Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

["Zach Taylor" <aurywoof@xxxxxxxxx>]

This seems, to me, to be a situation where House Rules(tm) really come into effect.  My group plays exactly like it says on the card: If it's your turn, you may discard down to the hand limit, or you may not. It's up to the individual player and situation. I've played with other people who enforce the hand limit at all times, and you may not carry on with your turn until you've discarded down to the HL, and I've played with groups who say that once you've discarded, it signals the end of your turn. It really depends on how the folks you're playing with interpret the rule.

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Frank Smith <smithfrankf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

How would you handle the combination of "Hand Limit h" and "Everybody Gets One"?
Suppose player B (whose turn it isn't) has h cards in hand with "Hand
Limit h" in effect.
Active player A plays "Everybody Gets One".

What I'd do: Give B a card. B now has more than h cards, and must
discard down to h, but B can choose from among any of the cards
including the one just received.

Your reasoning seems to require that the card drawn and designated for
B is simply discarded.

Similarly for any other situation where a non-active player (who must
observe the Hand Limit) can end up with more cards than the hand limit
allows. Trade Hands, for instance. I'm having trouble thinking of a
way to implement that action without B having more than h cards in
hand, albeit briefly.

I'd agree, though, that Drawing, Playing some, applying Hand Limit,
then Playing more -- while it _might_ be legal -- is decidedly UnCool.

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jody Chandler
<windblownhermit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   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
>

<snip>

--
Frank F. Smith

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

--
--aury