[Lunch Money/Beer Money] General rules question on Defense

We have a group that plays LM/S&S/BM every Friday in the work cafeteria. It is pretty extensive an has gone on for a couple years. We've codified our house rules for the game, since the FAQ clearly indicates there are multiple interpretations for certain cards and situations.

One thing that has popped up recently.

While the rules clearly state that you can only do one attack as your action (barring Imaginary Friend, or follow up attacks on a successful Powerplay or such)... there is no specific rule stating you can only play one Defense card per attack. Defense cards are merely "played in response to an attack."

Example 1:
Player 1 attacks with Plate Cleaner
Player 2 plays a block.

(no problem there)

Example 2:
Player1 attacks with Plate Cleaner
Player 2 plays a Block w/Faster... not necessary but just to get it out of his hand... a free turtle.

(we allow this, as it is a clear loophole)

Example 3:
Player 1 attacks with Plate Cleaner
Player 2 who happens to have a hand full of 5 Blocks (this has happened) throws 2 Blocks in response to Plate Cleaner. A potentially dumb play as every one will be paying attention to him now, but he was looking to draw into something else without having to turtle a Block, which also draws attention and wastes his turn.

(our group would immediately frown on this... assuming only one Defense card per attack... but the rules do not forbid this at all)

Example 4: (more likely)
Player 1 attacks with Plate Cleaner
Player 2 defends with Block
Player 1 Humiliates the Block
Player 2 defends with a second Block.
Player 1 gets free Basic Attack (from Humiliation) and throws an Elbow and Player 2 can't defend that one.

(our group would also frown on this one because the general assumption is "You had one chance to defend and it was Humiliated... take your lumps." Fair enough, but again, the rules don't absolutely forbid multiple Defense cards from being played against a single attack. It is just very unlikely that such a play is a good idea.)

So... my question to the forum... does anyone allow multiple Defense cards to be played vs. a single attack? Does anyone allow a second Defense card to be played after the first was Humiliated or Horror of Horros'd. :open_mouth:

Just wondering, as I'm not advocating multiple Defense cards be allowed, just that it currently is not officially against the rules... just not commonly accepted.


After re-reading the rules, I'd say you get only defense card. It is implicit in the phrasing:

Definately "singular" language.

And there are certain cards that specifically state that additional defense cards can be played. If the general rule was that multiple defense cards could be played, there would be no need for such explcit permissions to be granted.

Also, just because something isn't explicily forbidden in a rule book doesn't make it legal. Its impossible to write rules in that way.

Am I allowed to look at my opponents hand when they run into the kitchen to grab a soda? The rulebook does not "explicily forbid it", so it must be allowed right? ...obviously not the case.

A rulebook tells you what you can do, and you should pretty much assume that everything else is not allowed.


PS - I'm envious of your game-group...wish I had a group of coworkers that cool!

I'm totally cool with the implied singular... just that it isn't that clear.

"attacked may defend if he or she has an
appropriate card by placing the card face
up on the discard pile."

If I have two Blocks, then even if the first is Humiliated, I can still fulfill the above rule with the second.

Again... not really arguing, as much as pointing out that the rules are explicit one way or another. Unlike the "look at your hand while you go to the bathroom scenario" I'm referencing an actual stated rule... not an anything goes scenario.

Rules states "if I have the appropriate card I can play it"... it doesn't state "only one chance to do so when attacked" at all.

Debate and discussion are good, no worries...

I don't see a stated rule that says (implictly or explicitly) that two (or more) defense cards may be used in response to an attack.

The lack of such a rule (of any rule) means it is not allowed, yes?

The stated rukes says:

So taken literally, you have laid your defense card (singular) on top of the attack card in the discard pile. Done, rule fulfilled.

There are actually 2 questions here:

  1. Can you play TWO (or three or five) defense cards in response to an attack. The rules do not say you CAN then you cannot. The phrasing is definately singular, and there are clear examples of the type of phrasing used when, in other situtaions, multiple cards are permitted.

  2. Does a Humiliation, when used against a Defense card, get treated as if the defense card where ever played? If the "one defense card" was effectively never played then you'd be eligible to fulfill the rules by playing a different defense card.

#1 is pretty clear

#2 is answered by the following:

It states "after the victim has played his or her cards". That sounds to me like the defense card is officially played, which fulfill the rule as we describe above.

Just my opinion of course, but I'm pretty certain that this is how its meant to wrk...

I'm 99% in agreement with you... it is just my years of playing Magic and the ability to respond to a response to a response on the stack is very ingrained. LM is essentially multiplayer Magic stripped down to its essential core. I've always said, "Hey... you like LM... just think of Magic as LM with 10,000 different cards and you each have your own deck instead of playing with the same deck of cards and ther rules are vastly more complicated!" :laughing:

Thanks for your replies.

Have you ever considered making lunch money game for the ipod touch and iphone I think it could really catch on and would work well in multiplayer

We've had inquiries from designers of such, but none have ever followed through.