4

This situation came up last weekend:

  1. Player Alice is in combat with monster X and losing.
  2. Player Bob offers to help and together they're beating monster X.
  3. Player Craig plays a Wandering Monster card with a Giant Skunk to join the combat.
  4. Alice and Bob are now losing the combat.
  5. Heated discussion ensues with Player Dan arguing that Bob is no longer involved in the combat as the Giant Skunk prevents friends from assisting in the combat. Craig argues that Bob is already committed may not be removed without an explicit effect.
  6. Alice uses an item and now the duo are winning the combat.
  7. Alice and Bob win the combat, Alice levels up twice
  8. Craig plays a Trojan Horse to prevent treasure acquisition.

So the question is, can the Giant Skunk remove committed helpers to a combat? Various googling after the fact could not find an answer.

7

Yes, the wandering skunk stops people helping even if they've already agreed.

"Helping" in combat isn't the same as "agreeing to help". The rules discuss asking for help:

Only one player can help you, adding his combat strength to yours.

If someone successfully helps you kill the monster, discard it, draw Treasures...

"Helping" means everything from agreeing to the resolution.

Giant Skunk says that other players "may not help you". It doesn't matter if they've already agreed to help or started helping, because the skunk forbids them from helping.


This is similar to a situation with the Gazebo, which says:

No one can help you. You must face the Gazebo alone.

The FAQ has the following:

Q. What if the Gazebo appears as a Wandering Monster after the player already has a helper?
A. The helper has to back off and let the player whose turn it is fight the Gazebo and the other monster(s), alone.

Again, the person was helping you, but is now forbidden from doing so, so they stop.


As a final point, my take on the rule for settling disputes through loud arguments and the owner deciding is that it's a mechanism for convenience. Since the game is a bunch of random events of wildly varying utility and power, it doesn't really matter whether some of the rules are followed or not and it's more important to keep the game running. However, when you're taking the time to figure out the correct rules outside of the game, there usually will be a correct answer.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks, I'd forgotten about the Gazebo being similar, otherwise I might've had more success searching. It is helpful considering the agreement to help as separate from the combat resolution. – import random May 25 '17 at 11:34
1

It depends on who owns the game.

In case of an argument about the rules, the owner is right. That is the munchkin way to solve it.

I would argue, that because Bob is already in combat, he can't be prevented from assisting. He is committed and can be subject to the bad stuff if they lose the battle.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.