Jabberwock bad stuff
 

The Jabberwock has as its bad stuff two conditions:
"You must choose: go down to Level 1, or lose all your items."

Easy enough to see that it is a choice, but if I cannot satisfy one of the conditions does that mean that I should suffer the other?
Thatistosay, if I have no items (yes, such things happen all too frequently) am I forced to being reduced to level 1, or am I lucky (so to speak) that the bad stuff does not affect me as I have no items and choose the item option?

[I love this game. So dastardly.]

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

I'm gonna say that if you have no items, you could choose Option 2 and lose all 0 of your items; or if you're level 1 already, you certainly could choose Option 1 and have the Bad Stuff not do anything to you. This is not an official ruling of course, but I'm basing this answer on the logic of this post, which allows for choosing an outcome of a Curse that has no effect.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

I don't think that ruling applies here, since that's a fringe case that involves someone else deciding the effect. It has been stated elsewhere (and searching from my phone isn't easy, but I'm sure Clipper will be along shortly,) that when given a choice between two outcomes where one can't affect you, you must choose the one that will.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

You're right, that question was asked and answered already here. The answer came from Eben (MIB), and both Andrew and Erik commented later in the thread, but they did not specifically address that question. :)

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

With Bad Stuff, if you are given a choice between an option that affects you and an option that doesn't, you must choose the one that affects you. So in the Jabberwock case, you must choose to go down Levels if you have no Items; or lose all Items if you are Level 1.

Andrew's post about Curse! Kick Yourself In The Ass that Enzzo pointed out only applies to Curses. I still find that having it as an exception is a tad weird due to how it complicates Curse! Caaaaaaaanes! and Curse! Butterfingers; and for the confusion it can generate between which cards provide choices and which don't, but that's how I interpret the ruling at least.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

Very interesting replies, and I greatly admire the expertise of respondents.
My feeling was that we choose whichever gives us the better outcome. It is Munchkin, after all. But I am glad to discover more about the game and other ways of thinking.

Does it temper the thinking if one considers the situation where neither condition can be met? Thatistosay, no items to lose and already at level 1. Of course the bad stuff will have no effect in this case. In the situation where either condition can be met, the case is also clear cut, it being a choice of the player.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

Think of it as the monster will be satisfied with doing either of its two effects to you. It's not going to allow you to choose the thing that doesn't hurt you in some manner. If you can't give it Items, it takes your Level and vice versa. Of course, if you have neither of its options, it will leave you alone.

According to the KYitA ruling, Curses with a choice are different, where you can choose the effect regardless of whether that choice affects you, so you can choose the most beneficial option.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

I just want to point out again, I don't think the KYitA ruling applies to all Curses, but specific to that one because it stipulates another player choosing the outcome for you, and allows that player to be nice.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

I'm responding to this one in the other thread to hopefully not derail this one.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

Bad Stuff is bad. If given a choice between an option you can fulfill, and one you can't, you must suffer the one you can fulfill. If you can't fulfill either, you're very lucky, and if you can fully or partially fulfill either one, then you're back to getting to choose which Bad Stuff to suffer. This is an official response.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

Previously, the discussion has came up when there's Bad Stuff that is something like "Lose your X. If you're not wearing X, then Y." - and the idea is you might have an "X" that is protected from being lost (like "Bear Feet").

The previous ruling was that you're wearing footgear, so you don't get "Y", but you can't lose them to Bad Stuff, so nothing happens.

That's a different, but similar situation to this one. Am I to assume the previous ruling is still in effect - or is "Bad Stuff" bad and something bad should happen?

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

No, the previous ruling has not been superseded -- you've found a weird edge case where you skate without suffering the Bad Stuff at all.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

I didnt think in this case though, that you would lose your items if you were already level-1. I would think you could choose to go down to level-1 if you were already level-1. It does not actually specify that you must lose a level. I am actually already "down to level-1"

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

Metarule: If there is a way for Bad Stuff to affect you, you must choose that path. It's Bad Stuff -- it's supposed to suck.

The edge case previously mentioned is "Lose your Footgear; if you have no Footgear, lose a level." If you have unloseable Footgear, you can't lose it and you still have Footgear, which means neither half applies. It's not a straight "X or Y" choice.

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

So, my query has invoked metarules. This I like.

I had felt, deep down, that this was to be the case with bad stuff.
Many thanks
OmDab
(I never metarule I didn't like - WAAAaaaaahhh haaa haaah)

Re: Jabberwock bad stuff
 

More along the lines of it required Andrew and I to state one of the ones we've already established. I just didn't use the term "metarule."