Help from a Wizard

[Liam]

Scenario:

I am facing a monster and don't have enough level points to beat it. I get the help of a buddy to kill the monster and with our levels, we have enough to beat the monster. The buddy is also a Wizard. Can he turn around, discard his entire hand, and then charm the monster without my consent? And if this is legal, can he then keep all the treasure for himself?

Thanks much for any input!

[Solelron]

He can discard his entire hand, but he does not get all the treasure. Treasure would still be divided up as agreed upon.

So this would be a pointless move for him.

[Andrew Hackard]

This and similar situations have been clarified in the rule rewrites. Even if the helper uses a Class or Race ability, the main fighter is the one to draw the Treasures and distribute them per the agreement.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

This and similar situations have been clarified in the rule rewrites. Even if the helper uses a Class or Race ability, the main fighter is the one to draw the Treasures and distribute them per the agreement.

Ahh ok. The point behind the Wizard doing this would be to "rob" me of the level I could of gotten. Makes sense about the treasure. So if a Wizard is indeed chosen to help in a fight, he can, without consent of the player whose turn it is, charm the monster?

[Genpin]

Yes, the trick is, state in your agreement that the monster will be killed, not defeated, so the wizard dont betray you

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Genpin

Yes, the trick is, state in your agreement that the monster will be killed, not defeated, so the wizard dont betray you

Excellent. Now one more variable to add here... what if the Wizard, right before he charms the monster, decides to add a +10 that adds 2 additional treasures? Technically, this is done after any negotiations, so does the player whom he is helping have any say with those 2 additional treasures after said monster is charmed?

[Nerftw]

We always play that the wording of the agreement is upheld.

So if Bob says "I will help Joe for 2 treasures my choice", and plays a card that adds treasure, Bob only gets 2 treasures and Joe gets all the rest.

But if Bob says (on a three treasure monster) "If I help, Joe can pick the first treasure and I get the rest.", then Bob gets all the rest, since the agreement is that Joe only got one treasure (the first).

Another variant being if Bob says (again, three treasures) "If I help, Joe picks, than I pick two", then Joe gets it because Bob worded poorly. Bob only said he's pick two, which means the extra treasures go to the normal default player, the one whose turn it is.

It makes for a fun way to try to trick other players by wording your offer carefully. Within reason, of course, but after the first time, everybody listens to the offer carefully. That, and I really don't see any reason to rule it any differently than if another player played a card that added treasure.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Liam

Excellent. Now one more variable to add here... what if the Wizard, right before he charms the monster, decides to add a +10 that adds 2 additional treasures? Technically, this is done after any negotiations, so does the player whom he is helping have any say with those 2 additional treasures after said monster is charmed?

Well, nothing about that changes what Andrew already said: The main player draws and the distribution of Treasure matches the original agreement. If the Wizard helper wants to somehow get those two Treasures, he will have had to negotiate in such a way that he gets them. A good way to go about this is to never deal in absolute numbers, but in fractions of the Treasure. That's also a good way to defend against someone joining in to help, and then finding a way to limit the number of Treasures to only the amount he would get.

[morleydotes]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

This and similar situations have been clarified in the rule rewrites. Even if the helper uses a Class or Race ability, the main fighter is the one to draw the Treasures and distribute them per the agreement.

Cool, you guys must have reworked the hell out the rules. Soon, we will be allowed to see???????


Pat

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by morleydotes

Cool, you guys must have reworked the hell out the rules.

Not really -- but we looked at the FAQ and these forums and saw the things that we were asked over and over. Where a quick clarification would help, we clarified.

Originally Posted by morleydotes

Soon, we will be allowed to see???????

Very soon.