Level 9 gaining levels clarification

[schmoopy]

Ok, I am going to apologize in advance, this happened some time ago, and I cannot remember the name of the exact card played (or cards), but I think I can convey enough of the situation to elicit a response or two.

The situation:
Person A is at Level 9. Person A fights a monster that is worth 2 Levels (it wasn't Judge Fredd, but you get the idea, it wasn't 2 monsters worth 1 level each, but 1 worth 2 levels).
Does this person go to level 10? or to level 11?
Normally, this person would win the game, however, now there is a card that is played by Person B (the specific card I can't remember the name of) that essentially says, "Play if a player is about to win the game. That player loses a level."

What happens? (I don't want to say, at this moment, what we decided, or what my interpretation was).

Thanks in advance.

[PK]

When he wins the combat, he goes to 10. There is no level 11 in standard Munchkin unless a card explicitly changes that temporarily (e.g., there's a Dungeon that does so).

So he wins the combat. He goes to level 10. Then that card is played. Cards are not normally retroactive, mind you! But that one explicitly states that it is, so it bends the usual rules, and he loses a level (becoming level 9) and does not win.

[schmoopy]

Ok, this is counter-intuitive at best.

Nowhere in the rules does it say you cannot go beyond level 10 (not counting Epic or the Mine goes to 11 card). It repeatedly in the rules states you cannot go below 1, both on the Thief's ability as well as Bad Stuff mentioned on creature cards as well as other cards that cause level loss. Why, if one cannot go above level 10, does it not have the same ruling text? In fact, it does say that when you defeat a monster, that you gain the levels as indicated (if no indicater = 1 level, or if it says 2 levels you get 2 levels, etc), without the but you cannot go above the winning level amount, or something to that effect.

That would be far more intuitive if what you are saying is true.

I am not saying you aren't, but just wondering why the ambiguity is left like that.

Edit/Add: And if what you say is true, this card is retro-active, wouldn't that mean that one would have to backtrack to finish the combat, i.e.: finish gaining whatever levels may be out there and gathering treasure from the combat? Or does it not only nerf winning, but nerfs all treasure cards too? After all, if one has one the game, there is no need to get treasure cards. Just very very counterintuitive if what you say is true.

[OFTHEHILLPEOPLE]

I would say yes, that you can go over level 10 in the interest in keeping with the spirit of the game. In this scenario, however, they would still win regardless of that cards effect because all it does is lower the gained level by one, which the player would STILL be at 10 and thus still win. The card doesn't say that they would lose or any effect that would prevent them from winning, just subtracts a level.

But I'm not a rules czar so take that with a grain of salt.

[andrewcornett]

In my opinion it would not matter if you gave person A 2 or 1 levels. When they beat the monster combat has to be considered over before gaining levels. Therefore if you declare combat over person A is at level 10 and game is over. If person B plays card before declaring combat over person A goes down to level 8 and still wins the battle and goes to level 10 and game is over.

[Brf]

The spirit of the card is that it prevents the player from winning.

[schmoopy]

Originally Posted by Brf

The spirit of the card is that it prevents the player from winning.

I disagree. If the spirit of the card were the case, it would state something like:
If a player is about to win the game, that player does not win the game, and instead loses a level.

That isn't what the card said, not even remotely close to it (I wish I had the exact wording).

If you want to talk about the spirit of the card, it is to prevent a player from winning by tromping out a level 1 flower pot with no one to have any other ammo to prevent it.
If a player is about to win the game, that player loses a level (not that player loses a level instead, if it said instead, I could see it, but it doesn't).

[pointed]

Originally Posted by andrewcornett

In my opinion it would not matter if you gave person A 2 or 1 levels. When they beat the monster combat has to be considered over before gaining levels. Therefore if you declare combat over person A is at level 10 and game is over. If person B plays card before declaring combat over person A goes down to level 8 and still wins the battle and goes to level 10 and game is over.

I'm going to have to way in and agree with Andrew on this one. If the card is played after the combat is over there is no effect. The combat is over. Person A has won the game. The game is over. No more cards can be played.

However, if person B plays the "loose a level" card before combat is over then Person A goes to level 8. Person A then defeats the monster and goes up two levels making it level 10 and still wins. Game Over

[Andrew Hackard]

I don't have my database in front of me, but I do recall the card being discussed, and it EXPLICITLY says you can use it to prevent someone winning the game.

There is no "Level 11" unless a card effect allows for it. If you're at Level 9 and kill a monster or group of monsters that would give you multiple levels, you still only go to Level 10. This card, then, would prevent you from doing that, and you would stay on Level 9.

[schmoopy]

Point of clarification, and like I said, I wish I could remember the exact card name and wording, but I do know that it began with:
Play only if a player is about to win the game. That player loses a level.

Note, it doesn't say that player doesn't win the game, it doesn't say that player loses a level instead.