Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits Optional

  • FromJoseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 8 Aug 2008 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Andy:

Since the goal is always clarity and fun, my recommendation would be:
since option 3 is [arguably] more clear than option 1, and [in my
opinion] easier to digest for new players, if the playtesting does
turn up several situations where it would be "more fun" to be able 
to discard during the turn and carry on, then work on option 2.

Personally, I think if you just have the first part "If it's not your
turn, you may only have X cards in your hand"; this already implies #3.
The semantic difference between discarding at the end of your turn (if
necessary) and the next player saying "hey, it's not your turn anymore,
discard now!" is pretty small.

It seems to me that the original "part 2" was just a clarification on
how to play it for the active player, which unfortunately introduced a
new wrinkle and essentially morphed it into a new card, especially 
after your YouTube video.

My personal take on it is that there is already [potentially] so much
you can do before having to discard (such as trashing that rule), that
the option of discarding and then continuing to play anyway, is not a
"necessary" game mechanic.  I think it would be simplest to use option 
#3 in future printings/expansions, and for those who really liked the
YouTube interpretation, they just impose the "Dynamic Hand Limits" house


> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on  
> X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: nil
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled  
> X-Original-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:33:04 -0400
> From: Andy Looney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Fluxx Discussion List <fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits Optional
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES256-SHA
> X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
> X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version Rule 
breakdown below pts rule name              description ---- 
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.10 
RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
> James Hazelton wrote:
> > I still maintain that you cannot observe the hand limit on your turn.
> > The simple and unavoidable truth is that Andy had never even
> > considered observing the Hand Limit on your turn until a fan pointed it
> > out on this list. This was after 3.1 came out.
> This is true. And that's not how I ever play it, nor how I ever intended it 
> to work.
> How this whole thing started is that I was sloppy with my language long ago 
> and we've kept using the standard established text ever since. It's all to 
> do with the word "may". When I wrote the phrase, "During your turn, you may 
> ignore the hand limit," I was thinking of it only as "this is something you 
> get to do, isn't that great?" not something some players would find to be 
> an attractive option.
> But then I started getting questions like this from Bryan Stout:
> > I can only conclude that the "may ignore ... as long as"
> > wording on the card allows the current player to apply the Hand Limit at
> > any point in their turn they want.  It would take the stricter (and
> > shorter) wording I mentioned last time to unambiguously enforce the
> > stricter interpretation.  In all honesty I cannot say that those who
> > interpret the rule to allow earlier Limits in one's turn are wrong,
> > because of the way it is phrased -- even if Andy didn't realize the
> > implications of the phrasing at first.
> ... and I had to agree that, since I'd used that pesky word 'may', I'd 
> created something that had to be optional if someone wanted to interpret it 
> that way. I also concluded that it didn't even bother me, since it really 
> isn't a very useful trick very often, and decided to allow it.
> But that's all in the past, what about the future?
> We're about to go to press with Monty Python Fluxx, plus we're about to 
> reprint Zombie Fluxx as version 1.1 (with a few little tweaks) and later 
> there's Martian Fluxx and someday Fluxx 4.0 and who knows what else. All of 
> them will have Hand Limits. So what should I do for these and all future 
> versions of Fluxx?
> 1) Keep using the traditional text because it's established
> 2) Re-write the text so that James et al will agree with the optional 
> interpretation
> 3) Eliminate the option by re-writing the second paragraph as "This rules 
> does not apply to you during your turn. When your turn ends, discard down 
> to x."
> We've been using option 1 for a long time, but I'm suddenly finding option 
> 3 very attractive. Thoughts?
> -- Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Fluxx mailing list
> Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx

Current Thread