Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general

Razzmatazzle · 05-21-2011, 11:17 PM

Hi guys.

Registered so I could get a definitive ruling on these two questions, which I just argued about with a friend of mine. I've been playing for a while, he's newish to the game.

First:
Does Illusion require one to play a monster after removing the other monster from combat? I argued that because it is a single sentence (i.e. remove a monster from combat along with its enhancers, replace it with another) that you cannot play Illusion unless you have a monster in your hand to replace it with. He argued that the two clauses are separate, that you can play illusion on a single monster to simply end the combat if you don't have a monster in your hand to replace. He cited as justification for this interpretation the rule on curses that states that a curse doesn't do anything if you simply don't have the card it applies to.

That led directly to the second thing:
He made the argument that the rules set down all the possible types of cards (classes, races, monster enhancers, and curses), and that as a result any card that does not fit into the class, race, or monster enhancer category is by definition a curse. I said that was absolutely ridiculous and that Munchkin doesn't work like, for instance, Magic, where every single card is set in a rigid defined category, and that curses were very obviously only the cards that said "Curse" on them. He challenged me to find anywhere in the rules that said that curses were only the cards that said "curse" on them and that since I could not therefore all cards that were not classes, races, or monster enhancers were curses. I am 100% certain he is wrong and I could use some backing up.

Mister Ed · 05-21-2011, 11:49 PM

I would say that the burden of proof for that ridiculous assertion lies with your friend, not you. If he is going to assert that anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories is a curse, HE needs to find a rule to back that up. By his assertion, a "Go Up a Level" card is a curse, which is patently absurd. I'm sorry, but HE must prove his assertion from the rules, not the other way around. In the absence of proof either way, common sense (which is on your side) should rule.

A curse is a curse. If it isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules, it is because they couldn't imagine anybody being foolish enough to need that explanation, what with all the cards bearing the word "Curse!" (with an exclamation point no less) in the title.

Plus, I would argue that even if Illusion WAS a curse (which it isn't) you STILL wouldn't be able to play it if you didn't have a monster to replace the other with. The effect of the card is, as you say, all in one part. You can't have it take only partial effect.

I look forward to the official response on this. I imagine it might take them a while to stop laughing before they reply.

Andrew Hackard · 05-21-2011, 11:52 PM

Illusion must be played with a monster.

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

Razzmatazzle · 05-22-2011, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

I would say that the burden of proof for that ridiculous assertion lies with your friend, not you. If he is going to assert that anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories is a curse, HE needs to find a rule to back that up. By his assertion, a "Go Up a Level" card is a curse, which is patently absurd. I'm sorry, but HE must prove his assertion from the rules, not the other way around. In the absence of proof either way, common sense (which is on your side) should rule.

A curse is a curse. If it isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules, it is because they couldn't imagine anybody being foolish enough to need that explanation, what with all the cards bearing the word "Curse!" (with an exclamation point no less) in the title.

Plus, I would argue that even if Illusion WAS a curse (which it isn't) you STILL wouldn't be able to play it if you didn't have a monster to replace the other with. The effect of the card is, as you say, all in one part. You can't have it take only partial effect.

I look forward to the official response on this. I imagine it might take them a while to stop laughing before they reply.

Yep, that's pretty much what I said too. But he is a true munchkin and managed to argue persuasively enough that two brand new players at the table let him do the Illusion thing.

I just sort of spluttered uselessly. I am not particularly good at arguing with people who completely subvert my argument by basically declaring that the sky is red and demand I prove otherwise. Though I will admit the Illusion one was at least a an arguable point. The curse thing? No.

Razzmatazzle · 05-22-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Illusion must be played with a monster.

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

Great, thanks. I'll reference him to this if he requests further clarification.

Palmer · 05-22-2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razzmatazzle

all the possible types of cards (classes, races, monster enhancers, and curses)

"So, this Really Impressive Title is a Curse?"

The rules list a number of card types, stating when they can be played.

Nowhere does it say they are ALL the card types.
Also, nowhere does it even imply that unspecified cards all default to ANYTHING.

MunchkinMan · 05-22-2011, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

Let me expand upon this, since it's important to reduce the risk of future tomfoolery on the part of Razz's friend, mostly for Razz's sake: The rules are a guideline of how to play the game. They describe certain types of cards as best they can. However, the game is, in many ways, a simple game, and has many cards that defy description or title and just are. The rules do account for this by explaining that some cards are just played and discarded once their effects have been resolved.

The fact that the rules aren't quite so rigorous as some other game one might consider discussing does not mean that one should use that other game to define how Munchkin should work. For example, Munchkin does not have a stack mechanism, like that other game, yet so many players of that other game want to think there is. But, let's be honest with ourselves: Any game that has a stack mechanism has a large rule book explaining how that stack mechanism works. Munchkin never discusses a stack, which should not be used to infer that one exists anyway because that other game has one. So, one should approach Munchkin as Munchkin, and not some other game, and should not try to establish that every single card is of class A, B, C or D, and can't possibly be something else. I feel that way lies madness caused by cognitive dissonance. . . ;-)

MaesterKupo · 05-22-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razzmatazzle

He challenged me to find anywhere in the rules that said that curses were only the cards that said "curse" on them and that since I could not therefore all cards that were not classes, races, or monster enhancers were curses. I am 100% certain he is wrong and I could use some backing up.

"CHEAT!" I've been trying to think of a Door card other than Illusion that is not a curse and that's when it hit me! Cheat is very much so, a Door card, a great point of difference between Magic and Munchkin and not a Curse! Mwahahahahaha!!

ComBAT · 05-23-2011, 10:03 AM

I can't think of any curses that require direct conditional situations, such as the need to be in combat. If you kicked open a door, and found the Illusion card, then by the rules of a curse, it would take no effect and be discarded since finding a Curse by kicking down the door means the effects take place immediately.

I've heard some odd stretches in arguments that people have experienced on this forum, but this one seems to go beyond a stretch.

05-21-2011, 11:17 PM	#1
Razzmatazzle Join Date: May 2011	Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general Hi guys. Registered so I could get a definitive ruling on these two questions, which I just argued about with a friend of mine. I've been playing for a while, he's newish to the game. First: Does Illusion require one to play a monster after removing the other monster from combat? I argued that because it is a single sentence (i.e. remove a monster from combat along with its enhancers, replace it with another) that you cannot play Illusion unless you have a monster in your hand to replace it with. He argued that the two clauses are separate, that you can play illusion on a single monster to simply end the combat if you don't have a monster in your hand to replace. He cited as justification for this interpretation the rule on curses that states that a curse doesn't do anything if you simply don't have the card it applies to. That led directly to the second thing: He made the argument that the rules set down all the possible types of cards (classes, races, monster enhancers, and curses), and that as a result any card that does not fit into the class, race, or monster enhancer category is by definition a curse. I said that was absolutely ridiculous and that Munchkin doesn't work like, for instance, Magic, where every single card is set in a rigid defined category, and that curses were very obviously only the cards that said "Curse" on them. He challenged me to find anywhere in the rules that said that curses were only the cards that said "curse" on them and that since I could not therefore all cards that were not classes, races, or monster enhancers were curses. I am 100% certain he is wrong and I could use some backing up.

05-21-2011, 11:49 PM	#2
Mister Ed Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Portland, Oregon	Re: Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general I would say that the burden of proof for that ridiculous assertion lies with your friend, not you. If he is going to assert that anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories is a curse, HE needs to find a rule to back that up. By his assertion, a "Go Up a Level" card is a curse, which is patently absurd. I'm sorry, but HE must prove his assertion from the rules, not the other way around. In the absence of proof either way, common sense (which is on your side) should rule. A curse is a curse. If it isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules, it is because they couldn't imagine anybody being foolish enough to need that explanation, what with all the cards bearing the word "Curse!" (with an exclamation point no less) in the title. Plus, I would argue that even if Illusion WAS a curse (which it isn't) you STILL wouldn't be able to play it if you didn't have a monster to replace the other with. The effect of the card is, as you say, all in one part. You can't have it take only partial effect. I look forward to the official response on this. I imagine it might take them a while to stop laughing before they reply.

05-21-2011, 11:52 PM	#3
Andrew Hackard *Munchkin* Line Editor Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Austin, TX	Re: Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general Illusion must be played with a monster. Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses. __________________ Andrew Hackard, *Munchkin* Line Editor If you have a question that isn't getting answered, we have a thread for that. Let people like what they like. Don't be a gamer hater. #PlayMunchkin on social media: Twitter \|\| Facebook \|\| Instagram \|\| YouTube Follow us on Kickstarter: Steve Jackson Games and Warehouse 23

05-23-2011, 10:03 AM	#9
ComBAT Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Windsor Locks, CT	Re: Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general I can't think of any curses that require direct conditional situations, such as the need to be in combat. If you kicked open a door, and found the Illusion card, then by the rules of a curse, it would take no effect and be discarded since finding a Curse by kicking down the door means the effects take place immediately. I've heard some odd stretches in arguments that people have experienced on this forum, but this one seems to go beyond a stretch.