# Exchange keepers

I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.

ACTION: Exchange Keepers

Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent. If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.

Notes: The wording has been revised in newer editions I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.

This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ

With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.

It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.

Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.

So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.

However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.

• Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player. – Mimi Jul 1 '19 at 14:53

I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.

The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com

One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.

something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else

That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.

• I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written. – Mimi Jul 1 '19 at 9:01
• You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win. – StartPlayer Jul 1 '19 at 10:25
• Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on. – Mimi Jul 1 '19 at 11:52