I'm also trying to figure this out.
Say you have 3 keepers, Bob has 4 keepers, and Jane has 2 keepers. Under the old rules, you would still get the rich bonus because you have more keepers than her. But, under that logic, wouldn't you also get the poor bonus because you have fewer keepers than Bob?
In any case, it's all straightened out now in 3.1...
~ Melissa
On 1/19/07, Lynda <giddens@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:"I also remember the 3.0 days when Rich and Poor Bonus meant to us that
if you had more/fewer keepers than any other player (at all) you got
the bonus. Glad they cleared that up in 3.1."
Could
you please clarify this? I'm pretty sure I have the 3.0 version and I
thought the rich/poor bonus was determined by how many/few keepers you
had within the group playing. (IE - If you have 3 keepers and everyone else has 2 or less, you qualify for Rich Bonus; if you have 0 keepers and everyone else has 1 or more, you qualify for the poor bonus.) Is this thinking not correct? If not, what specifically was cleared up in
3.1? I looked on the
website, but couldn't find where this sort of change information might
be located.
Thanks!
On 1/18/07, James Hazelton <
jameshazelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have the opposite problem. Instead of applying it too much, my group routinely forgets about First Play Random/Final Card Random entirely, and many turns pass before someone says, "Say, wasn't that card supposed to be random?" I also remember the
3.0 days when Rich and Poor Bonus meant to us that if you had more/fewer keepers than any other player (at all) you got the bonus. Glad they cleared that up in 3.1.
_______________________________________________
Fluxx mailing list
Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx
_______________________________________________
Fluxx mailing list
Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx