Wandering Monster/Negotiating Help

[gannonburgett]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Well, your agreement was for him to get first pick of one Treasure, and you would get the rest, so you'd get one, he'd get one.

Hello MunchkinMan, thanks for taking the time to reply.

I am the other person that was part of this situation (with Msaylor92). Msaylor92's argument – still – is that he agreed to help so long as he got two treasure, no matter what they were. My side of the deal was that I get one treasure of my choosing (he now understands that since my side of the deal was choosing a card of my choice, that particular situation was in my favor). Our debate is whose side of the deal takes priority when fewer treasures are on the table due to modifiers. Could you shed any light on that?

[Msaylor92]

Such as, if all the deal stated was that the person in combat gets 1 treasure and the helper gets two. No other stipulations.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Msaylor92

Such as, if all the deal stated was that the person in combat gets 1 treasure and the helper gets two. No other stipulations.

The rules say you have to specify how you divide the Treasures, and this is why.

My guiding principle is that, if circumstances in the combat change and the Treasure division was not specific enough, always interpret the agreement in a way that favors the helper. (If there was no agreement at ALL, of course, then the helper is out of luck.) That's not contained in the letter of the rules, but I think it satisfies the spirit of them . . . and it encourages both players to be specific about what they get, because a combat can change in a way that adds Treasure just as easily as one that takes it away.

[gannonburgett]

Thanks for the help, Andrew! I have a feeling this won't be the last time we make a post around here. We can't seem to play more than a few rounds without finding some sort of loophole in the rules that we can't agree upon. Cheers.