Two Questions Regarding Monsters and Immunities

Crunchkin · 05-18-2009, 12:58 AM

Just sat down to my first game of MQ with my friends. Had an absolute blast, but we encountered one little tidbit that had us scratching our heads at the end. Me in particular, because I was just about to win. Not that I'm bitter.

So, anyway, there I was at the entrance, level 10, drew a boss monster. The other players helpfully applied a few Wandering Monster cards to the event, and one of the extras I happened to draw was the Napalm Slime. Now, this wouldn't have been a problem, except that my mega-enhanced weapon just happened to have a "+1 Flaming" enhancer on it, and the slime is immune to flaming.

So, the other players said that since my sword was flaming, I couldn't use the sword at all against the slime. And since it was part of the mob, I couldn't use the sword at all for the entire combat. So, bang goes a serious chunk of my bonuses, and I can't help but lose the combat. Is that how it's supposed to work?

And as a followup question, is it allowable to remove item enhancers from an item after they're applied?

MunchkinMan · 05-18-2009, 05:00 AM

Since you're fighting the Monsters as a group, all of their abilities, bonuses and penalties stack. If you are in combat where one Monster has a bonus against Dwarves and another a penalty, I'm sure you'd think to combine them. I mean, I certainly wouldn't accept an argument that only the penalty or only the bonus apply, so I don't see how one could argue to ignore the ability of one of the Monsters. I also can't find a logical way to somehow fight one Monster differently than the rest without involving some complicated math to determine what portion of my combat strength comes from the Item that's now useless against one of the Monsters and how much that Monster adds to the combat to wrangle out a fractional combat strength for both of us. No, it makes much more sense to just combine those abilities and acknowledge the fact that your Flaming Weapon is useless against all the Monsters when Napalm Slime is in with a group of "friends."

Okay, so my idea of a follow-up question usually involves the follow-up being related to the first question. For the sanity of our readers and moderators, we prefer multiple unrelated questions in separate threads in this little forum, and would appreciate your adherence to that request in the future. Thanks!

Regardless, "Keep this card with the item until it is discarded" is on all such Item Enhancers and says the card is permanently attached. You also don't have the time during combat to start detaching enhancements to your weapons just because suddenly it's disadvantageous to have one of them.

Crunchkin · 05-18-2009, 07:17 PM

Alright, I suppose that makes sense enough. I'll just have to swallow my shallow disgruntlement and accept that their machinations were just brutally effective in that case, which I suppose is the heart of Munchkin, anyway.

As for the questions, I thought they were related . . . sort of . . . tangentially. Okay, so maybe they weren't. Consider me educated for the future, then.

05-18-2009, 12:58 AM	#1
Crunchkin Join Date: May 2009	Two Questions Regarding Monsters and Immunities Just sat down to my first game of MQ with my friends. Had an absolute blast, but we encountered one little tidbit that had us scratching our heads at the end. Me in particular, because I was just about to win. Not that I'm bitter. So, anyway, there I was at the entrance, level 10, drew a boss monster. The other players helpfully applied a few Wandering Monster cards to the event, and one of the extras I happened to draw was the Napalm Slime. Now, this wouldn't have been a problem, except that my mega-enhanced weapon just happened to have a "+1 Flaming" enhancer on it, and the slime is immune to flaming. So, the other players said that since my sword was flaming, I couldn't use the sword at all against the slime. And since it was part of the mob, I couldn't use the sword at all for the entire combat. So, bang goes a serious chunk of my bonuses, and I can't help but lose the combat. Is that how it's supposed to work? And as a followup question, is it allowable to remove item enhancers from an item after they're applied?

05-18-2009, 05:00 AM	#2
MunchkinMan Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Macungie, PA	Re: Two Questions Regarding Monsters and Immunities Since you're fighting the Monsters as a group, all of their abilities, bonuses and penalties stack. If you are in combat where one Monster has a bonus against Dwarves and another a penalty, I'm sure you'd think to combine them. I mean, I certainly wouldn't accept an argument that only the penalty or only the bonus apply, so I don't see how one could argue to ignore the ability of one of the Monsters. I also can't find a logical way to somehow fight one Monster differently than the rest without involving some complicated math to determine what portion of my combat strength comes from the Item that's now useless against one of the Monsters and how much that Monster adds to the combat to wrangle out a fractional combat strength for both of us. No, it makes much more sense to just combine those abilities and acknowledge the fact that your Flaming Weapon is useless against all the Monsters when Napalm Slime is in with a group of "friends." Okay, so my idea of a follow-up question usually involves the follow-up being related to the first question. For the sanity of our readers and moderators, we prefer multiple unrelated questions in separate threads in this little forum, and would appreciate your adherence to that request in the future. Thanks! Regardless, "Keep this card with the item until it is discarded" is on all such Item Enhancers and says the card is permanently attached. You also don't have the time during combat to start detaching enhancements to your weapons just because suddenly it's disadvantageous to have one of them. __________________ Erik D. Zane *Munchkin* NetRep -- munchkin@sjgames.com MiB #1029

05-18-2009, 07:17 PM	#3
Crunchkin Join Date: May 2009	Re: Two Questions Regarding Monsters and Immunities Alright, I suppose that makes sense enough. I'll just have to swallow my shallow disgruntlement and accept that their machinations were just brutally effective in that case, which I suppose is the heart of Munchkin, anyway. As for the questions, I thought they were related . . . sort of . . . tangentially. Okay, so maybe they weren't. Consider me educated for the future, then.