Using wishing ring against Curse! Rations Spoiled.

[Lakroth]

We've run into a little problem....

The way it came up is Curse! Rations Spoiled was drawn face up. There were two players with a steed. The two players both had a wishing ring. Both players rolled a d6. The low roller then decided to use their wishing ring.

Would this be possible? If it is possible, would the curse then take the steed of the player who did not use a wishing ring or would the curse resolve with no effect?

In this case, would both players need to use their wishing ring before they roll or can they use the wishing ring after the roll?

Thanks!

[RevBob]

One Wishing Ring would be sufficient to cancel the curse, but it would have to be used before the roll. It's a gamble, it is...do you save the ring and hope you roll well, or play it safe and use it?

EDIT: Forgot a key word.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by RevBob

[. . .] it would have to be used before the roll.

Why? Just because it takes a while to figure out who gets to suffer the effects means that person can't defend himself? Would you say that the victim of a curse reflected by the Magnificent Hat doesn't get a chance, either?

[morleydotes]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Why? Just because it takes a while to figure out who gets to suffer the effects means that person can't defend himself? Would you say that the victim of a curse reflected by the Magnificent Hat doesn't get a chance, either?

Well...

***Ducks***

;-)

Pat

[RevBob]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Why? Just because it takes a while to figure out who gets to suffer the effects means that person can't defend himself? Would you say that the victim of a curse reflected by the Magnificent Hat doesn't get a chance, either?

Well, given the logic underlying other decisions where a roll is involved or an action is otherwise interrupted, that seemed the way to go.

It's just cheesy to say that someone plays Rations Spoiled, then part of the curse takes effect (the roll), and then the loser of the roll can cancel the whole curse retroactively. It's not right, any more than it would be to sell items after a Thief has discarded a card but before he's rolled the die, or to discard a Hireling for an automatic Run Away after you've rolled the die and failed. The principle, as you have stated on numerous occasions, is that once an action is started, it gets to resolve unless a card specifically says otherwise. Well, if the Curse has gotten to the point that people are rolling the die to see whose Steed gets carved up, that looks like it's long past where you could cancel it. The curse has already taken effect and ruined the food.

The Magnificent Hat is fundamentally different - the roll happens as the curse is "targeting" and before any sort of resolution happens, so it's perfectly reasonable that the curse can zip toward the Hat, rebound toward the owner of the Ring, and the Ringbearer can negate it "in flight." How does a post-roll Rations Spoiled cancel even remotely compare to that?

"Well, our food's gone, so we have to draw lots and carve up a steed."
"Well, darn."
(everyone rolls)
"Bill, you got the short straw."
"Yeah, but, um, look!" (plays Wishing Ring) "The food didn't spoil after all!"
"Then why did we draw lots?"
"Um...boredom?"
(crickets)

It's not like a Loaded Die situation, either - which, incidentally, would be perfectly fine to use on the C:RS roll, as that's part of "resolving a roll." The Curse part of Rations Spoiled is that everyone's food went bad; the roll just determines who suffers the consequences. I see nothing on Wishing Ring or C:RS that says you can use the Ring to opt out of or negate that roll.

[Dogmeat]

If wishing ring didn't say "cancels ANY curse" then i might be inclined to agree. it does not say "cancels any curse, before any attempt to resolve the curse is made" You can be cursed, try 13 things to prevent the curse, have them all foiled and then use your wishing ring. Would you apply the same logic?

"why did i do these other 13 things?"
"boredom?"

The curse didn't effect the player until it killed his steed, at that point he can cancel it. He can cancel it as soon as it's drawn, he can cancel it if he has no steed, he can cancel it if he plays it himself and he has no steed but really wants to get two cards out of his hand. There are a nearly infinite number of strange things that may happen while playing Munchkin that may never make sense in real life, why pick out this one situation?

[Bazz]

yeah, but while you can use a wishing ring to cancel a curse before it's taken effect, you can't use it in the middle of the curse.
you couldn't for example "curse! change class" someone, and then cancel it *after* they've discarded their current class, but before they've got a replacement. Once the curse has started happening, it's too late to cancel it, it's already started.

thats the way i see it anyhow. the only card i would allow to get rid of the curse after the roll but brfore the steed dies would be Annhilation.

[MunchkinMan]

Wishing Rings can be used, after the fact, to cancel Tiny Hands and Big Feet, no? Some of the logic I've been given would prevent that from working. A Wishing Ring can cancel the Rations curse after the roll. This is not inconsistent with anything I've said in the past, as this is NOT a curse where the victim is known immediately, nor are the final effects immediate because we ned to roll. Again, anyone is fully within their rights to use a Wishing Ring to cancel the curse once a final victim is chosen.

[RevBob]

I think I've started to reach my limit with Munchkin - just in terms of being able to keep all the rulings straight. Honestly, it's starting to remind me of Magic, in all the bad ways. Nothing personal, Erik, but I really do think it's time to gather and codify the bulk of rulings in an official way, so that everything makes sense and is consistent. There are just too many rulings in too many places over too much time that cover too many things. Unless you live and breathe the game, it's too hard to keep the rules straight.

Consider the example I cited earlier of sacrificing a Hireling for an automatic Run Away. You can't roll to see if you succeed, then sacrifice your Hireling if you don't. That makes sense, and it's a good principle: if you decide to take your chances, you can't go for the auto-out when you fail. However, switch the case to a Curse that requires a roll, and now the answer changes because it's a Curse, and Curses can be canceled after the fact. Well, unless it's a Change Sex, in which case you can remove the -5 penalty, but you've still changed sex - so you only canceled part of the Curse. Oh, and if you're an Orc using your negate-a-Curse ability, that has to be done immediately or not at all, whether it's an insta-Curse or a lasting one.

You know, I hate to say it, but I am increasingly inclined to go by what's printed on the cards, in the rules, and in the errata, and then just go with my gut when a question comes up during a game. It's gotta be easier than trying to keep up with all the individual rulings, and as long as the players have fun, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

[DenSpb]

Well... following given logic there can be a following gameplay:
Player A gets Curse! Income Tax and discards something expensive (e.g. Pollymorph potion).
Every other player has to loose lots of items. So Player B waits until other people finish discarding their cards and then plays the WR (that costs only 500) to cancel curse and save his own equipment.
I feel there should be a bit finer clarification.