Hi Andy: Thanks for the clarification -- I guess I'd better avoid putting words in your mouth since we didn't see this the same way... but I agree that the spirit of it definitely would say no zombie victory in that circumstance, for how it would play out in "movie form". That's the benefit of you taking such an active part in the Rabbit community -- if something comes up you didn't think consider in advance (e.g. to get your new money-maker out as quickly as possible), you can just give us your opinion directly. Have you ever considered adding an errata section to the Fluxx part of Wunderland? Maybe a better word would help -- it's not exactly an error in this case, just an unexpected meeting of rules text... but still, it'd be helpful to chronicle these "rulings" -- informal as they are -- somewhere besides the maillist archives. I understand if resources/server space prevents that; just a suggestion. Thanks! Ankhst > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on lists.looneylabs.com > X-Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0 > X-Original-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Delivered-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:27:30 -0500 > From: Andy Looney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Fluxx Discussion List <fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Zombie Fluxx Question > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > X-Barracuda-Bayes: SPAM GLOBAL 0.9215 1.0000 3.4570 > X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.38586 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Christopher! > > > It is one of the first games I ever introduce people to because it > > is so easy to explain, and so much fun. (for most people.) Fluxx has > > gone fishing, camping, to family holidays, cast parties, picnics, the > > zoo, and many other places. It's a wonderful go-to game which I will > > never turn down an opportunity to play. > > Awesome! I'm so glad you like my game(s) so much. > > > If the Zombie victory goal is out and there are 5 or more Creeper > > cards on the table and One person has the Zombie repellent card and a > > zombie gets passed to the person with the zombie repellent, is the zombie > > victory condition fulfilled? Or does instantly imply that the person > > never actually gets the zombie card? For example it is given to him, and > > he passes it on to somebody else before he sets it down? > > This is an excellent question. Even I was a bit stumped! > > > it should be like a force field, which creates a zombie free > > zone around your little sanctuary. (which could in fact be detrimental > > if the goal requires a zombie because you don't have a choice.) > > That's basically how I see it. If you have the repellent, Zombies never > really come into your possession, they bounce away from you again as soon > as they approach. But mechanically, when a Creeper is given to the player > with the Repellent, they do sort of possess it momentarily, as it's up to > them to decide who to immediately pass it along to. So I understand the > argument which says for a split second, the Zombie Victory conditions were > met. But I think that goes against the spirit of both cards. The idea > behind the repellent is that the it keeps zombies from ever getting close > enough to you to hurt you, and the idea behind Zombie Victory is that the > players lose because everyone's overcome with Zombies. It doesn't feel > right to say that a player is "overcome by Zombies" because someone had to > spent a moment telling an approaching zombie where to go. > > So I say you made the right call. The game continues, Zombie Repellent > keeps you from ever truly being in possession of a Zombie. > > -- Andy Looney > > > _______________________________________________ > Fluxx mailing list > Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx