Talk:Fluxx FAQ
From RabbitWiki
Contents |
[edit] First question
Splooge169 wrote:
I disagree with the answer to the very first question. The goals all say something like "Whenever these conditions are met, that player wins." Therefore, if 10 Cards in Hand is the goal and both players have the same number of cards (10 or more), as soon as someone plays a card, their hand size is reduced by one, and the opponent wins. The only way to avoid giving the win to the other player is to change the goal.
Saying that the card's action must first be resolved throws into question the very nature of goals as "instant win." If I meet the goal by playing the first card from Draw 2 and Use 'Em, do I still have to "resolve the card's action" by playing the second card? I should hope not; that's ridiculous. No: I win, and the second play never happens. Why doesn't that occur in this situation?
Please revisit this question, Mr. Looney, because your answer did not make sense to me. I am usually quite satisfied with your reasoning and explanations, but this didn't measure up. I'll join the Fluxx mailing list to catch any feedback.
Andy replied:
Well, in that situation, I would say the only card you have to finish resolving is the first of the two played during the Draw 2 and Use 'Em action, not the D2&UE itself. But your point is well taken -- all changes happen instantly in Fluxx, so I'm changing my answer on this.
- Hmm... I'm confused. Are you ruling that the swap hands action itself is not simultaneous with the playing of the card? I mean, you previously ruled that the Radioactive potato moved simultaneously with the playing of the new rule. Why does that not apply here too? My feeling is that winning that occurs due to a played card can only happen when the playing of the card played is resolved. However, cards higher up the return tree do not need to be satisfied. So a take another turn card does not need to be satisfied, nor would a Draw Two and use them that allowed you to draw and play the winning card.
- To make this more clear: winning due to a played card occurs at the end of resolving a card's play-action (where resolving a card's play-action also means applying the relevant text from other cards, such as the Radioactive Potato) even if there are other cards who actions are not yet fully resolved.
- Does that sound right to anybody else? That feels like a reasonably clean way to do things, and seems to match my instinct on the D2&UE, Potato, and this case. To me this seems to match the first sentence of your reply. 71.2.110.57 12:33, 16 June 2008 (PDT)
- The key point here is that goals are the most instant of all the cards in Fluxx. Every other "instant" action takes a lower precedence, unless the card specifically states otherwise (like Larry or the Potato). The initial ruling here would have undermined what I consider to be the foundation of Fluxx: you meet the goal, you win immediately. --Splooge169 02:13, 18 August 2008 (PDT)
- I'm not so sure about that. Consider what would happen if, instead of playing Trade Hands, a different Goal card is played. Would the 10 Cards in Hand goal be trashed first, or would the other player win? I think the main problem here is that we as human players consider there to be a temporal difference between choosing to play a card and the action actually taking effect. This could potentially be different from the perspective of the game. The "meet goal, win instantly" foundation can still be met, so long as we define what "instantly" means in terms of Fluxx, and this definition doesn't clash too violently from what we consider "instantly".
- In my opinion, I think the best solution is to consistently choose between 71.2.110.57's definition or Splooge169's definition. Either Fluxx checks for a win after every card play resolves, or we define a temporal distance between the play of a card and its resolution and have Fluxx check for a win between each step. I believe the former solution has greater consistency, but that's just my personal opinion. Both are workable solutions, and it would (obviously) be up to Andy to pick between them. 131.107.0.105 12:23, 30 December 2008 (PST)
[edit] Keeper value
Has anybody ever talked about the balance of what all the different Keepers are worth (i.e. how many Goals can be satisfied with each Keeper?) After getting Fluxx 3.1 and falling in love with it, it was one of the first things that came to mind and it appears to me that some Keepers are actually more valuable than others (Chocolate, for example, is twice as valuable as most of the other Keepers). I looked around but have not found any other discussion of this on the internets. - Histumness 17:59, 1 September 2008 (PDT)
[edit] One, Two, Five! rule
Dulcimerist wrote: How does the One, Two, Five! rule interact with The Computer keeper? Is the owner of The Computer able to decide to add the +1 before or after the One, Two, Five! rule takes effect? This is a Rule vs. Keeper contradiction, so one can't discard the other in this case. On a related subject, the One, Two, Five! rule contradicting the Inflation rule makes sense, as it's easier to simply discard the older rule. However, I'm finding that the majority of players have so much fun with the One, Two, Five! rule, that they naturally want to leave both rules in play and do that extra step of math in their heads in an effort to turn a 3 into a 5. (Perhaps both of these, and similar rules cards, should be keyed as "Number Modification Rules" so that people will know to discard one when a new rule of this type appears?) --Dulcimerist 05:56, 2 December 2008 (PST)
- Criswell comments about 1,2,5 with X=X+1 - We like playing them together. Our house rule works to use both rules if possible - Specifically a 2 first becomes a 3 then a 5, since we apply X=X+1 before 1,2,5. But a 3 first becomes a 5 then a 6, because we now apply 1,2,5 before X=X+1. All other numbers simply increment with X=X+1, and are not affected by 1,2,5. We like our house rule.
[edit] The Knights of Ni and "It"
The Knights of Ni creeper card states that, "You cannot win if you have this unless the goal says otherwise or a card is on the table with the word 'It' (or 'It's') in its title."
Does it have to be the word "It" on it's own, or could a word like limit be effective since "it" is in the word? Also, does the card get discarded if an "It" is on the table or does it stay?
- If that's the wording of the card (I don't have a copy of it), then I think it must have the word "it" or "it's" on its own. It specifically says "the word 'It'", which seems to request the word "it" by itself, and not as a substring of another word.
- Also, I don't think the Creeper would get discarded when a card with the word "It" comes into play. There is no contradiction, so no discard occurs. I think the "discard on contradiction" rule only applies to New Rule cards, anyway. 131.107.0.105 12:28, 30 December 2008 (PST)
