|
04-15-2016, 11:12 PM | #1 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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" |
|
|