Restraining Order vs. Out to Lunch

[JuiceMan]

My friends and I were playing a game and my one friend decided to play an out to Lunch card when my friend who was at level 9 and fighting at 23 with combat bonuses drew a level 1 monster. The one who drew the monster then played restraining order. My question is does the out to lunch end the combat immediately, thus causing the Restraining Order card to be useless? Or does the restraining order act as a card that resets the turn back to the combat phase and causing one player to be unable to play cards against them. More generally, does an "ended" combat phase become reset by the restraining order card?
Thanks

[Clipper]

Yes. Out to Lunch is one of the rare cards that ends the combat, which is implied by the fact you have already drawn the Treasure. Thus, Restraining Order would not have any effect apart from stopping the player from playing other cards until the end of the turn (as combat has ended and Out to Lunch has already been discarded by that point, I believe it is not returned to the owner's hand).

Even if a card that didn't end combat was used, such as if the other player had played Magic Lamp instead of Out to Lunch, Restraining Order would not return the monster to the field. In fact, it would return Magic Lamp (or whatever card was played) to the player's hand to use it again in a future combat!

The rule is that Restraining Order returns cards to the hand and reverses their ongoing affects, such as +X to either side, but it doesn't reverse effects which have already been completed, such as discarding monsters. It thus will never reset or resurrect anything.

Edit: Here's a post that officially states you don't reverse effects of cards with Restraining Order.

[Enzzo]

Originally Posted by Clipper

Edit: Here's a post that officially states you don't reverse effects of cards with Restraining Order.

Wow, I didn't realize Restraining Order sucked so much. I thought it was good, but if it doesn't actually cancel most things, and in fact gives them back to your opponent so they can use them again, it's pretty horrible.

[Andrew Hackard]

I'm going to take another look at Restraining Order; I think my previous ruling may have been overly broad. (And certainly the interpretation being given it in this thread is broader than I intended.)

For now, if you use Restraining Order to force a player to remove a card that gave a combat bonus, that combat bonus is negated (because the card is no longer there). Other cards may or may not be, depending on their effects. I will try to give a more complete answer when I have more time to consider the question.