Stealing a win away from another player and giving it to someone else. Is it right?

[magnum]

So playing Munchkin Zombies last night and basically stole a win away from the next player. It lead to a huge argument so I had to drop on the forums and ask other peoples opinions. Here's what happened:

1. Mid-way through the game one of the players (Player A) was going to win. Another player (Player B) and myself had wandering monsters to stop him but we were at a deadlock as to who was going to use them. Player B refused to choose randomly between us by rolling dice and walked away from the game. Fair enough, I stopped him from leaving, used mine to stop the victory and we continued. I was not happy.

2. Player B gives Charity to Player A where the card will steal levels in combat if they help a player to win.

3. End game move by me. I play a low level monster. Player B plays the wandering monster he refused to use earlier against me - defeating me with Death and 2 Lost levels if I failed to roll. NOW at this point in the game all one-shots had been played and he was next up and we knew he had a low level monster to win. Player A offers to help me beat the wandering monster. Player B OUTRIGHT says not to do it since Player A will steal the levels and win. I DO IT ANYWAY!

4. At this point Player B erupted calling it Shenanigans and unfair! For some reason 1/2 the players thought this was a completely illegitimate way to finish a game and totally cheap. I essentially took the win from one player and gave it to another out of spite for an earlier move.

Munnkin players, what are your thoughts? Would you have done the same?

[UncleBob]

Perfectly Legal.

In fact, Player B sounds like someone I wouldn't go out of my way to play with in the future.

[DoomedDuck]

Agree with UncleBob on all points.

[Blazinjsin]

Totally legit. Happens a decent bit in my group, but we tend to be fairly spiteful players at times

[Clipper]

I agree that everything was legal. There is nothing wrong with king-making and B could have stopped it anyway by not giving A that card.

I am a little confused by the turn ordering, though. You say that B gave A the card by Charity and it was also going to be B's turn after yours. Why wouldn't B have used his own monster to win on the turn where he gave A Charity?

Also, just checking, but do you know that when you are defeated by two monsters with one including Death in its Bad Stuff that if you try to Run Away from it first and fail, then you won't need to roll for the other monsters? It should be Death OR loss of two Levels that you might have been facing. You'll never be hit by both in this case unless you choose to Run Away from the level- loss monster first and then fail both Run Away rolls...

[MunchkinMan]

Clipper: I'm assuming that none of those events happened consecutively. If they did, then yes, the Charity things seems to be out of place.

[Enzzo]

When a level 9 Munchkin is fighting a monster, it's generally understood that all the rest of the Munchkins will do their best to stop them, as no one wants anyone other than themselves to win. It also behooves you to make sure everyone else uses their cards first, so they don't have them to use on you. And deciding who uses their cards first, in a "reasonable time," can be a bit tricky. However, the minute Player B walked away from the table, he declared his total lack of interest in the game. You could have easily decided not to wander in a monster and let Player A win. So at that point, in my mind, Player B is essentially forfeiting and, at my table anyway, wouldn't have been allowed back. We would have assumed he was committing suicide, looted his corpse, and moved on. Poor sportsmanship on that epic a level should not be rewarded, and given that he was allowed back, I applaud you for not letting him win.

[Blazinjsin]

Originally Posted by Enzzo

When a level 9 Munchkin is fighting a monster, it's generally understood that all the rest of the Munchkins will do their best to stop them, as no one wants anyone other than themselves to win. It also behooves you to make sure everyone else uses their cards first, so they don't have them to use on you. And deciding who uses their cards first, in a "reasonable time," can be a bit tricky. However, the minute Player B walked away from the table, he declared his total lack of interest in the game. You could have easily decided not to wander in a monster and let Player A win. So at that point, in my mind, Player B is essentially forfeiting and, at my table anyway, wouldn't have been allowed back. We would have assumed he was committing suicide, looted his corpse, and moved on. Poor sportsmanship on that epic a level should not be rewarded, and given that he was allowed back, I applaud you for not letting him win.

I agree with all of this