Playing cards "on someone" vs "on combat"

Mathgeni · 04-15-2016, 11:12 PM

Last week playing Steampunk, a player used a card that said nobody else could play cards on the combat. I proceeded to play a curse on said player as I viewed the curse as being played on the person and not on the combat as it wasn't a one-shot or monster enhancer. Another player declared that this wasn't legal because it was "with the intention of altering the combat." This week that same player defined playing a curse as "on the player" to which I brought up his previous statement and being inconsistent. He adamantly holds to the belief that the situations are different because of the "intent" of my curse in the previous week.

I hold that a curse is "on a player" regardless of the intent because it is not a card played directly into the combat scenario.

Could we get some official feedback on this general situation?

Andrew Hackard · 04-15-2016, 11:35 PM

Not without specific names of the cards that were played so that we can check the exact wording.

Mathgeni · 04-15-2016, 11:48 PM

I will check on the one card from Steampunk and get back to this thread with it once I have access to it again to look through.

Mathgeni · 04-22-2016, 12:44 PM

My apologies for the delay in updating with the card title.

The card is "Paramagnetic Fixative Vapour"

04-15-2016, 11:12 PM	#1
Mathgeni Join Date: Oct 2015	Playing cards "on someone" vs "on combat" Last week playing Steampunk, a player used a card that said nobody else could play cards on the combat. I proceeded to play a curse on said player as I viewed the curse as being played on the person and not on the combat as it wasn't a one-shot or monster enhancer. Another player declared that this wasn't legal because it was "with the intention of altering the combat." This week that same player defined playing a curse as "on the player" to which I brought up his previous statement and being inconsistent. He adamantly holds to the belief that the situations are different because of the "intent" of my curse in the previous week. I hold that a curse is "on a player" regardless of the intent because it is not a card played directly into the combat scenario. Could we get some official feedback on this general situation?

04-15-2016, 11:35 PM	#2
Andrew Hackard *Munchkin* Line Editor Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Austin, TX	Re: Playing cards "on someone" vs "on combat" Not without specific names of the cards that were played so that we can check the exact wording. __________________ 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

04-15-2016, 11:48 PM	#3
Mathgeni Join Date: Oct 2015	Re: Playing cards "on someone" vs "on combat" I will check on the one card from Steampunk and get back to this thread with it once I have access to it again to look through.

04-22-2016, 12:44 PM	#4
Mathgeni Join Date: Oct 2015	Re: Playing cards "on someone" vs "on combat" My apologies for the delay in updating with the card title. The card is "Paramagnetic Fixative Vapour"