A question about applicability
 

The FaQ here says the following: http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/faq/

Important Note #3: "Defeated" versus "Killed" versus "Lost"
For the purposes of the game, "defeating" a monster involves beating it in combat or removing it from play in such a way that you do not have to Run Away. This means that if a Wizard casts a charm spell, or a munchkin uses a Pollymorph Potion, or something else happens that ends a fight without the munchkins Running Away, the monster is defeated. This may or may not grant Treasures, depending on the method of defeat; assume it does not unless the card or method says otherwise.

Now the question:
If somone played such a card to remove the single monster in the described way and the card says the treasure is left for the user to keep, and then someone played a card that can only be played during combat, for the purpose of making the monster have no loot, can the second card be played, refering to the lingo in the FaQ excerpt below: Is the second card applicable?

Q. Does the "reasonable time rule" apply to defeating a monster without killing it, or just to killing it?
A. Any sort of defeat. If you defeat it without killing it, other players still have a reasonable time to play an applicable card to frustrate you. However, if you removed the only monster from the fight (with Magic Lamp, for instance), they cannot play Monster Enhancers or other similar cards that affect a specific monster, because there isn't one there to fight, and they can't use any special rules for bringing in monsters (such as the Shark rules from Munchkin Booty) that depend on having a monster in the fight. They can play Wandering Monster to bring in an entirely new monster, but they must do it at once.


The actual situation involved one single monster, a card with a rose, whos name i cant translate, and then a card with an empty box, name translates roughly to "Much noise for nothing", both cards from Shakespeare.

Cards picture of the cards also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Munchkin/co...g/help_please/

Re: A question about applicability
 

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.

Re: A question about applicability
 

the cards in question are "A Rose By Any Other Name" and "Much Ado About Nothing"

from what Andrew wrote I'd say you can play Much Ado while still in combat with the effect that A Rose leaves the player without a monster and without treasure. But with a pleasant smell at least...

Re: A question about applicability
 

But: Roses says: the Monster is gone and leaves it's treasure
And then "Much Ado" says Monsters don't have loot.
If the monster isn't a monster anymore, i'd argue that the card doesnt remove the loot, after the monster is already gone, even if the card is playable

Re: A question about applicability
 

it's not played on the monster, you see. it's a general effect that monsters just happen to have no treasure in that fight. at least that is how I would argue. maybe Andrew has a clear ruling?

Re: A question about applicability
 

I understand that. But the monster is already gone and only a pile of treasure remains.

Re: A question about applicability
 

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?

Re: A question about applicability
 

Since Rose removes the Monster and leaves a pile of Treasure, how is it determined in post that the treasure is asocieated with a monster for Ado to target it?

The monsters do not have any treasure, there is no monster to not have any treasure, only treasure.

I wouldn't have any problems if Ado was played first. But at the point it's played i have.

Re: A question about applicability
 

I've given you the official answer. At this point, if you don't accept the reasoning, I don't know what else to tell you.

Re: A question about applicability
 

I Get that. But there is no monster for the card to affect.

I guess what i am asking is:

Is Treasure during combat, until combat ends, always treated as if there is a Monster, regardless if there actually is or is not a monster.