Carol Townsend wrote on 10/9/07 3:53 PM: >> Secondly, "play first" breaks "Trade Hands" in my opinion: save that card >> as >> the only card in your hand, and then play it at the beginning of your turn >> before drawing any cards. It also seems unfair with "Time Vortex". > "Unfair" and "Broken" are two different things. They may feel the same, I > and hear what you're saying, but Fair is not what > Broken means the cards don't work any more. You're of course right in that they are not broken in this sense. > Now, take that same scenario, but with one change. I have 1 card in my hand > (either Trade Hands or Time Vortex... either one will do for this example). > I choose not to draw. My opponents will cringe and I will likely chuckle > gleefully as I play the card, but it really is no different than the above > scenario. The situation feels different to me, but that is likely just from many years of playing Fluxx where I never questioned whether you had to draw before playing. Prior to this week, if someone had tried to play Trade Hands before drawing, I would have believed that they were trying to gain an "unfair advantage" by bending the rules. That said, "card advantage" (to borrow a term from Magic) is a very important concept to be aware when playing Fluxx. I _do_ like to strategize in Fluxx (and I am often criticized for this) and I believe that the player who draws or otherwise has access to more cards is more likely to win. Trade Hands is already a "powerful" card in this respect because you can seomtimes get a lot more cards than you had in return. Even playing Trade Hands before observing the Draw rule when you have other cards in hand could be a big advantage with Draw 4, 5, or more. I feel that being required to draw first restricts the power of this card to a reasonable level. I realize that others may feel differently (and that there is no objective way to evaluate it). > There's no problem with the "No Hand Bonus" when mixed with the "Play First" > option. [...] If you don't have any cards in your hand... well, > then you can't continue your turn until you Draw cards. You can't play what > you don't have. Right. (Note to self: acquire the brain before writing rules-lawyering emails to this list -- "Give Me the Brain", another fine Zombie game ... :) > I understand what you're saying - but that's part of where Fluxx can be played > a bit strategically. Which, in my opinion (more grains of salt being passed > as needed) it part of what is making Zombie Fluxx a better game. As I said above, I enjoy the strategy of Fluxx. I also enjoy the aspects of the game that are beyond my control and the balance between the two. (Despite my love of strategy games, I seem to not be very good at the ones that are too strategic ;) > Is "Final Card Random" Broken or Unfair when it's Draw 3, Play 3, Hand Limit > 0? I draw 3 cards... I play two of them.... here, you choose which I should > play for my final card, will you please? I can think of lots of ways to > skirt intentional chaos - that's part of my strategic playing of Fluxx. Well, again there is nothing objectively broken or unfair about your counterexamples. However, there is a difference between the two situations. In your example, you (or another player) has assumably modified the rules in play to nullify the effect of "Final Card Random". But choosing to play before drawing is "ignoring" one of the rules to get the same advantage. (Once again, it is difficult for me to escape the mindset that drawing first is a rule, but I hope that you can see the distinction despite its subjectivity). Anyways, I can't really give a completely objective argument to support my case, but I find my "rules lawyer" tendencies and my gut reaction to this discussion to be driving me to reply anyways. Please feel free take all of this with copious amounts of salt. Anthony Kozar anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net http://anthonykozar.net/