Wishing Ring and the Stack (or lack thereof)

[Herpopotamus]

I have a Wishing Ring card in my hand and have [insert armor item name] equipped. One of my opponents plays a Lose the Armor You Are Wearing on me (which is a curse). Even though there is no such thing as a "stack" in Munchkin (as per the discussion in this thread), can I activate my Wishing Ring to negate the effects of the curse and keep my armor?

My understanding is that because Wishing Ring says that it cancels the curse (using the word "cancel" specifically), that it acts retroactively to prevent the curse from happening. My opponent's understanding is that because there is no stack, it is impossible to use Wishing Ring in this manner and that it can only be used to remove lingering curses such as Chicken on Your Head.

I would appreciate a moderator post because my opponent (with whom I frequently play) will not consider the ruling valid otherwise. The more detailed the better.

[Enzzo]

From the FAQ:

Originally Posted by FAQ

Q. I just kicked down a door and was hit by a Curse that will force me to get rid of an Item. Can I sell the Item for a level instead?
A. Nope. You have to resolve the Curse before doing anything else. In Munchkin, things happen in the order that they happen. Certain cards are exceptions and can cancel previously played cards (e.g., Wishing Ring), but those exceptions are written on the card itself.

[Enzzo]

And an official forum post:

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

A Wishing Ring can cancel any Curse or Trap.

A wishing ring can prevent the curse from ever taking place. It cancels it as it happens. So yes you get to keep your armor :)

[Clipper]

There are three phrases I have noticed that cover the majority of, if not all, the cards that can be played in reaction to other cards.

These are:

• 'cancels X'
• 'play when X'
• 'play after X'

where X is some event such as playing a certain card or rolling a die. That's why I called those particular phrases out when creating my flowcharts.

I've tried to get further official clarification on questions like this before, but was called out for being way too fastidious (which was a valid argument at the time). If anybody has seen other card test that allows you to interrupt other actions, I'd still appreciate the feedback so I can update my info...

[Herpopotamus]

Thanks! My apologies for not checking the FAQ before posting (although I did do a forum search).

EDIT: ...and ty Clipper for the list.

[Herpopotamus]

I hate to be this guy, but I would appreciate an official response as to what language constitutes evidence that a card can be played retroactively (although I am sure Clipper is correct).

[Andrew Hackard]

Any card that says it CANCELS an action can be played as a reaction to someone else's play, and the reaction card takes priority. Wishing Ring is the canonical reaction card, but there are others (Annihilation and similar cards, for instance).

Loaded Die and Reloaded Die are another type of card; they are played after you (Loaded) or another player (Reloaded) rolls the die, and allow the player of the Die card to change the die result. The original result no longer exists; the altered result is considered to be the roll for all purposes.

There are some cards or other rules that may be used after some specific event -- for instance, the Wizard's Flight Spell is useful after you have failed a Run Away roll, in order to change that failure into a success. Those rules tend to be pretty explicitly called out, because they do interrupt the usual flow of a turn.

I'm not going through all 4,000+ cards to find every possible wording for an interrupt-type card, so I hope this is sufficient.

[RL]

As the original post said, there is no stack mechanism in Munchkin, but some individual cards do work retroactively. In every case, however, the card text is pretty clear about that fact, and card text overrules the general rules.

[Herpopotamus]

Originally Posted by RL

As the original post said, there is no stack mechanism in Munchkin, but some individual cards do work retroactively. In every case, however, the card text is pretty clear about that fact, and card text overrules the general rules.

Apparently some people (or person) don't (doesn't) think it is clear enough.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by Herpopotamus

Apparently some people (or person) don't (doesn't) think it is clear enough.

If specific questions occur in subsequent games, please feel free to post them here or in the 101 forum, as you see fit. I think we've covered most of the common cases, though.