A: When The Traitor is in play, that player is the only person who can win, since if anyone besides them wins, they steal the win. Normally, since it’s a Creeper itself, it means that they can’t actually meet the win conditions themselves, because The Traitor prevents the win. However, with Silver Lining in play, all this means is that, in addition to being able to win when someone else meets the Goal conditions, you can also meet the Goal conditions to win under your own power. It still pretty much sucks for everyone besides the person with The Traitor in play.
Archives
Q: Does Silver Lining neutralize War if it is on the table, so that I can win with Peace No War?
A: Peace No War specifically calls out War as a prohibited card to meet the win conditions. It’s not the fact that it’s a Creeper that’s preventing you from winning – it’s that it’s War specifically, which is incompatible with Peace. In fact, in previous editions of Fluxx, it was a Keeper, not a Creeper, and the conditions were the same: you can’t win if War is on the table.
Q: What happens if someone with Taxes plays Money while Silver Lining is in play?
If the Goal is Winning The Lottery (Dreams & Money) and they have Dreams, do they win before Taxes and Money evaporate each other?
Scenario: A player who had both Dreams and Taxes played Money, and claimed they won, because the minute they played Money, the Goal was met, and, while Taxes would normally prevent the person from winning, and be discarded with the Money, because of the Silver Lining, the Goal was met, it superseded the Money and the Taxes being discarded.
The counter-argument was that the minute Money was played, both it and Taxes should have been immediately discarded, and the game continue until another goal is met. So I suppose the question is which takes priority? Meeting the goal, or following the other rules/conditions on the cards in play?
A: This was such a tricky one that Andy himself was stumped on it for a while. Here’s his answer:
If this were simply a case of card timing, I’d go with the counter-argument: events must be resolved simultaneously before concluding that someone wins, i.e. Taxes destroys Money before the Goal can be achieved.
However, this case also involves Silver Lining, and the intent of that rule is to render Creepers harmless, so with the spirit of that rule in mind, I say the player did in fact win this game.
So, henceforth you may consider that the Taxes card has additional fine print, invisible but there nonetheless, which says “You may choose not perform this discard action if the Silver Lining rule is in play.”
Q: If You Also Need A Baked Potato to win, does Silver Lining negate that requirement?
On the table are two rules Silver Lining & You also need a Baked Potato. So if someone gets the goal but doesn’t have the potato can she win, because Silver Lining says that Creepers don’t prevent you from winning. Since the Potato is a creeper and not having it is preventing you from winning, you win?
…or is needing something (in this case the Potato) different from having something (other Creepers) which is preventing you from winning?
A: It’s that second thing you said. The Silver Lining rule means that the presence of a Creeper in front of you does not prevent you from winning, i.e. their presence is completely neutral, instead of negative.
If You Also Need A Baked Potato is in play, then you also need a baked potato – no ifs ands or buts. It does not keep the Creepers absence from preventing your win. It only prevents the presence of a Creeper in front of you from preventing your win.
Q: If I have Love, and Creepers, but no other Keepers, can I win with All You Need Is Love, if Silver Lining is also in Play?
A: Yes, since the Rule Silver Lining was in play, which says that Creepers don’t prevent victory. In that case, if then you had Creepers, but the only actual Keeper you had was Love, then, by the letter of the text on all the cards, you would be able to meet that Goal, since the Goal doesn’t specify no Creepers.