Restraining Order and Helping

[whassumattuh]

Tried to find an answer for this and I failed. In a three-player game, Player A ran into a monster that he could beat. Player B used a monster enhancer on the monster and Player A could no longer beat the monster. I offered to assist Player A in exchange for two treasures. The terms were agreed upon. Player B than plays Dead Broke (i.e., the monster now gives no treasures, so I am screwed while Player A gains a level). I play Restraining Order on Player B. Player B then takes back his monster enhancer and Dead Broke and claims, "Hey, Player A can now defeat this monster without your help so he is not eligible to even take your help." Kind of a catch 22. I can't help Player A if he is able to beat the monster, but I can't play Restraining Order if I am not in the combat. I ruled, as the game owner (c:`, that because I was already in the fight, that I would still be entitled to two treasures. However, after the monster enhancer was removed, there was only one treasure, which I took. Did we play this correctly?

[MunchkinMan]

Once you're in the combat, you're in the combat. What if you're a Wizard helper and you charm away a Monster such that now, the original combatant could win the combat alone? Nothing: You're still in the combat. You start playing around with stuff like that, suddenly you're trying to unravel all kinds of actions. I really don't like those kinds of messes, and I'm sure others prefer to avoid them, too.

Now, the big question: Does the Monster Enhancer count as against played against you? Dead Broke was played after you joined the combat, so definitely, but the Monster Enhancer? I have to think on this some. . .

[uttwich]

With the way that things played out, I would say that the monster enhancer stays. My logic goes like this:

* If a fellow munchkin plays a monster enhancer in a battle, then that would seem to be a card that is played against you (+ for monster is the same as - for player for all intents and purposes). I'll admit up front that this is the debatable part of my thought process.

Assuming that this logic is accepted...

* The monster enhancer was played before the help was agreed upon, so at that point in the combat the card was not played against player C (it was against player A, and player C played Restraining Order), hence the monster enhancer that player B played first should stay. (You could argue that once player B joins the combat that the card is against him as well, but since all Munchkin cards take effect the moment they are played, I would argue that their intent is implicitly defined at that point as well.) Player B gets Dead Broke back, but is no longer able to help the monster side in any way.

* If the monster enhancer was played after player C joined the combat, then it would be returned to player B along with Dead Broke. Again, player B is not able to help the monsters any more.

Any objections to that line of thinking?

[whassumattuh]

Curious if you came to a conclusion as to whether the monster enhancer would return to the player who I played Restraining Order on. Thanks MunchkinMan!