Wizard's Charm vs Friendship Potion

[Chaddical]

Alright got it now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Mr P]

I revive the post with a what if...? A wizard charms a monster and then another player wanders a new monster and the wizard use the Friendship Potion... the wizard doesn't defeat the second monster so... What about the treasures of the charmed monster?

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Mr P

I revive the post with a what if...? A wizard charms a monster and then another player wanders a new monster and the wizard use the Friendship Potion... the wizard doesn't defeat the second monster so... What about the treasures of the charmed monster?

I disagree with your conclusion. The wizard did not have to run away from the fight, and therefore gets to reap whatever rewards he may earn from it. In this case, he would get the treasures from the first, charmed monster, but not the second (because of the rules on the Friendship Potion). He would get no levels at all.

[jaholen]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Let us remember, however, as is stated in the FAQ, there's still time to thwart the player. With something like a Wandering Monster, or something that would affect the Treasure draw, but not something that would modify the no-longer existing Monster.

doesn't the 2,6 second rule apply in this case? let's say it takes 2,6 seconds for the monster to be charmed?

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by jaholen

doesn't the 2,6 second rule apply in this case? let's say it takes 2,6 seconds for the monster to be charmed?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you use a class ability and discard the cards, the action is done, even if you haven't completed all the steps (Thief still has to roll and see the outcome, but you can't interrupt that by selling or trading the Item the Thief is trying to steal). The point is, the effect is immediate and I don't understand why you're suddenly inventing the concept of it taking time to do something. This is a card game. A card game without a stack mechanism, which means that every play, every effect is immediate and irreversible without the use of a card which says it reverses an effect or action.

The whole point of my quoted statement is that the effect of the charm is immediate, and you no longer have a Monster to duplicate. You still have sufficient time to foil the player with other cards, but cards like Mate or Mommy, or Monster Enhancers to improve or decrease the Treasure gain can now not be played because the Monster is gone. You can not modify or duplicate nothing.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by jaholen

doesn't the 2,6 second rule apply in this case? let's say it takes 2,6 seconds for the monster to be charmed?

There's this whole mythology that has grown up that every action has a 2.6-second window during which it can be countered, and that's simply not true. The only time that time period is mentioned in the rules is when a munchkin says he thinks he's winning and asks if anyone else want to interfere. Resolving class-based powers is immediate; if a Wizard charms the monster, it's gone. We have made the ruling that the 2.6s rule extends, in this one case, to being able to wander another monster into the fight, but no cards that must be played on a monster may be played on the charmed monster, because (I say again) it's gone.

[Uzi4U]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

I disagree with your conclusion. The wizard did not have to run away from the fight, and therefore gets to reap whatever rewards he may earn from it. In this case, he would get the treasures from the first, charmed monster, but not the second (because of the rules on the Friendship Potion). He would get no levels at all.

but what if the potion of friendship is replaced by monsters are busy (who says that monster "slam the door", so i guess leaving player out of the room where treasure are)? the wizard can still take treasure left by the charmed monster?

[RevBob]

Originally Posted by Uzi4U

but what if the potion of friendship is replaced by monsters are busy (who says that monster "slam the door", so i guess leaving player out of the room where treasure are)? the wizard can still take treasure left by the charmed monster?

If the monster's already been charmed and is thus gone, who's there to slam the door?

Besides, the whole door-slamming bit is flavor text anyway.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by RevBob

If the monster's already been charmed and is thus gone, who's there to slam the door?

He's asking about the case where another monster has been wandered in.

[Uzi4U]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

He's asking about the case where another monster has been wandered in.

yup.. sorry for not being more clear... so on, can confirm it's just flavor text?