Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

Situation: Player A is level 9 and has a mojo but no powers. They draw a monster (I cannot recall which and don't have the set to look at) whom gets a +3 against players without powers. After Players B-E are finished messing with it and the subsequent +3 bonus, Player A cannot defeat said monster. Player F, also level 9, offers to help defeat the monster (secretly he hold Brain Enough for Two and plans to use it to get the winning level as well). After the second round of messing with the combat by B-E, another monster and enhancers/ one-shots have been added to tie the Munchkins' Combat strengths still counting the +3 bonus for the original monster about fighting a Munchkin with no powers.

Argument: Players A and F argue that since Player F has a power they win since in actuality the +3 bonus is now negated and the monster side is now losing. B-E loudly declare scandal and cheating and bending of rules and won't allow it. Which is correct?

Side-Argument: (In player F's head, he wonders if he could actually use Brain Enough for Two to get a winning level).

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

I think the monster would still get the +3 because player A is still a player without powers and is still involved in the combat.

It would seem to work in a manner similar to monsters who get bonuses against certain races & classes. However, I have not yet tried Zombies, so I am not 100% confident in my answer.

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

Player F's Powers do not magically grant Player A immunity from a bonus against players with no Powers. Player F's attempt to co-win (yes, Brains Enough For Two will grant you a winning level, since it's as a result of killing a monster) is foiled.

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

Hmmm. Unless I'm not searching through my stuff correctly, the only Monster that comes close to what you are describing is the Zombie Bureaucrat, which is +3 against zombies with no Mojo, while a couple of Monsters derive some kind of bonus against zombies with Powers.

At any rate, as long as one zombie in the combat met the conditions of the bonus, the Monster would still get the bonus. So, if two zombies are facing the Zombie Bureaucrat, and one zombie has a Mojo and the other doesn't, the +3 would apply.

Andrew and I will need to confer on the side argument, because I'm not entirely sure about some of the wording on Brains Enough For Two. In the short term, I'd say that as long as a Monster was killed, any Level gained by killing a Monster should count for the winning Level.

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

The intent absolutely is that BEF2 can be used to get the winning level, and (as with an Elf), the fact that the level is gained as a result of combat means that no extra wording to that effect should be necessary.

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

I think I inverted the Mojo and powers part. Player F was a Voodoo Zombie I remember that, Player A not having any Mojo sounds right.

Thanks for the answers guys :)

Re: Munchkin Zombies question: helper negates a monster advantage?
 

Agreed, however the wording involves "winning," not killing, so one could infer there are cases where a helper would get a Level in a combat where all the Monsters were discarded and not killed, and therefore a Level 9 helper wouldn't get the level. I meant to make it clear that, absolutely, in the case of a kill, a Level 9 helper would get the Level.