[Fluxx] Zombie Fluxx Question

[Christopher Onstad]

And on to Carl:

Hi Carl  It's fantastic to make your acquaintance and thank you for your
time and consideration.


On Jan 3, 2008 4:46 PM, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:25:02 -0600, "Carol Townsend" wrote:
> > Short answer to long question:
> >
> > Any goal is fulfilled when the conditions are met.  Immediately.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Longer answer:
> > The cards have no memory of where they used to be (nor do they
> anticipate
> > where they are going next).  As soon as
> > Zombie Victory hit the table, you won.
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I think you misread the question slightly. The question was about
> Zombie Victory in which case nobody would have won.
>

That is true, I am afraid in my excitement over posting I was no entirely
precise in my speach, and so clouded the issue a little bit.  My apologies
to everybody.   But you understood it correctly I think.

>
> So the question is about "Zombie Repellent" and how fast it works. And
> frankly, I think if it's going to carry the name of "repellent" then
> it had darn well better be able to get rid of that zombie before it's
> close enough to start doing what zombies do.
>

See, that's where I am getting confused, because on the one hand I agree
with you, 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.)
But on the other hand the picture is an aerosol can which brings to mind
Cooties from childhood.  Your cootie spray did not keep the girls away from
you.  But once they touched you you could spray yourself to get rid of the
cooties.  Now zombies are bigger and more visible than Cooties, but I can
see the scenario applying.  But on the other hand see the previous
argument.  See why I asked?  I'm good at circles, hehehehe.




>
> So Christopher, my opinion is that you made the right call. The zombie
> repellent keeps the zombie from getting to you, so the Zombie Victory
> goal conditions were never met.
>
> >                        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?
>
> I'm not looking at my deck now, but if the Zombie Repellent card says
> "instantly" then I would interpret it in exactly this sense. In many
> card games, "instant" refers to an operation that can interrupt
> another action before the first has completely taken effect.
>

It does say instantly, and that is the driving force behind my thought
process.  But I just noticed something.  here is the exact text (except
where I added a parenthetical comment because I couldn't resist:

Keeper (in spooky font)

To play this card, place it face up on the tale in front of you.

(white space)

*Zombie Repellent*
*--------------------------------------*
**
If you have this card on the table, each Zombie you HAVE (my capitalization
for emphasis) is INSTANTLY moved to the player of your choice.


I think I am warring between the "have" and the "instantly" because have
implies that it is in your protections.  But instant implies no time.
Again, force field, or cootie spray?  I apologize for not quoting the exact
text originally, I didn't think of it, but it would have been helpful.



>
> But maybe Andy will make a nice video for an authoritative answer?
>
> -Carl
>

Oooh that would be incredibly neat.  To see a video answer.  But I would
also settle for a concensus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.looneylabs.com/pipermail/fluxx/attachments/20080103/f4b7b73b/attachment.htm