Treasures and Helping in Combat

[thedag]

Originally Posted by uttwich

I posted earlier that I got someone to help for 2 treasures (out of two), and as soon as they agreed I played Dead Broke which meant that the monster had no treasure to give. Basically just used him to gain a level rather than suffer whatever the bad stuff was on the chance that I could not run away).

another option would be to play the card that forces the treasure to be dristributed evenly one at a time to each player no matter what agreement was made. Can't remember name of card (or set) but that is the effect.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by thedag

What does amaze me is that so many seem to leave it to assumption that if the helper doesn't specify their choice then it is automatically the choice of main player.

I'm not entirely sure why this isn't a safe assumption.

[SirHaggus]

So are you saying unless a helper explicitly negotiates that he has first pick of the treasure before entering combat, that because it was my combat, I would have first pick?

The tricky part of this is that there are no rules about resolving these kinds of disputes.

Some of my friends say that I was cheap and cheating by assuming that I would get first pick of treasures in my combat.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by SirHaggus

So are you saying unless a helper explicitly negotiates that he has first pick of the treasure before entering combat, that because it was my combat, I would have first pick?

Yes, that's what we're saying. The rules do say that the main player always draws the Treasure after a fight, so if the helper's agreement doesn't give him the right to choose, it's the main player's choice to make.

[thedag]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

I'm not entirely sure why this isn't a safe assumption.

perhaps it is because we have a lawyer in our regular playing group and there is no way we are going to leave things to chance. As Andrew said never assume conditions won't change. That is why we would say "all the treasures". Leaves no room for argument if things change. In Andrews earlier posts he stated that the only rule to clarify this argument is the owner of the game has final say (post #6). It wasn't untill later he said otherwise.

Of course it may be reasonable to make that assumption but I've learnt in life not to leave room for argument is the best approach. Make things clear.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by thedag

In Andrews earlier posts he stated that the only rule to clarify this argument is the owner of the game has final say (post #6). It wasn't untill later he said otherwise.

I'm sorry; my most recent post wasn't clear. That's not an official rule statement -- officially, the rules don't take a stance on what to do when the conditions of a fight change, nor when the Treasure-splitting agreement is ambiguous. I was restating an opinion, and I should have been clearer about that.

[aeronaut]

In our group, we use treasure position as a bargaining tool.

Helper A: There's 5 treasures right now. I'll help you for choices 3, 4, and 5.

Helper B: I'll help you for choice 2 and 5, so that's just 2 treasures.

Helper C: I'll help you for the third to last and the last treasure, and that's it.

Main player: C, done. (Pauses 2.6 seconds.) Now I play undead on the monster, we're still winning, and you get treasures 5 and 7.

Of course, this assumes it's early in the game. Later on, you can't buy help for all the treasures available.

Regards,
aeronaut

[Kirt]

Originally Posted by aeronaut

There's 5 treasures right now.

Helper C: I'll help you for the third to last and the last treasure, and that's it.

Main player: C, done.

If subsequent application of "Baby" and "Baron Munchkinhausen" and such reduced the treasures down to three, how many treasures would player C get, since there is no longer a third-to-last treasure?

[Nerftw]

They would get nothing, or the player who's turn it is might agree to renegotiate.

[snarky]

Originally Posted by Kirt

If subsequent application of "Baby" and "Baron Munchkinhausen" and such reduced the treasures down to three, how many treasures would player C get, since there is no longer a third-to-last treasure?

When we've had something similar happen in our games, we generally rule that you lose the treasure entirely - if you're THAT specific about which treasure you want, then you run the risk of not getting it at all.