<blockquote>
<p><em>Does Player A win or does the game continue?</em></p>
<p>In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There's clearly a tie in the number of Keepers, so you must continue playing.</p>
<p>Player A is not <em><strong>the</strong> player with the most Keepers</em>. He's merely <em><strong>a</strong> player with the most Keepers</em>. It is explicitly stated that the game does not end in the event of a tie.</p>
<p>It could have been written &quot;If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, and if a player has more Keepers than any other players, that player wins.&quot;</p>
<p>To win, one must have 5 or more Keepers [<em>satisfied</em>], and one must be the player with the most Keepers [<em>not satisfied</em>].</p>
<p>Player B can't win because he has insufficient Keepers and because he has a Creeper.</p>
<p>Player A can't win because he has insufficient Keepers.</p>
<p>GendoIkari's answer is self-contradictory. &quot;Until a clear winner emerges&quot; only applies if the players keep playing, but he suggests that Player A should win rather than keep playing. That rules out letting Player A win. The only way around that self-contradiction is to keep playing until the tie is broken (or the goal changes, etc).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T04:44:27.997Z
2014-03-23T20:29:09.150Z
2020-06-17T09:01:24.697Z
ikegami
<p>I think that "until a clear winner emerges" is met due to the creeper. Player A should win, as player B cannot be a winner. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T04:42:13.673Z
Your answer is self contradictory. "Until a clear winner emerges" only applies if you keep playing, but you said "Player A" should win rather than keep playing.
ikegami
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T15:50:52.280Z
@atk, He does not satisfy the winning condition. 1) He's got 5 or more Keepers [satisfied], and 2) he's the player with the most Keepers [not satisfied]. A tie is explicitly called out as not meeting the winning condition.
ikegami
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T16:31:49.373Z
@atk, What part of the card allows you to ignore Player B's Keepers when you check if Player A has the most? Player A is not *the player with the most Keepers*. He's merely **a** player with the most Keepers. It is explicitly stated that ties does not end the game.
ikegami
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T23:38:05.090Z
@ikegami Upon reconsideration, I now agree with you.
atk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T23:52:54.107Z
@ikegami, I agree now as well, given the wording. However, I would be surprised if that's what the intention was, I think it much more likely that this was a rules oversite (it wouldn't be the first time Fluxx has done this, see "x=x+1 and hand limit 0). It seems that the intention behind "in case of a tie" was to deal with when there would be more than 1 winner. Keep in mind that that goal card was created back when Creepers didn't exists. But, as it stands, I'd have to agree with you.
GendoIkari
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-23T01:26:28.990Z
2014-03-23T01:26:28.990Z
GendoIkari
<p>Player A and Player B both have 5 Keepers in play.</p>

<p>Player B has 1 Creeper (Prevents Player B from winning)</p>

<p>Player A plays the goal card 5 Keepers which goes like this (goal cards, are the criteria met to win)</p>

<p>"If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, then the player with the most Keepers in play wins.
In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges."</p>

<p>Does Player A win or does the game continue?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-25T15:31:17.050Z
Have you sent your question to Looney Labs? thelab@looneylabs.com They should be able to give you a definitive answer.
Polymath
<fluxx>
Conflict in Fluxx
annoyingcalc
# Conflict in Fluxx

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-23)

Player A and Player B both have 5 Keepers in play.

Player B has 1 Creeper (Prevents Player B from winning)

Player A plays the goal card 5 Keepers which goes like this (goal cards, are the criteria met to win)

"If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, then the player with the most Keepers in play wins.
In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges."

Does Player A win or does the game continue?

**Tags:** fluxx

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Have you sent your question to Looney Labs? thelab@looneylabs.com They should be able to give you a definitive answer.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-23. Score: 12

> *Does Player A win or does the game continue?*
>
> In case of a tie, continue playing until a clear winner emerges.

There's clearly a tie in the number of Keepers, so you must continue playing.

Player A is not ***the** player with the most Keepers*. He's merely ***a** player with the most Keepers*. It is explicitly stated that the game does not end in the event of a tie.

It could have been written "If someone has 5 or more Keepers on the table, and if a player has more Keepers than any other players, that player wins."

To win, one must have 5 or more Keepers [*satisfied*], and one must be the player with the most Keepers [*not satisfied*].

Player B can't win because he has insufficient Keepers and because he has a Creeper.

Player A can't win because he has insufficient Keepers.

username_3's answer is self-contradictory. "Until a clear winner emerges" only applies if the players keep playing, but he suggests that Player A should win rather than keep playing. That rules out letting Player A win. The only way around that self-contradiction is to keep playing until the tie is broken (or the goal changes, etc).


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-03-23. Score: 1

I think that "until a clear winner emerges" is met due to the creeper. Player A should win, as player B cannot be a winner.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Your answer is self contradictory. "Until a clear winner emerges" only applies if you keep playing, but you said "Player A" should win rather than keep playing.  
> **username_2**: @username_4, He does not satisfy the winning condition. 1) He's got 5 or more Keepers [satisfied], and 2) he's the player with the most Keepers [not satisfied]. A tie is explicitly called out as not meeting the winning condition.  
> **username_2**: @username_4, What part of the card allows you to ignore Player B's Keepers when you check if Player A has the most? Player A is not *the player with the most Keepers*. He's merely **a** player with the most Keepers. It is explicitly stated that ties does not end the game.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 Upon reconsideration, I now agree with you.  
> **username_3**: @username_2, I agree now as well, given the wording. However, I would be surprised if that's what the intention was, I think it much more likely that this was a rules oversite (it wouldn't be the first time Fluxx has done this, see "x=x+1 and hand limit 0). It seems that the intention behind "in case of a tie" was to deal with when there would be more than 1 winner. Keep in mind that that goal card was created back when Creepers didn't exists. But, as it stands, I'd have to agree with you.  

---

