It's good that you are continuing to iterate and improve the game based on the comments you got last time, but this is still way to striaghtforward and solvable to be a game. Also, you the main takeaway from the last time you posted should have been that you need to playtest the game yourself, since its only been one day since you last posted, I can't see how you would have had time to properly test this new ruleset.
Specific to the game you are working with, when you are only rolling 1 die, the game seems very solvable.
Adding 1 barricade is equivalent to killing one zombie in terms of win condition, except it is actually worse in the long run because you have a limit on barricades. So a player killing one zombie each turn will eventually beat a player building one barricade each turn. Therefore, if the odds of building a barricade were equal to the odds of killing one zombie, the player is better off always killing one zombie.
In your game however, the odds of killing one zombie are actually BETTER than building a Barricade. I have a 4/6 chance of killing at least one zombie but only a 2/6 chance of building a barricade.
attracting a zombie from an opponent is an interesting thought, but it only happening 1/6 of the time does not seem like enough of a detraction to prevent me from doing it.
My possible outcomes on a "fighting back" die roll is (in terms of how many zombies there will be when I'm done) +1,0,-1,-1,-1,-2 which means my expected roll each turn is -.667 zombies per roll. (If its early and I don't have 2 zombies to kill than the EV is -.5 zombies.
So, in short, I always want to try and kill the zombies and I will succeed more often than not. This leads to another problem where this game could go on for much longer than it will be fun for.
I hope this helps clarify some of the issues that other posters mentioned last time. Keep working on games, but PLEASE, give the game/rules a lot more thought and testing before posting them on here for other people to test.