Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Zombie Fluxx FAQ

  • From"Ryan Hackel" <deeplogic@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 7 Jan 2008 08:13:40 -0500 (EST)

Even better, there's a Zombie Fluxx FAQ:

 --- On Fri 01/04, Timothy Hunt < games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
From: Timothy Hunt [mailto: games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
To: jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx, fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:32:56 -0600
Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Zombie Fluxx Question

The Rabbit Wiki would be the ideal place for this:http://rabbits.continuation.org/wiki/Main_PageIdeally, such a list would link to the appropriate mailing listmessages in which the "rulings" were made.TimothyOn 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>_______________________________________________Fluxx mailing listFluxx@lists.looneylabs.comhttp://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Current Thread