Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Unintended consequences

  • From"Timothy Hunt" <games@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 11 Aug 2008 12:05:17 -0500
I'm having a tough time with this.

One the one hand, I can see Andy's original intent and that perhaps he
might like to tighten it up.

On the other, it allowed for innovative play.  Innovative play can
often progress a game unexpectedly, like when the Shotgun was
introduced in IceHouse, and a maximum 30 was scored by a player with
all his pieces as defenders.  All of his attacks were using prisoners
and lots of restructuring.

It was all legal, played completely within the rules, but changed the
feel of the game somewhat (in a good way).

Now, I recognise this is not in the same class as that, but it's at
least something to consider.


On 8/11/08, Larry W. Virden <lvirden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Kheldar Septyn <septyn47@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of a strict ruling on the Hand Limit rules--the current
> player does not follow the limit, and does not have the option of following
> the limit at will.
> I myself am in favor of a loose ruling - no restrictions on game play unless
> absolutely necessary...
> --
> Tcl - The glue of a new generation. http://wiki.tcl.tk/
> Larry W. Virden http://www.purl.org/net/lvirden/
> http://www.xanga.com/lvirden/
>  Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
> should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
> _______________________________________________
>  Fluxx mailing list
>  Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx

Current Thread