# Fluxx - when is the winning condition reached?

I recently bought Cartoon Network Fluxx and have quickly become a big fan. I've been playing it a lot lately but we keep going back and forth on when the winning condition has been reached. Help?

Example: 1) Goal is Super Geniuses (Dexter + Mojo Jojo) 2) Dexter is on my side of the table 3) Mojo Jojo is in my hand 4) It is not my turn

Do you play it and win instantly or do you wait your turn?

The rules say: "The game continues until someone meets the conditions of the current Goal. That player wins instantly, no matter whose turn it is!"

The confusion comes from whether having the second card in your hand (not on the table) is considered meeting the conditions of the current Goal.

I think both cards must be on the table because the Goal rules say "These cards show the specific Keepers you must have on the table in front of you in order to win." but I don't totally disagree with the opposing theory that following that would make it much more difficult to win if you had a big group playing (only played with 2 so far) and thus it was likely never designed that way in the first place.

For the record, so far we have followed the rule as "wait until both are on the table" but we still keep wondering if we're doing it wrong and we'd like to know for sure.

So is it "no matter whose turn it is" or is it "on the table in front of you"?

Thanks for any help on this.

• "So is it "no matter whose turn it is" or is it "on the table in front of you"? " uhm... both? Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 9:23

Do you play it and win instantly or do you wait your turn?

The cards have to be on the table, so in this case, sounds like you need to wait until your turn - you can't play the necessary Keeper when it's not your turn. Once you play it (on your turn), you win instantly.

In a different situation, though, you could win instantly, for example if the Goal changes into one whose conditions you already meet.

So is it "no matter whose turn it is" or is it "on the table in front of you"?

It's both; there's no contradiction. The rules say you win instantly, no matter whose turn it is, when you meet the conditions of the Goal, and the conditions of the Goal are that the cards be on the table. The rules definitely don't say that if there's some way you can win instantly by breaking the rules (e.g. changing what the Goal means) you're allowed to do so!

• Fantastic. Thank you. I was guessing that was the case but it kept coming back up and I figured it was best to ask around. Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 23:42
• I think one key point worth mentioning is that you can win on someone else's turn by meeting the conditions of the Goal if the Goal changes. Commented Apr 1, 2015 at 23:53
• @murgatroid99 True - I had focused on the OP's specific example. Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 0:16

Goals are typically worded as follows:

The player with the X and the Y on the table wins.

If one of the required keepers is in your hand, you don't meet the goal's conditions.

The instant you do meet the goal's condition (i.e. the instant you play the missing keeper), you will win, but you can't just spontaneously play the card. You can normally only play cards on your turn (although there could very well be cards that allow you to play out of turn).

You can win when it's not your turn, but not in the specified scenario. You could win when it's not your turn if someone changes the goal and you already have the necessary keepers on the table, for example.

• That is, if you have full-text goals. This depends on your version. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/FluxxEN-DE-FU.jpg Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 13:29
• Unless you're saying that version behaves differently, that's rather besides the point. Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 13:48
• That's true, sorry. It''s just that I'd never seen goals with words on them before and your answer seemed to hinge on the wording of the goals. Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 14:04
• @freekvd, The answer does hinge on the wording of the goals, whether those words are English or glyphs documented elsewhere. Commented Apr 2, 2015 at 18:27