Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

[Jody Chandler <windblownhermit@xxxxxxxxx>]

  I've always had a problem with Andy's YouTube situational explanation, because it "feels" unfair.  So, while I can't argue with the wording of the card that it says "may," there's a serious flaw in the way he chooses to exploit that wording that gives it that "unfair" aftertaste. 

The way I see it, Andy exploits the wording so that instead of ignoring or observing the rule, he does both!  That's what's unfair about it.  I think there is a principle at work here, very common in games, that when you are given a choice, you can't ride the fence, you have to choose and the choice is binding, and the choice must generally be clear to other players so they can be sure you aren't cheating.  Andy ignores the rule, finds out that ignoring the rule doesn't work out for him, and then changes his mind.  I think I disagree with James here because I interpret the "rule" as simply not having any cards in your hand, and the only exception to this rule is if it is your turn you "may" ignore it.  So anyways, Andy draws his cards, takes them into his hand, organizes them, looks at them and decides which two cards he likes.  How is this observing the hand limit rule?  It isn't!  He has cards in his hand, and he even says "I draw three cards, add them to my hand..."!  He has a hand of 5, not 2, so he should be considered officially ignoring the rule.  At that point he has made his choice to ignore the rule clear to other players.  To my sensibilities, he can't change his mind and decide, after ignoring the rule by taking 3 extra cards into his hand, to observe it just because he doesn't like the cards he now holds.  I think the only way to choose to observe the rule when it is your turn in that situation while also observing the draw rule is to simply draw and immediately (as the rule says) discard the 3 cards one by one without taking them into your hand.   But why would you do this?  Barring prescience of what 3 cards are on the top of the draw pile, there would be no reason to do this, so basically what I'm saying is Andy should have lost that game.  :D

--- On Fri, 8/8/08, James Hazelton <jameshazelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: James Hazelton <jameshazelton@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits Optional
To: "Fluxx Discussion List" <fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, August 8, 2008, 1:50 AM

Oh, I've read the card. Several times.

Notice that the card has two paragraphs:

"If it isn't your turn, you should only have 2 cards in your hand. If you have extra cards, discard them immediately.

"During your turn, you may ignore the Hand Limit, as long as you discard all but 2 of your cards when you end your turn."

As you'll surely notice, the first paragraph is only for players whose turn it is not, and the second paragraph is only for those whose turn it is. The turn player is given the option to ignore the rule, but only the second paragraph applies to him, so only that part may he ignore. Since the first paragraph--the part that allows discarding--never applied to him in the first place, there is nothing there for him to ignore (or not ignore).

In other words, choosing not to ignore the rule does not allow the turn player to use actions outlined in the first paragraph, as those actions are specifically reserved for non-turn players.

_______________________________________________
Fluxx mailing list
Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx