Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

Hello! First post here for me. I'm also fairly new to Munchkin.

My wife was fighting a level 4 monster. Her combat strength was well beyond that, but our friend added Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire after a number of other modifiers were applied. This put the total combat level well beyond what her combat level was. However - she was a Cleric. The Wannabe Vampire can be scared away by the Cleric so she thought that it basically became voided and she could still kill the level 4 monster.

My friend and I ruled that she couldn't, since the card did not say something like "does not attack clerics" and the combined combat level was above hers. Was this a fair ruling?

If anyone could shed some light on this seemingly unique situation, it would be much appreciated.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

I don't have the answer to your main question, but I do have two comments:

1) Munchkin Deluxe is just a regular set of Munchkin cards packaged with extra stuff, so there's no difference in the cards themselves.

2) Using the forum's built-in search feature only led me to frustration and mindless rage at whoever designed it. I found it's much better to use Google to search the forums, as documented in this post under the "Searching this forum:" header.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

Not really all that unique: This is not all that different than other situations where a Monster can be removed without killing it (e.g., Pollymorph Potion, Wizard's charm spell), or where a Monster leaves the combat (e.g., Amazon) depending on who it's facing.

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.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

I hear what you are saying. But I do not believe it is fair to compare the Wannabe Vampire to cards like Amazon Woman and Plutonium Dragon because they say "will not attack X" where X is a certain gender, race, class or level threshold. These cards show that the monster has no intent to do combat with those characters - whereas the Wannabe Vampire states that clerics can scare them away - something determined by the cleric, which is optional if they choose to forfeit the level gained from killing it. The intent behind the Wannabe Vampire is that it will still attack the cleric - until the cleric scares it away. This is why I believe we were right.

And I don't think it is fair to compare to the Polymorphic Potion because that is a EDIT: potion :EDIT, whereas the Wannabe Vampire just "is" what it is. You wouldn't throw that potion down on an Amazon Woman if your character was female, would you? No - because she is friendly to you. It just doesn't make sense to me that way. But I mean I'm willing to listen to everyone's opinions - that's what I came here for. So I do appreciate the ideas.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

Erik (MunchkinMan) and Andrew aren't giving their opinions. They are the officials moderators and rule-makers of the forums. What Erik told you is to be considered official stance of SJGames on the matter.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

Ahh. I was uninformed. My apologies. But I would still like an explanation on the matter. Do I not make a good point about monster intentions?

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

I always feel that my e-mail address should be a huge hint, but I guess no one reads signatures anymore. However, we have a sticky thread entitled Critical Links & Useful Information -- READ ME FIRST!!! that talks about who is actually here from SJG in an official capacity (towards the end of the first post in that thread), among many other things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Monster intentions." For what it's worth, this is a card game, and in the long run, the cards dictate what is intended when the rules don't, or are in conflict with a card. The Wannabe Vampire says right on it what the intent is: If a Cleric doesn't want to fight it, it's gone. I made those comparisons because those situations are all very similar. If I'm a Wizard and I want to charm a Monster, I discard my 3+ card hand; if I hold a Pollymorph Potion in my hand, or have it down on the table, and I want a Monster gone, I play it on that Monster (it's not a Monster Enhancer at all, by the way); if I'm a Cleric facing the Wannabe Monster and can't beat it, I say "booga booga" and it's gone; heck, if I'm a male and I can't beat a bunch of Monsters because of the Amazon, I can ask a female to help me and the Amazon's gone. I don't understand how these can't be fair comparisons because they all relate to some card saying it's possible for a Monster to leave the combat due to some combination of cards and/or events occurring to make a Monster leave.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

You are right that it attacks the cleric until the cleric scares it away, but your wife did decide to scare it away. Once it is scared away, it is no longer attacking and is no longer considered part of the Monster Side. If your wife defeats the other monster (it is still fighting her, of course), she wins the combat (unless you throw in some more cards to make it so she is losing again).

Also, your reference to the Plutonium Dragon wasn't correct. It always attacks you. However, if you are low level, it won't pursue you if you run away from it. The reference to the Amazon was correct, though. It stops attacking if there is a female in the combat.

Ah, beaten to the post by the Munchkin Man himself. Took a bit too long drafting this one...

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

I didn't notice the email address (it's quite easy to miss), and I did not have the time to go over the sticky threads for just one question. Again - my apologies. I do not wish to anger anybody. I promise.

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But what I meant behind the monster intent was that the card does NOT say "will not attack clerics" - whereas a card like the amazon woman DOES say "will not attack females."

The only reason I bring it up is because of the fact that, combined, the monsters' combat strength was higher than the character. If you are not running away, you are fighting something. You can't fight two things separately - they are a team. But if you say it works this way, then who am I to say otherwise?

Thanks for your time.

Re: Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric
 

Yes, and by going OOGA BOOGA BOO, the cleric scares half of the team away.

Your wife did say OOGA BOOGA BOO, right? Because yelling weird stuff is very important in Munchkin.