Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general

Razzmatazzle · 05-22-2011, 12:17 AM

Hi guys.

Registered so I could get a definitive ruling on these two questions, which I just argued about with a friend of mine. I've been playing for a while, he's newish to the game.

First:
Does Illusion require one to play a monster after removing the other monster from combat? I argued that because it is a single sentence (i.e. remove a monster from combat along with its enhancers, replace it with another) that you cannot play Illusion unless you have a monster in your hand to replace it with. He argued that the two clauses are separate, that you can play illusion on a single monster to simply end the combat if you don't have a monster in your hand to replace. He cited as justification for this interpretation the rule on curses that states that a curse doesn't do anything if you simply don't have the card it applies to.

That led directly to the second thing:
He made the argument that the rules set down all the possible types of cards (classes, races, monster enhancers, and curses), and that as a result any card that does not fit into the class, race, or monster enhancer category is by definition a curse. I said that was absolutely ridiculous and that Munchkin doesn't work like, for instance, Magic, where every single card is set in a rigid defined category, and that curses were very obviously only the cards that said "Curse" on them. He challenged me to find anywhere in the rules that said that curses were only the cards that said "curse" on them and that since I could not therefore all cards that were not classes, races, or monster enhancers were curses. I am 100% certain he is wrong and I could use some backing up.

05-22-2011, 12:17 AM	#1
Razzmatazzle Join Date: May 2011	Clarifiction on Illusion specifically, Curses in general Hi guys. Registered so I could get a definitive ruling on these two questions, which I just argued about with a friend of mine. I've been playing for a while, he's newish to the game. First: Does Illusion require one to play a monster after removing the other monster from combat? I argued that because it is a single sentence (i.e. remove a monster from combat along with its enhancers, replace it with another) that you cannot play Illusion unless you have a monster in your hand to replace it with. He argued that the two clauses are separate, that you can play illusion on a single monster to simply end the combat if you don't have a monster in your hand to replace. He cited as justification for this interpretation the rule on curses that states that a curse doesn't do anything if you simply don't have the card it applies to. That led directly to the second thing: He made the argument that the rules set down all the possible types of cards (classes, races, monster enhancers, and curses), and that as a result any card that does not fit into the class, race, or monster enhancer category is by definition a curse. I said that was absolutely ridiculous and that Munchkin doesn't work like, for instance, Magic, where every single card is set in a rigid defined category, and that curses were very obviously only the cards that said "Curse" on them. He challenged me to find anywhere in the rules that said that curses were only the cards that said "curse" on them and that since I could not therefore all cards that were not classes, races, or monster enhancers were curses. I am 100% certain he is wrong and I could use some backing up.