Resurrection vs. Stacked Deck

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

Understood and accepted. But note that the card on top of the door discard pile may be:

1) The card the cleric discarded to use the resurrection power the first time.
2) The stacked deck card (if it's a door and not a treasure), which might be a reasonable result. I can't remember or find online whether stacked deck is a door or treasure.

Regards,
aeronaut

Yup. We've already covered that, I thought. But, rather than continuing to not know, I'm going to tell you now that the card on the Door discard pile will always be Stacked Deck, regardless of what the Cleric discarded because the Cleric's action must be completed first, like I described earlier, and Stacked Deck is, in fact, a Door card.

[aeronaut]

Right. Of course, it's possible that the cleric discarded a treasure from hand, so that card could still be on top of the treasure discards, but would not be available when kicking down the door unless there was some other strangeness going on.

Thanks, Erik. That pretty much answers everything I was not clear on about this situation, and should end this thread.

I still feel that the cleric gets a raw deal, spending a card to resurrect and getting nothing for it. But such is life, or at least such is Munchkin, I suppose. And it's not like clerics are underpowered.

Regards,
aeronaut

[Nerftw]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

I still feel that the cleric gets a raw deal, spending a card to resurrect and getting nothing for it. But such is life, or at least such is Munchkin, I suppose. And it's not like clerics are underpowered.

Well where would the fun be in succeeding every single time? I don't see how this is any different than pumping up a monster to the point where a player has to run away after having used all their cards through one shots and discards. Or any other card you can use to cancel an ability, or curses to remove items.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

I still feel that the cleric gets a raw deal, spending a card to resurrect and getting nothing for it.

Now if you were to play a curse on me (Lose A Level perhaps) and I prevented that with a wishing ring, would you feel that was a "raw deal"? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't.

You spend a card to do something (curse/rez), and I spend a card (ring/stack) to prevent that.

Fairest exchange there is.
More fair than the curse/ring exchange even, since the curse is a door and the ring is a treasure.

[aeronaut]

Originally Posted by Palmer

Now if you were to play a curse on me (Lose A Level perhaps) and I prevented that with a wishing ring, would you feel that was a "raw deal"?

No, that't not it. Playing a curse/wishing ring, or playing a wandering monster when someone is about to win, is part of the game.

The distinction here is that the cleric discards a card to get an advantage, and then that advantage gets taken away (by use of another card,) and the cleric gets nothing for her pains. If the cleric then wants to take the stacked deck off the door discard pile, she has to discard another card to get it. And of course, an unscrupulous player with another stacked deck could take that stacked deck, discarding his own stacked deck. This progression could repeat until the cleric is out of cards to discard, and is then forced to draw the top door card (more likely, until the cleric figures out that she won't be able to get the stacked deck either, and gives up.

Now that's munchkiny.

As a final suggestion, I'd recommend that the resurrection ability have the wording changed to make this ruling more clear, something like "When you are supposed to draw a face up card, take the top card from the appropriate discard pile in place of the face up draw, and discard one card." Removing the "instead of" would clarify the situation that started this thread in the first place. Instead of implies that you don't perform the replaced action (drawing a face up card;) if that is accurate, then stacked deck wouldn't be able to be used here, since you aren't drawing a face up card but doing something "instead" of that. Since Andrew and Eric have made it clear that the stacked deck can be used in this situation, the resurrection ability should be worded to make it clear that it can.

Regards,
aeronaut

[Nerftw]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

No, that't not it. Playing a curse/wishing ring, or playing a wandering monster when someone is about to win, is part of the game.

The distinction here is that the cleric discards a card to get an advantage, and then that advantage gets taken away (by use of another card,) and the cleric gets nothing for her pains.

Just like if they discarded to gain a bonus and still lost the battle. It's part of the game. Sometimes you can block someone's move.

Attack, counter attack. I'm not seeing how that's any different than any other move.

[Munchykin]

It really is an even trade. Just like the wishing ring/curse. You spend one card to do something, the other person spends one card to stop you. The ratio is 1:1. The fact that you then need to spend 1 card to do something (even if it's the same action over again) afterward doesn't change that ratio. Seems pretty balanced to me.

[MunchkinMan]

aeronaut, your rewording forces the Cleric to take the top discard always when a face-up draw is performed, while the current wording makes it clear that it is a choice. Since not every face-up draw is opening a door, the wording is general enough to say what needs to be said and in no way explicitly states that this is, in fact, something else and replacing the draw's purpose, just where the card is drawn from.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

The distinction here is that the player discards a card (Curse! Lose A Level) to get an advantage (making someone else lose a level), and then that advantage gets taken away (by use of another card, Wishing Ring) and the player who played the curse card gets nothing for her pains.

Fixed that misconception for you.

[MunchkinMan]

The reality is, this situation isn't that difficult to work out, and I don't see that the Cleric is being punished severely here, so I'm not sure what more there is to discuss at this point. Andrew and I have made it clear how things are supposed to work, and continuous arguing over minutiae won't do anyone any further good.