Shakespear drives me mad

[Disguised]

It depends on the card. If it's a card that has to be played on a monster, it's not legal because there's no target for the card. If it's a card that takes all the Treasure out of a *combat*, however, that would be legal because the state of combat hasn't ended yet.

Looking at the precise cards in question, this is exactly the sort of fine detail my previous answer was dealing with.

A Rose By Any Other Name takes a single monster out of combat but leaves its Treasure. It does not say that the combat ends; this is important, because it means cards that can be played during combat are still playable.

Much Ado About Nothing says to play it during any combat. The monsters do not have any Treasure and the combat continues.

Because Rose doesn't end combat, it is legal to play Ado, and that card does remove the Treasure from the fight.

Does this clarify things?

Can somone please tell me some sense. Because the red marked lines now make less sense to me than when i first read them.

I just dont get it. How is the treasure affected by a card that is played after all the monsters are gone. How can the card, wich makes treasure disappear from monsters, make treasure disappear, when the treasure isnt bound to any monster.

Is Treasure during combat, until combat ends, always treated as if there is a Monster it belongs to, regardless if there actually is or isn't a monster?

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Disguised

Is Treasure during combat, until combat ends, always treated as if there is a Monster it belongs to, regardless if there actually is or isn't a monster?

Yes, that's the case.

[Disguised]

Well. At least i have my answer now.
Took a while to find me my question.