Adjudicating combat effects

[TheAmishStig]

Over in Munchkin 101 there have been a few threads now about combining auto-kills and combat cancellation. I thought I understood what was going on but was proven wrong in the most recent one (found here); Andrew mentioned we're going well beyond 101-level concepts, to please create a thread here, so...yeah. Thread!

As an MIB figuring this stuff out once and for all is important to discharging my/our duties, so hopefully this proves helpful to demo agents and players alike.

In the linked thread, the following scenarios were presented:

Scenario A:
- Action: Combatant Player auto-kills the only monster in combat
- Action: Non-combatant Player attempts to play Friendship Potion (or other combat cancel card) to deprive the player of their winnings (levels/treasure).
- Question: Does Combatant Player get the rewards from the killed monster?
- Ruling: Since the specific combat canceler targets a monster, and there were no monsters, therefore the card could not be played. If no other actions are taken, combat is over, Combatant Player wins, and gets the listed rewards.[2]

Scenario B:
- Action: Combatant Player auto-kills the only monster in combat
- Action: Non-Combatant Player uses Wandering Monster to continue combat.
- Action: Non-Combatant Player plays Friendship Potion (or another combat-cancel card)
- Question: Since the first monster was killed prior to the combat being canceled, does Combatant Player get its reward?

My understanding in scenario B was that it depends on whether it's a combat cancel card (as if combat never happened, such as Friendship Potion) [1][2] or a combat replacement card (changes the outcome, such as Out to Lunch)[2], since combat is all or nothing...either the combating players win (by comparing combat strength, even if auto-kill/out to lunch reduces the monsters' combat strength to 0) and get rewards, or they don't (either by Running Away or by a card that negates the combat) and get nothing...but the latest ruling leaves me more confused than anything[3], since it negates the combat but still gives rewards for the auto-kill.

I...officially don't get it, there's got to be something I'm missing. When making calls like these in a demo or tournament situation where we don't have the forum handy [or time to wait for a reply], what should we be looking for when ruling whether or not the player gets to keep their rewards?

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by TheAmishStig

Scenario B:
- Action: Combatant Player auto-kills the only monster in combat
- Action: Non-Combatant Player uses Wandering Monster to continue combat.
- Action: Non-Combatant Player plays Friendship Potion (or another combat-cancel card)
- Question: Since the first monster was killed prior to the combat being canceled, does Combatant Player get its reward?

My understanding in scenario B was that it depends on whether it's a combat cancel card (as if combat never happened, such as Friendship Potion) [1][2] or a combat replacement card (changes the outcome, such as Out to Lunch)[2], since combat is all or nothing...either the combating players win (by comparing combat strength, even if auto-kill/out to lunch reduces the monsters' combat strength to 0) and get rewards, or they don't (either by Running Away or by a card that negates the combat) and get nothing...but the latest ruling leaves me more confused than anything[3], since it negates the combat but still gives rewards for the auto-kill.

I...officially don't get it, there's got to be something I'm missing. When making calls like these in a demo or tournament situation where we don't have the forum handy [or time to wait for a reply], what should we be looking for when ruling whether or not the player gets to keep their rewards?

I think what you are missing in 3 is that it's NOT negating combat and still handing out levels per Andrew's post. In your scenario, the combat has not yet completed, therefore no levels or treasures can be handed out. The auto-kill has nothing to do with it. The Wandering Monster that continues combat is the key element. Since a monster does exist and a combat is still active, the Friendship Potion works, and the combatant gets nothing.

In contrast, if the scenario looked like this:

Scenario B:
- Action: Combatant Player auto-kills the only monster in combat
- Action: Non-Combatant Player plays Friendship Potion (or another combat-cancel card)

The Combatant would get the levels/treasure because the combat is over and the Friendship Potion would be illegal to play.

[TheAmishStig]

That's what I thought was supposed to happen, but if you look at munchkinman's ruling in #3 the player got the stuff from the killed monster. That's what threw me off, considering the previous ruling that a friendship potion is as if combat never happened...as opposed to something like out to lunch, which if I understand that one correctly it replaces the removed monster's rewards with its own.

It doesn't really matter what's right, so long as I know what right is and blew it was arrived at, in case I have to rule on something similar a tournament floor.

[MunchkinMan]

Bear in mind that Andrew had posted in another thread that if you auto-kill a Monster, and there are Monsters left behind, a card like Friendship Potion would not take away the rewards from the auto-kill. My last ruling was stating that because there was a Monster still in the combat, even if it was added later, that Friendship Potion was a legal play, and all the rewards from the auto-kill remained, plus anything that Friendship Potion said would apply to the remaining Monster(s).

[Andrew Hackard]

I'm going to ask a favor: Stig, can you post a link to this thread in the "requesting answers to questions" thread right now? I'm going to have to give this some thought and, until Shakespeare settles down a bit more, I don't have the time or brain cells to do that.

Please put "Added at Andrew's request" in the post so we remember that I asked you to do that when we look at it a few days from now. Thanks.

[TheAmishStig]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Bear in mind that Andrew had posted in another thread that if you auto-kill a Monster, and there are Monsters left behind, a card like Friendship Potion would not take away the rewards from the auto-kill. My last ruling was stating that because there was a Monster still in the combat, even if it was added later, that Friendship Potion was a legal play, and all the rewards from the auto-kill remained, plus anything that Friendship Potion said would apply to the remaining Monster(s).

Ok...that might be what I was missing. If that ruling overrules "Friendship potion is as if combat never happened" (and by extension creating two 'families' of combat abort cards, those that make it have never happened and those that replace the outcome), then I think I see the method to the madness. "Combat never happened but you still get the rewards of what happened in combat before combat never happened" is the part I'm struggling to wrap my head around.

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

I'm going to ask a favor: Stig, can you post a link to this thread in the "requesting answers to questions" thread right now? I'm going to have to give this some thought and, until Shakespeare settles down a bit more, I don't have the time or brain cells to do that.

Please put "Added at Andrew's request" in the post so we remember that I asked you to do that when we look at it a few days from now. Thanks.

Will do. Best of luck on Shakespeare...it looks like it's going to be all the best kinds of bad jokes.

[offsides]

Reading through the replies and the FAQ, it seems like there's 2 separate situation:

1) Someone plays a card that ends combat, stating that either there are no rewards or the reward is modified. However, since the first monster is already dead, and combat ended without a loss (i.e., having to run away), you should get the rewards for the auto-kill. This seems to line up with Andrew's previous ruling.

2) Someone plays a card that negates the combat - that is, it's as if it never happened (I can't remember the card, but there's at least one out there that does this including sending played cards back into everyone's hands). In that case, I would think that you don't get the rewards, since the combat never actually happened (and in some cases, the card that caused the auto-kill was returned to your hand), but I expect Andrew will have to make a ruling on this when he has time.

Fortunately this appears to be a bit of a corner case, so it shouldn't crop up too, too often (famous last words, I know...).