> >> The card says in a 2 player game treat this card as 'Take another turn'. > Does this mean that this new rule card should be treated as an action and > discarded? > > > That's how I understand it. "In a two-player game, pretend that this is > the Action card named Take Another Turn." > ----------------------------- > A New_Rule that's treated like an Action? > > I have an older card without the "take another turn" part on it, so in a > two-player game I play it exactly as it's written. > It has no effect in a two-player game; it's what you play when you have to > play a card but you don't want to change anything (i.e. you're about to > win). That makes much more sense to me too. It's reasonable that there might be a workaround for the two-player-game case, but it's not logical at all for a New Rule card to suddenly act like an Action card. And since I can't think of any good way to make Reverse Order do anything *as a New Rule* in a two-player game, I conclude that it just shouldn't do anything. There are any number of cards in Fluxx that have no effect if played in certain situations, so there's nothing wrong with Reverse Order having that property. Indeed, sometimes it's nice to be able to play a do-nothing card--that's why I still have the Borders Bonus in my deck, even though I basically never play in any situation where it might potentially be activated. I think Uno has a rule that Reverse is treated as Skip in a two-player game, but in Uno that workaround is logical because Reverse and Skip are the same card type. In needlessly technical language, in Uno you can think of Direction_Of_Play as a global variable much like Current_Player, whereas in Fluxx the direction of play is a rule (in effect, the Basic Rules card says "play clockwise" and the Reverse Order card says "play counterclockwise", although for some reason they're not worded that way). Treating the direction of play this way causes a few quirks, some of them desirable (like the ability to cancel Reverse Order with any of the rule-trashing Actions, which is probably why Reverse Order was made a New Rule and not an Action in the first place), and some not so great (like the inability to invent any sensible fine print to make Reverse Order do something in a two-player game). But trying to have it both ways, as the 3.1 Reverse Order card does, is just too inelegant to contemplate. I have no idea how that got into Fluxx 3.1, but I certainly hope it goes away in the next printing.... -- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/