Ruling combat involving Wandering Monster with Wannabe Vampire against a Cleric

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by erikwoods

Ahh. I was uninformed. My apologies. But I would still like an explanation on the matter. Do I not make a good point about monster intentions?

I always feel that my e-mail address should be a huge hint, but I guess no one reads signatures anymore. However, we have a sticky thread entitled Critical Links & Useful Information -- READ ME FIRST!!! that talks about who is actually here from SJG in an official capacity (towards the end of the first post in that thread), among many other things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Monster intentions." For what it's worth, this is a card game, and in the long run, the cards dictate what is intended when the rules don't, or are in conflict with a card. The Wannabe Vampire says right on it what the intent is: If a Cleric doesn't want to fight it, it's gone. I made those comparisons because those situations are all very similar. If I'm a Wizard and I want to charm a Monster, I discard my 3+ card hand; if I hold a Pollymorph Potion in my hand, or have it down on the table, and I want a Monster gone, I play it on that Monster (it's not a Monster Enhancer at all, by the way); if I'm a Cleric facing the Wannabe Monster and can't beat it, I say "booga booga" and it's gone; heck, if I'm a male and I can't beat a bunch of Monsters because of the Amazon, I can ask a female to help me and the Amazon's gone. I don't understand how these can't be fair comparisons because they all relate to some card saying it's possible for a Monster to leave the combat due to some combination of cards and/or events occurring to make a Monster leave.