Question of Charm spell vs Wandering monsters

[Andrew Hackard]

You can only charm one monster (because it takes your whole hand to do it), but you can play Magic Lamp or Pollymorph Potion (for instance) on a second monster to knock it out of the combat as well.

[MunchkinMan]

Regardless, you accused someone of doing something without proof. Not a friendly gesture, and trying to say you didn't personally accuse me means nothing: You accused Andrew or I of doing it without substantiation. If you're not willing to work to find the information, then I'm more inclined believe you to be mistaken.

However, if it was only a few days ago, then there really aren't that many options are there, out of all those posts? I mean, all searches are returned in reverse chronological order, so it's not all that hard. And, I found one recent thread where I said that you basically can't charm, take the Treasure, then use Charm again with your newly collected hand. I also said that since you can't do that, you can't use a Treasure collected from a charm spell to chase off a Monster in the same combat because you can't take the Treasure until after all the Monsters are gone. In that very same thread, I confirmed the legitimacy of your repeated questions about using multiple "get rid of a Monster" cards in one combat, then using charm, or, using a carried "get rid of a Monster" Item, like Pollymorph Potion after you've used a Wizard's charm spell to remove it.

So, perhaps that what you were thinking of and you mistook what I said, but in no way did I ever say that you can't use multiple methods to remove Monsters from a single combat.

[AMOE]

That was probably it. I was sure that I read "you must fight the other monsters normally, without using other things that get rid of monsters without battling them."

It might've been some random poster, an MIB, or either one of you, I don't know, I don't remember. I did check the latest topics with "Charm" and "Wizard" separatedly. I did find a topic that it was officially ruled that it WAS possible, the example being Charm + Polymorph + Magic Lamp.

So, I apologize for "accusing you" even though I wasn't pointing at anyone in particular, since I still don't remember where I read that.

All I said was "I read this before" and "what the heck?" because it confused me like the cotion of ponfusion would.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

I did not say that you can use it only when you're facing one Monster.

I know, I was just clarifying since there was still confusion. Hopefully I'm doing more good than harm. :)

[polleke]

Isn't it the case that when a wizzard charms the only monster in a battle, the battle is over? Therefore nobody can play a wondering monster after the original monster has been charmed (since there are no more monsters in the battle to which a wandering monster can be added).

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

I know, I was just clarifying since there was still confusion. Hopefully I'm doing more good than harm. :)

Just to be clear: I was adding on to your comment and then responding to the other post as well, as you said nothing about that particular topic. . .

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by polleke

Isn't it the case that when a wizzard charms the only monster in a battle, the battle is over? Therefore nobody can play a wondering monster after the original monster has been charmed (since there are no more monsters in the battle to which a wandering monster can be added).

No. This is covered in the FAQ as well as having been already officially stated in this very thread in the second post. This is one of those times where one can actually apply the "2.6 second" rule properly. Combat does not end positively for the munchkin side unless they give everyone a chance to mess with them. What someone can't do is affect the Monster after the charm (like add a Mate) because the Monster is immediately removed from the combat, but you still have that pesky "2.6 second" rule to preventing the charming munchkin from declaring that combat is over.

[polleke]

Ah yes, I see, the second post. I kind of missed that one..