Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Zombie Fluxx Question

  • From"Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 4 Jan 2008 17:32:56 -0600
The Rabbit Wiki would be the ideal place for this:

http://rabbits.continuation.org/wiki/Main_Page

Ideally, such a list would link to the appropriate mailing list
messages in which the "rulings" were made.

Timothy

On 1/4/08, Joseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fluxx mailing list
> Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx
>