Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Fluxx» Forums » Rules

Subject: Fluxx Rich Bonus / Poor Bonus rules... a question of semantics rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
D R
Ireland
flag msg tools
Hoping maybe someone can answer this... It came up last night while I was playing Fluxx with some new players for the first time, and their reading of the Rich Bonus and Poor Bonus rules was different to how I've always played it.

(We were using a 3.0 deck btw)


Poor Bonus says: "If you have fewer keepers in play than anyone else"
Rich Bonus says "If you have more keepers in play than anyone else"

I interpret that as:

"If you have fewer/more keepers in play than everyone else"

the others last night took it to mean:

"If you have fewer/more keepers in play than someone else"

eg: My way: if the keepers are distributed as: 1, 2, 3, and 3 per player, then the player with 1 gets a poor bonus, but nobody gets a rich bonus (because nobody is the outright keeper leader)

Their way: in the same situation, 1 is entiteld to a poor bonus, and both players with 3 are entitled to a rich bonus.


Which way do you interpret that rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana (IN)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I do it your way. I can find no way that anyone can be interpreted as someone.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Good argument for preferring the less ambiguous "everyone" and "someone" and avoiding the more ambiguous "anyone" in rules writing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Anyone" is singular.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
"Anyone" is singular.

True, but are you suggesting that somehow demonstrates whether "everyone" or "anyone" was meant? "Everyone" and "someone" are also both singular... ("Everyone has less than me." "Someone has less than me.")
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reverend Redd
United States
Bremerton
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
English is a thoroughly stupid and overcomplicated language.

I saw a few examples from the local Lab Rabbits - one was even a demo game with Andy Looney's wife - in which they confirmed that "Anyone" meant "Everyone" in this case - if two players have the same number of keepers, neither qualifies for either bonus, as they mathematically do not have "fewest" or "most" until no other player shares that number with them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Stout
United States
Annandale
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
loafers_glory wrote:
Poor Bonus says: "If you have fewer keepers in play than anyone else"
Rich Bonus says "If you have more keepers in play than anyone else"

I interpret that as:

"If you have fewer/more keepers in play than everyone else"

the others last night took it to mean:

"If you have fewer/more keepers in play than someone else"

eg: My way: if the keepers are distributed as: 1, 2, 3, and 3 per player, then the player with 1 gets a poor bonus, but nobody gets a rich bonus (because nobody is the outright keeper leader)

Their way: in the same situation, 1 is entiteld to a poor bonus, and both players with 3 are entitled to a rich bonus.


Which way do you interpret that rule?

I agree with the others: you must be alone in having the minimum or maximum # of Keepers.


However, the way you've described it, according to "their way", the player with 2 Keepers is entitled to get both the Rich and Poor bonuses, because he has more than someone else, and less than someone else. This would be absurd, of course: in the extreme, if the players had 1, 2, 3 and 4 Keepers, than all but one would get the Poor Bonus, and all but one would get the Rich Bonus.

But it doesn't look that's what they were actually saying.

I think what you meant to say was, for the Poor Bonus,

Your way: "If every other player has more keepers in play than you do" [Ties not allowed]

Their way: "If no other player has less keepers in play than you do" [Ties are allowed]

In other words, the problem was not really the interpretation of "anyone", it was with the interpretation of "fewest/most", which do not appear on the cards, but are the concepts they are working with. In your example, does player C have the highest number of cards? By one interpretation of the word, yes, because the maximum of 1, 2 and 3 is 3, and C has 3 cards. By another interpretation, no, because C and D have the same number. The maximum could be >= than all others, or strictly > all others. Words are more fluid than math symbols.

I think the Looneys worded these cards this way:

"If you have fewer keepers in play than anyone else"

rather than:

"If you have the fewest keepers in play"

precisely to avoid this ambiguity. But so strong is the other meaning in some people's minds, that they argue that "anyone else" allows them to have the bonus if tied for the extreme, even though that leads to the absurdity described above.

I'm not saying those people are stupid, it's just that some ways of thinking are hard to shake. (The fact that it's in your interest to argue that way can also be an influence.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
nicholas wemyss
Scotland
ayr
flag msg tools
they added the line "in the event of a tie, no player receives the bonus" in 4.0 fluxx
hope this helps
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.