about the Courage spell anymore. I apologize to anyone else who read this far under the impression there was anything valuable here. I presented my opinion and laid down, what I felt were, harmless facts and that's it. If you want to keep discussing how you feel about my writing, or how you interpret it or any other assumptive accusation, just inbox me. Let's keep this topic clear of non-applicable nonsense. At the end of the day, we agree everyone's' opinion is fine.

[mitchiemasha]

At the end of the day, we agree everyone's' opinion is fine.

Thank you.

The problem here was you quoted me, then replied to that quote with explanations to your view. This was a clear sign you'd missed the point of my words. When I pointed this out, you then replied with even more explanations to your view. My words were't to redabate the various stances of the card. I was simply offering insight to their existence. Most of us have already debated it to death and were well aware of the logic you presented.

It's good to read your view, it just didn't need to be directed at me or my quote. My reply should of been, "I know!"

I have a real issue with explaining myself and when I see words casted at me that bring on a! I have to reexplain, it's a nightmare, a struggle.

Struggling to explain myself at a young age has made me realise and I see this a lot in the real world. People pick up on 1 thing and focus on that rather than seeing the main intention. This is why it can often be better to keep a focused point, keeping other tangents left out. My debate stopped being about the courage card along time ago and more about peoples right to view things as they choose. Non of us can be 100% sure! Some of us were having a dig at your words displaying opposition to that belief "as long as you know what it should mean"!

And here's tangent!
If it was perfectly written, the other interpretations wouldn't exist. However, I can disagree with myself... it is perfectly written, as it doesn't really matter what interpretation is used, as long as players have fun.

Remember, I'm not debating the interpretations of the card. I'm debating peoples right to view it differently.

[Jalapenotrellis]

Struggling to explain myself at a young age has made me realise and I see this a lot in the real world. People pick up on 1 thing and focus on that rather than seeing the main intention. This is why it can often be better to keep a focused point, keeping other tangents left out

This is wisdom. I do a type of counseling/consulting in healthcare for a living and find the exact same thing with my clients and professional interactions. It is as though people will throw out everything else good are meaningful you have said.

[mitchiemasha]

It's a nightmare I just can't let it be. There's so much more I could go into but i leave most... Rant incoming!!! lol!!!!!!

I never accused you of saying your claim was the right wrong one.

HUH! Exactly! I never implied that you were saying my point is right or wrong. My point is... I never made my claim to either being so in the first place. You're words still show me that you think I made 1. This is what shows me the missconnection. Your replies are out of context to the meaning in which the words are been casted at you. In other words

THESE (YOUR) REPLIES ARE WHY I KNOW YOU'D MISSED MY POINT AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING TO REEXPLAIN DUE TO A LIFE TIME OF BEEN MISSUNDERSTOOD!

Don't get me started on this.

When I say I feel it's silly to think that, it's exactly what I mean. If I wanted to call someone silly, I'd write exactly that. I try not to imply, or suggest, or hint at things... I say it.

People often use the "I say what I mean" comment, but it doesn't work here. Perhaps I could of worded myself better but, writing "I feel it's silly to think that" is implying... "if you think that your are thinking silly". Nowhere am I trying to say you wanted to call someone silly. I'm just trying to... (I don't know the words) open you to realisation to how it comes across.

This could go around in circles forever

I'll tell you a story. As a child my mam asked me what flavour crisps I liked, about to buy me some. My reply was "the ones that burn your lips" Her reply was "don't be stupid non do that". It should of been obvious Salt & Vinger. If a child asked me that today I'd know exactly what they mean (ok, I wouldn't, we have loads of crazy flavours now, the child might actually mean ones that burn your lips). What I'm trying to say here is, unless you're on the same wavelength, things can be taken quite differently... Ironically, this is exactly what the thread is about!!!

Normally we don't have to go into such details of clarification and people simply know what you mean. We know when people know what you mean, even if they disagree, by the replies they cast back at you. There's a HUGE difference between disagreeing with someone and understanding what they mean than disagreeing when you don't. Or even, disagreeing to something they're not even making a stance on.

I'll give an example... My comment, "some people believe the world is round, some people believe the world is flat". Reply, "I disagree because..." presents loads of knowledge that supports why they believe either of the stance. Wrong reply! Now why is that? If you know why? You understand the point, if you don't you're still not on the same wavelength.

[Kurgan]

Strongest Use- the spell can be cast before he sees a monster and it only becomes active on the hero's next attack, it will then last until there are no more monsters visible.

I always interpreted it to refer to him SEEING monsters, and specifically changed it so that as long as he can still "see" monsters by the end of his turn, it is still active. So after attacking, he could line himself back up (and the monsters will try to scatter to prevent him attacking them with the bonus). So I use the NA card's wording but amend the words "...at the end of his turn."

"Visible" changes everything (meaning the pieces are just on the board) and really makes it super powerful, I agree. "visible to that player" implies 'seeing' (unobstructed LOS), rather than just on the board.

[Gold Bearer]

I agree. I believe the intent of the NA spell is that of the EU 2nd edition version, that you get the bonus multiple times until you can no longer see a monster. Even between British English and American English things can still be lost in translation. I believe the wording was changed to read more like other cards in the NA version, and not a conscious decision to alter game balance in any way.

So you're going to ignore what the card actually says (two extra dice on your next attack unless there's no monster insight at some point between the spell being cast and your next attack) in favour of what you think it should say?

I think water of healing was intended to be heal 5bp or it's no different than heal body, and the barbarian should always attack with an extra dice because he does to start with, and they meant that the wizard gets to keep attacking spells if they don't hurt the tagert and I know they meant 35gp for the crossbow, the 0 is clearly a misprint.

[wallydubbs]

I agree. I believe the intent of the NA spell is that of the EU 2nd edition version, that you get the bonus multiple times until you can no longer see a monster. Even between British English and American English things can still be lost in translation. I believe the wording was changed to read more like other cards in the NA version, and not a conscious decision to alter game balance in any way.

So you're going to ignore what the card actually says (two extra dice on your next attack unless there's no monster insight at some point between the spell being cast and your next attack) in favour of what you think it should say?

I think water of healing was intended to be heal 5bp or it's no different than heal body, and the barbarian should always attack with an extra dice because he does to start with, and they meant that the wizard gets to keep attacking spells if they don't hurt the tagert and I know they meant 35gp for the crossbow, the 0 is clearly a misprint.

He's not ignoring what the card says, merely interpreting it differently. There's a difference.
The original way I read it is still how I interpret it:
The Wizard can cast this on himself before any enemies are in sight, only on his next next attack is it active. From there keep running with the +2 attack until no more enemies are in sight.

I get that some people want to interpret it with a duration of 1 or less, and that's fine if you want to do it that way. But some of us understand it as if there's a point for mentioning duration.

[Gold Bearer]

He's not ignoring what the card says, merely interpreting it differently. There's a difference.

In this particular instance there isn't. The card quite clear and specifically states when the extra attack dice apply, it's for your next attack.

Any other interpretation is something other than what the card says and therefore not the official rule, it's that simple.

Kicking the hornet's nest.

[wallydubbs]

He's not ignoring what the card says, merely interpreting it differently. There's a difference.

In this particular instance there isn't. The card quite clear and specifically states when the extra attack dice apply, it's for your next attack.

Any other interpretation is something other than what the card says and therefore not the official rule, it's that simple.

Kicking the hornet's nest.

Yeah, I see what you're doing.
Not quite. The way you read something is not necessarily the same way everybody reads it. If there was this debate wouldn't even happen. My interpretation is just as valid as yours.

I understand the way you want to read it. I may not agree, but I understand.
I also know you're not going to end up seeing things my way, and I won't resolve to doing things your way.
It's a game and the way you understand it the first time you read it is probably the way it was intended. It wasn't meant to be picked apart and was intended for simplest form.

I've played this numerous times and at no point has my cousin or girlfriend's daughter (both play the Wizard in different groups) question the direct meaning of "next". It's understood that the spell has duration.

[Gold Bearer]

I've played this numerous times and at no point has my cousin or girlfriend's daughter (both play the Wizard in different groups) question the direct meaning of "next". It's understood that the spell has duration.

Yes it does have a duration. You don't get the extra dice on your next attack if there's ever no monsters in sight before your next attack.

When you get the extra attack dice isn't open to interpretation, it clearly states it's for your next attack. The fact that the spell is broken if there's no monsters in sight before your next attack is completely irrelevant. The only possible way to interpret it as giving you extra attack dice beyond your next attack is obviously by simply ignoring where it specifically tells you that it's your next attack.

To be honest I read it wrong too to start with and once you do that the first time you tend to keep doing it because pathway in your brain is there now. I was convinced it meant that you get two extra attack dice until there's no monster in sight. I was wrong though because that's clearly not what it says. After reading it carefully it's not even slightly unclear, it's just easy to misread if you're not careful.

They seriously nurfed the fire spells in the US version, already the weakest set. Ball of flame and fire of wrath defend on 5s or 6s instead of black shields, fire of wrath isn't anywhere on the board and courage doesn't work if there's no monsters in sight before your next attack. I think it's because the vast majority of HQ players when it first came out were kids and children will tend to go for fire, making it a lot more common choice than the others. When I first played the wizard chose air because it had genie and I was really happy because it meant I got to have fire. It didn't take long to realise that earth is the one to choose and if the wizard already chose it then water, even if you're working together it's best to split the healing spells. To a kid when they first start playing (me at least) healing spells seem really crap.