It just seems that Everybody Gets 1 is overpowered under X=X+1. In a
game of any size, you get to draw ten or twelve or more cards...
Eh? In a game of five players (and we usually play with less) you draw ten
cards, and get to keep only two for yourself. In a game of six players,
you draw twelve. In a game of two players, you draw four. You CANNOT say,
with any mathematical accuracy, that you draw a huge amount of cards in "a
game of any size".
But as I write this, I see your meaning (which would be clear from vocal
inflection which is difficult to convey in email): that "in a game of any
SIGNIFICANT (understood to mean LARGE) size" EvGets(2) has you drawing a
huge number of cards.
Well, I still disagree: I don't think this is overpowered - not compared to
the effects you describe of X=X+1 (Inflation) on Discard And Draw...
...it's rare that you've got more than three or four cards (besides the
itself) without having *any* you'd rather keep.
I disagree: In fact, I wouldn't consider it worth my while to play
Disc&Draw _unless_ I had a large hand size (or a REALLY crappy hand)
...so you just play Disc&Draw on the theory that one of your 20 new cards
will have to be 10 Cards in Hand; but that doesn't come up too often.
It doesn't? I'd gamble on it any day. And the effect of Inflation on hand
size is totally disproportionate to it's effects on 10 Cards In Hand. You
can MULTIPLY your hand by two, while the winning condition has only been
elevated by an ADDITION of one. That just doesn't seem right to me.
Also, w/ EvGets(2), at least EVERYBODY is getting. It's spread out. Sure,
you get to pick what you keep, but you give away the rest, some of which
end up being good (or good for the person you're giving to - you never can
In games I've played, we routinely see people throwing away large hands
because they want a fresh batch, or they want 10 Cards In Hand specifically
(of course) (meanwhile they're tossing a bunch of crappy hand limits they
wouldn't want to be forced to play anyhow.) You think this happens
infrequently, but I would say it's quite common. I often angle for a large
hand size. I'll deliberately not play keepers to remain Poor if the Poor
Bonus is in effect (especially with an Inflated Poor Bonus!)
(On the other hand, if you never play above a three- or four-player game,
it's probably not an issue; but most Fluxx players probably do....)
We all think we're in the majority, don't we? I'm talking like my way is
the only way, and you're talking like your way is...
This "on the other hand" of yours sums our differences in a nutshell. Most
of the games I play are three or four players. I probably only play above
a four player game at a convention, or when teaching newbies. And the box
says up to six players. We'd break it into multiple groups if it got much
bigger. We find it to be just too freakin' long between turns. Fluxx with
a larger group CAN (not always, but CAN) be a disappointing bore for the
new player ("I only got one turn in that whole half-hour game!") and we try
to avoid that new player disappointment.
I realize some people feel differently about "supersizing" Fluxx games...
But they are Freaks!!!!!
(we love you all!)
(seriously - like I'm one to talk!)
Anyhow. What all this points out to me is that people (and social circles)
have different styles of play, and what seems overpowered to one group is
nothing to another, and vice-versa. It's like some people love to play
severe hand limits, even when they screw themselves as well, just to mess
with everyone else. Some people like to go for chaos even above going for
potential winning strategies. I don't do that (I try, when possible, to
play to win) but many delight in this aspect of Fluxx.
The glory of Fluxx is that it's so flexible (Fluxxible?) that it can
accommodate all these styles of play, and keep us all pretty happy. (or
more than pretty happy, eh?)