Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric

[Bampop]

{I deleted what was up here, because it was way more mean-spirited than I intended, and I've been bummed out all day that I acted like a jerk.}

But what I meant behind the monster intent was that the card does NOT say "will not attack clerics"

And the monster DID attack the Cleric. The Cleric then attacked back by yelling and the monster dropped its treasure and ran away. Once the Cleric beat the level 4 monster, she was able to pick up all the treasure.

[erikwoods]

Originally Posted by Bampop

Perhaps the thread should be called "Critical Links & Useful Information -- READ ME BEFORE POSTING!!! THERE WILL BE A QUIZ!!!"

My question to the original poster would be, if you don't think the intent of scaring the Wannabe Vampire "away" is to take the monster out of the combat, then what is the intent?



And the monster DID attack the Cleric. The Cleric then attacked back by yelling and the monster dropped its treasure and ran away. Once the Cleric beat the level 4 monster, she was able to pick up all the treasure.

Geez. Give me a break. I said I was new to the game. I said I didn't have time to read the long sticky thread. I said the thing that throws me off is the combat score when comvined with other monsters.

I also said I get it now. I get it. Feel free to delete this thread.

[morleydotes]

Don't let the new group of rules lawyers get to ya. If you note, most of them have just joined the forums. Give them time to learn not to pile on. Just relax and enjoy the game.

If you have questions and don't want the issue that has just happened, pm MM or Andrew, I'm sure that they would be happy to help ya.


Pat

[Bampop]

Yeah, I apologize. I really didn't need to come off as snarky as I did. I really didn't re-read my post before hitting submit.

I am only a month in to playing the game, but I spend a disgusting amount of time refreshing the forums.

Sorry again.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by morleydotes

If you have questions and don't want the issue that has just happened, pm MM or Andrew, I'm sure that they would be happy to help ya.

Please don't do this. I'd rather confine rule questions to the forums, and I'm sure those posters who have been a bit overenthusiastic about answering questions will understand when I tell everyone to leave the moderating to Erik, Lenny, and me.

(That said, it's not unreasonable to expect people to read a thread that says READ ME FIRST!!, either.)

[erikwoods]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Please don't do this. I'd rather confine rule questions to the forums, and I'm sure those posters who have been a bit overenthusiastic about answering questions will understand when I tell everyone to leave the moderating to Erik, Lenny, and me.

(That said, it's not unreasonable to expect people to read a thread that says READ ME FIRST!!, either.)

I think it is slightly unreasonable when the READ ME FIRST thread is insanely huge. I read it afterwards - including most of the FAQ - and still did not find my answer in there. It's because some other rule in the game was throwing me off (combat strengths) - I still never would have definitively answered my own question.

But to understand that, you must first understand why the situation was questionable to me in the first place - and unfortunately, nobody does.

Like I said - feel free to delete this stupid thread. I'm growing bored of this game quickly anyways and doubt it will ever come up again.

[erikwoods]

Actually, what I just said in my last reply doesn't matter.

They did not tell me to go to the sticky thread to find an answer to my question - they went on a rampage for not knowing who Erik (MunchkinMan) was, which I was supposed to see by going to the sticky thread, apparently. And if I had done that, I'd know better than to question his authority and knowledge? Or something? I guess that's what this is all about.

[Andrew Hackard]

I'm not at all condoning the somewhat testy replies made by other people earlier in this thread, and I apologize for not making that clear before. I'm sorry that this discussion has left a sour taste in your mouth about the game.

I'll see what I can do about cutting down the "READ THIS FIRST!" thread; it's past time for me to review it all, anyway.

[erikwoods]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

I'm not at all condoning the somewhat testy replies made by other people earlier in this thread, and I apologize for not making that clear before. I'm sorry that this discussion has left a sour taste in your mouth about the game.

I'll see what I can do about cutting down the "READ THIS FIRST!" thread; it's past time for me to review it all, anyway.

I'm not offended by anybody or anything. If anything, I think it's humorous that they are so serious about this game. I thought this was supposed to be a laid-back game and it turns out there are a lot of little nit-picky rules and conditional gameplay.

It has made me realize maybe I should stop taking it so seriously myself. Maybe that's why I'm becoming bored of it.

[LordSnah42]

In this case, the Cleric may choose to avoid fighting the Wannabe Vampire and get its Treasure. So, your wife was correct: She could avoid having to fight the Wannabe Vampire, making it leave the combat so she only had to face the Level 4 Monster. After she killed the remaining Monster, she would get the Treasure from the Wannabe Vampire.

I wanted to visit this question again with a question. If the monsters in combat gain the positives and the negatives of other monsters in combat, cant she just have said oggada boogada boo and both run away? She should get the levels and treasures of both then, correct?