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