Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] Cheese Shop and Get On With It!

  • FromJoseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 7 Nov 2008 09:52:39 -0800 (PST)
OK am I just missing something here?  Did Carol have a typo on the 
text?  This "and" vs. "then" seems moot because the text is "and then",
is it not?   ...which is functionally equivalent to "then", i.e. there
is a sequence which may be interrupted.

He wins.

This goes back to my stateless argument I made in the radioactive 
potato discussion, but the player in question did not win there because
there was no time where either the new goal has been played and the 
potato is not in front of the would-be winner (goal play and potato
move are simultaneous), and likewise with satisfying the old goal while
potato is present; potato moves simultaneously with new goal, so there's
no point where the old goal is present but the potato is not.

However, in this case, there's no question that there is a time 
between when the old cards are discarded and the new ones are drawn, 
and such is perfectly acceptable to claim a victory condition (assuming
everything else is in order).

I propose a new metarule "Finish your vegetables before dessert":
"No player may meet any victory conditions until all consequences of a
card just played have been completed".  

This would of course not prevent the common "5 keepers" win by the active
player when a Keeper Limit of less than 5 is in effect, because adhering
to the keeper limit still happens discretionally or at the end of the turn.
[I don't remember whether the discretionary part has been since overruled;
I remember there was some additional discussion after Andy's famous 
Hand Limit 0 ruling, but I don't recall the "final" (i.e. most recent)

All this is just my opinion of course, and I'm not Andy -- he still may
rule counter to my position on this, and that's perfectly fine.  And, any
given group of players may interpret it however they like, as long as 
they all agree and it's clear before the game starts.


> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on 
> X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: nil
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 
autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5
> X-Original-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:11:33 -0500
> From: "Bryan Stout" <bryan.stout@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Fluxx Discussion List" <fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> Subject: Re: [Fluxx] Cheese Shop and Get On With It!
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 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
> From: "Alan Anderson" <aranders@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> In Carol's situation, the Get On With It! card has you discard your 
> >> hand, and then draw 3 more cards.  I see them as being sequential  rather 
> >> than simultaneous,...
> >
> > The card says "and", not "then".  There's no indication that they are 
> > anything other than simultaneous.
> >
> > My interpretation: he didn't win.
> Actually, I know it says "and" -- I double-checked before I wrote.  Here's 
> my reasoning: two steps that go together can be considered simultaneous if 
> you can imagine them happening in any order.  If they could only happen in 
> one order, they are sequential.
> So with the Hot Potato, once I lay down a new Goal, I could either discard 
> the old Goal and then shift the Potato, or shift the Potato and then discard 
> the old Goal.  They are essentially simultaneous and inseparable.
> But with Get On With It!, I would only do it in one order: I discard my 
> whole hand and then draw 3 more.  Doing it in reverse -- drawing 3 new cards 
> and then discarding my whole hand -- would violate the intent of GOWI.  So 
> that's why I said "and then" earlier: there is an inherent sequence to the 
> two steps.
> And once you have a sequence in steps, you have spots in between the steps 
> when you can declare a win.
> But the other interpretation is also reasonable.  One could argue that the 
> card immediately being acted on must be completely finished before declaring 
> a win.  And that's why I said I could see Andy ruling either way.
> So the larger question is: is the indivisible event the card, or the steps 
> within the card?  I'll need to look over my Fluxx decks to help think about 
> it.
> Regards,
> Bryan
> _______________________________________________
> Fluxx mailing list
> Fluxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/fluxx