Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits Optional

  • FromJoseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 8 Aug 2008 12:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
I just realized my first paragraph makes almost no sense.

Please substitute "I vote #3 unless playtesting comes up with 
situations in which #2 would be 'more fun'" for that mess  ;-)

#3 (the numeral 3 looks a tiny bit like rabbit ears, doesn't it?)

-Joe

> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on  
lists.looneylabs.com
> X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: nil
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled  
version=3.1.0
> X-Original-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Hand Limits Optional
> To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Content-MD5: QO4/XmQe4w4mZpJ0Axl4UQ==
> 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 3.2.1.2106 Rule 
breakdown below pts rule name              description ---- 
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.10 
RDNS_NONE              Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
> 
> 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
> rule.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	 Joe
> 
> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on  
> lists.looneylabs.com
> > X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: nil
> > X-Spam-Level: 
> > X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled  
> version=3.1.0
> > 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 3.2.1.2106 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fluxx mailing list
> Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx


Current Thread