Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general

[Mister Ed]

I would say that the burden of proof for that ridiculous assertion lies with your friend, not you. If he is going to assert that anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories is a curse, HE needs to find a rule to back that up. By his assertion, a "Go Up a Level" card is a curse, which is patently absurd. I'm sorry, but HE must prove his assertion from the rules, not the other way around. In the absence of proof either way, common sense (which is on your side) should rule.

A curse is a curse. If it isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules, it is because they couldn't imagine anybody being foolish enough to need that explanation, what with all the cards bearing the word "Curse!" (with an exclamation point no less) in the title.

Plus, I would argue that even if Illusion WAS a curse (which it isn't) you STILL wouldn't be able to play it if you didn't have a monster to replace the other with. The effect of the card is, as you say, all in one part. You can't have it take only partial effect.

I look forward to the official response on this. I imagine it might take them a while to stop laughing before they reply.

[Andrew Hackard]

Illusion must be played with a monster.

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

[Razzmatazzle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Illusion must be played with a monster.

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

Great, thanks. I'll reference him to this if he requests further clarification.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Curses say "Curse!" Cards that do not say "Curse!" are not Curses.

Let me expand upon this, since it's important to reduce the risk of future tomfoolery on the part of Razz's friend, mostly for Razz's sake: The rules are a guideline of how to play the game. They describe certain types of cards as best they can. However, the game is, in many ways, a simple game, and has many cards that defy description or title and just are. The rules do account for this by explaining that some cards are just played and discarded once their effects have been resolved.

The fact that the rules aren't quite so rigorous as some other game one might consider discussing does not mean that one should use that other game to define how Munchkin should work. For example, Munchkin does not have a stack mechanism, like that other game, yet so many players of that other game want to think there is. But, let's be honest with ourselves: Any game that has a stack mechanism has a large rule book explaining how that stack mechanism works. Munchkin never discusses a stack, which should not be used to infer that one exists anyway because that other game has one. So, one should approach Munchkin as Munchkin, and not some other game, and should not try to establish that every single card is of class A, B, C or D, and can't possibly be something else. I feel that way lies madness caused by cognitive dissonance. . . ;-)

[Razzmatazzle]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

I would say that the burden of proof for that ridiculous assertion lies with your friend, not you. If he is going to assert that anything that doesn't fall into one of those other categories is a curse, HE needs to find a rule to back that up. By his assertion, a "Go Up a Level" card is a curse, which is patently absurd. I'm sorry, but HE must prove his assertion from the rules, not the other way around. In the absence of proof either way, common sense (which is on your side) should rule.

A curse is a curse. If it isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules, it is because they couldn't imagine anybody being foolish enough to need that explanation, what with all the cards bearing the word "Curse!" (with an exclamation point no less) in the title.

Plus, I would argue that even if Illusion WAS a curse (which it isn't) you STILL wouldn't be able to play it if you didn't have a monster to replace the other with. The effect of the card is, as you say, all in one part. You can't have it take only partial effect.

I look forward to the official response on this. I imagine it might take them a while to stop laughing before they reply.

Yep, that's pretty much what I said too. But he is a true munchkin and managed to argue persuasively enough that two brand new players at the table let him do the Illusion thing.

I just sort of spluttered uselessly. I am not particularly good at arguing with people who completely subvert my argument by basically declaring that the sky is red and demand I prove otherwise. Though I will admit the Illusion one was at least a an arguable point. The curse thing? No.