On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM, <DaveSter64@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I recall a few posts recently (well, within the last few months) regarding > combined Fluxx games. > > Besides '5 Keepers' or '10 Cards In Hand' what other Keepers would be ideal > for combined games? Perhaps you mean Goals, not Keepers? > I have some thoughts on new Keepers: > > '6 Keepers'-just like 5, but requiring 6, obviously. Maybe also '7 Keepers'? > And maybe 6 should be spelled out to avoid Inflation affecting it. I tend to think that, in general, a good rule of thumb is to make goals roughly equal in difficulty. The general rule of thumb I've seen is two named Keepers, One keeper with another condition (All You Need Is Love forbids you from holding any other keeers, The Brain (no TV) requires that no one have the TV), or more than two keepers if two of them are "easy" to get (such as Arsenal, which requires a shotgun and two "Pow!" cards). I'd consider 6+ keepers as being harder to get than 5 keepers. I'd also consider it bad design to have two goals where one implies the other (if you have 6 keepers, you obviously have 5). Arguably, if you end up with a keeper-heavy deck, one might want to substitute 6+keepers for 5-keepers, but I wouldn't have them in the same deck. > 'Keeper Variety Pack'-requires Keepers from 2 different sets (one Eco and > one Zombie, for instance.) I'd go for 3 Keepers, or a minimum of three including at least one from each set (so if you were playing Stoner+Eco+Zombie+MP, you'd need four... but there will be a large number of keepers in play, so it shouldn't be too bad). > 'Zombies of the Round Table'-requires a Knight of the Round Table, and 2 or > more Zombies Creeper cards. This one is (of course) used for combined > games involving MPF & ZF. Because there are many Zombies and many Knights, I'd suggest 2+2 > > 'Martians and Zombies and Knights, oh my!'-would require a Knight of the > Round Table, a Zombie, and a Martian. Obviously not needed until Martian > Fluxx comes out. > > I'm sure there are other ideas we could come up with, or maybe someone > already has? > > Dave