Courage Spell

[wallydubbs]

Everyone seems to have their own way of interpreting this, either:
Weakest Use- the hero's next attack, and only next attack, gets 2 extra combat dice, but if he loses line of sight before then the spell is broken.
Normal Use- the hero's next attack and all attacks thereafter get 2 extra combat dice until there are no monsters in sight.
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.

How everyone uses this spell comes down to Zargon's interpretation, though the Wizard player may try to coax him into seeing it differently.

I personally feel it was just an oddly worded interpretation of the European 2nd Version of the spell.
The 1st version of the European spell is no greater then a Potion of Strength, as it requires an action to cast, yet Potion of Strength requires no action to use.

The American version of this game may never have been playtested as they simply adopted the already created European game system and just gave the monsters more credibility. Of course, you can push The Trial as the first quest in European version because all the monsters have 1 body point. But in the American version, this quest is way too difficult to assign first, playtesters should've caught that. In like manner they were clumsy with wording of some spells.

Since the 2nd European edition increased the duration of not only the Courage spell, but Rock Skin as well; and there's no debate on duration of American Rock Skin, it can also be justified that the American version was intended for Courage to have duration as well.

[j_dean80]

Everyone seems to have their own way of interpreting this, either:
Weakest Use- the hero's next attack, and only next attack, gets 2 extra combat dice, but if he loses line of sight before then the spell is broken.
Normal Use- the hero's next attack and all attacks thereafter get 2 extra combat dice until there are no monsters in sight.
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.

How everyone uses this spell comes down to Zargon's interpretation, though the Wizard player may try to coax him into seeing it differently.

I personally feel it was just an oddly worded interpretation of the European 2nd Version of the spell.
The 1st version of the European spell is no greater then a Potion of Strength, as it requires an action to cast, yet Potion of Strength requires no action to use.

The American version of this game may never have been playtested as they simply adopted the already created European game system and just gave the monsters more credibility. Of course, you can push The Trial as the first quest in European version because all the monsters have 1 body point. But in the American version, this quest is way too difficult to assign first, playtesters should've caught that. In like manner they were clumsy with wording of some spells.

Since the 2nd European edition increased the duration of not only the Courage spell, but Rock Skin as well; and there's no debate on duration of American Rock Skin, it can also be justified that the American version was intended for Courage to have duration as well.

I only read this spell as in the "strongest use" meaning. The way it is worded I do not see it working any other way and also don't see the purpose of adding the extra words if it was meant else-wise.

[Jafazo]

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.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Daedalus took the 1st major step toward clarifying things with that chart posted on page 6 of this topic. I play the US version and agree with Gold Bearer, the wording's clear, but he didn't touch on an important fact so I'll do it here.

First, we look at the US wording...
The next time the hero attacks he rolls two extra combat dice." That's the effect of the spell. All these interpretations fall on people both not understanding what "next" means by definition and manipulating themselves because of it. Keep reading cause I'll explain, but first let's look at the next sentence.
"The spell is broken the moment the hero can no longer see a monster." If for any reason you can no longer see a monster, the spell ends, too bad for you. This is straightforward but is involved in the confusion so we'll look at it.

So why is, "The next time" to blame? Saying next time is like saying, "I'll give you a copy of heroquest tomorrow." Tomorrow comes, I give you your copy of heroquest but you tell me, "You said you'd give me a copy of heroquest tomorrow, so tomorrow I will get another copy?" See, because each new day, there will be a new tomorrow. This is where understanding the definition of the word next becomes important. It's a one time sequential reference. There can be other next time's, but at any time of writing, there can only be one next time.

If I told you I'd slap you the next time you said "Courage lasts for more than one attack.", it means I'm intending to slap you once if you say it, not each time you say it. If I wanted to slap you each time you said it, I'd tell you "I'm gonna slap you each time you say "Courage lasts for more than one attack." Next time references the one single coming instance. If you wanted to reference more than just the next coming instance you could say, "each time" or "anytime" or "whenever" or the likes. It's a common misunderstanding that can even be experienced in when people try to reference a coming day of the week. People often say something like, "We'll play Heroquest next Friday." When it's Thursday, which means you'll play Heroquest tomorrow (Friday), but what they usually intend is the Friday after (The second coming Friday, not this next coming Friday).

So now we move on to the part that says, "The spell is broken the moment the Hero can no longer see a monster." and really there isn't much to discuss here. The effects we outlined earlier will simply become null if the Hero can't see a monster. None of us knows why this was included but it's there, so that means when a Hero can't see a monster, the effects explained above don't occur, the spell's gone, you don't get your two extra combat dice on your next turn. This is the only beef I have with the spell because as written, and as I said before, it's too easy to make happen. In a worst case scenario, a monster could move a few squares behind anything that obstructs line of sight effectively breaking the spell at that very moment, then continue its movement, come out, and move back in to attack. It's just stupid.

If you're gonna mess with the interpretation to this spell try this...
Based on the US versions wording you could argue that the spell lets you roll either 2 extra attack dice or 2 extra defend dice, your choice, and you can roll them anytime you want before the spell breaks. "The next time that Hero attacks, he may roll two extra combat dice." So, the next time we attack, something happens. Attacking triggers the spells effect. Then it says, we may roll two extra combat dice. The game references combat dice as attack dice or defend dice. You roll combat dice to attack or defend. So after we attack, we can roll 2 extra combat dice. Ok, well, when do we roll it? The sentence tells us that the next time we attack we can go ahead and roll 2 extra dice to attack or defend then stops, it doesn't tell us when or under what conditions. That means, after the spell is cast on us, and after we attack a monster, we can now wait and either increase a later attack by 2 combat dice or a later defense by 2 combat dice. Note though, that you'd still need to use those 2 extra combat dice before the battle is over because the spell breaks once you can no longer see a monster.

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."

[lestodante]

for me the 2 extra dice are to be intended only to attack, for increasing defense there is the Rock Skin spell already (or potions).

[j_dean80]

That was a long worded explanation for me to still not understand your stance.

[Jafazo]

That was a long worded explanation for me to still not understand your stance.

"Next time" means "This one coming time." In the US version, you don't get numerous attacks with 2 extra combat dice until you can no longer see a monster.

for me the 2 extra dice are to be intended only to attack, for increasing defense there is the Rock Skin spell already (or potions).

There being a Rock Skin has nothing to do with anything, leave it out of this, it contributes to clutter. As for you feeling the 2 extra dice are intended only to attack, I agree with you, the spell does intend for that, but it writes it poorly by saying, "he may roll two extra combat dice", so that leaves it open to interpretation and argument because combat dice are referenced and identified by the game as attack dice or defend dice. Let's not get it wrong, I won't be letting anyone roll two extra defend dice with Courage in my games anytime soon, but it's a better example of how poorly this game was designed in some aspects. The argument should've been there, if anything, and not on whether or not Courage gives you repeated attacks until you can no longer see a monster. In the US version it's clear, it doesn't give you more than one attack with that bonus.

[wallydubbs]

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 playtested 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]

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.

[j_dean80]

The "can no longer see a monster" would not be written on the card if it had no meaning. Otherwise it would have just been left off.

The "next" is when the spell takes effect and the "can no longer see a monster" is when it ends. It maybe could have been worded better but to me this is the designers intent of the spell.

[SirRick]

This is a rare case of the UK version (both cards) being better written than the US version!

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.

I think as kids we played the spell as it was meant to be, but after getting older and being exposed to games like Munchkin, we tend to overanalyze the wording.

Just think if you reread rules for older games, like various releases of Checkers (or draughts if you like), or even Candyland. I'm sure adults could have fierce arguments over munchkin-y interpretations of the rules, even for games meant for children.