Exchange keepersExchange Keeper Card
Is it OK to leave real names & info visible in business card portfolio?
Graduate student with abysmal English writing skills, how to help
GDPR rights when subject dies; does family inherit subject rights?
Are there any sports for which the world's best player is female?
LED glows slightly during soldering
Swapping "Good" and "Bad"
Group of tabulars under one table reference
Did the Ottoman empire suppress the printing press?
When I press the space bar it deletes the letters in front of it
How can a dictatorship government be beneficial to a dictator in a post-scarcity society?
Why archangel Michael didn't save Jesus when he was crucified?
What minifigure is this?
How do we handle pauses in a dialogue?
Is there a strong legal guarantee that the U.S. can give to another country that it won't attack them?
A horrible Stockfish chess engine evaluation
Why did Old English lose both thorn and eth?
Could you brine steak?
How to drill holes in 3/8" steel plates?
How are mathematicians paid to do research?
What the real concept of Static keyword in perspective of Embedded C. See below code
How effective would wooden scale armor be in a medieval setting?
Misrepresented my work history
What is this little owl-like bird?
Does a wizard need their hands free in order to cause their familiar from the Find Familiar spell to reappear?
Exchange keepers
Exchange Keeper Card
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.
ACTION: Exchange Keepers
Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent.
If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.
Notes:
The wording has been revised in newer editions
I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.
fluxx
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
add a comment |
I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.
ACTION: Exchange Keepers
Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent.
If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.
Notes:
The wording has been revised in newer editions
I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.
fluxx
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
add a comment |
I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.
ACTION: Exchange Keepers
Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent.
If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.
Notes:
The wording has been revised in newer editions
I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.
fluxx
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
I had a debate with friends based on the wording on the card. I believe because the way it is written, I can give a keeper and immediately take it back instead of taking one of theirs.
ACTION: Exchange Keepers
Give an opponent a keeper. Take a keeper from an opponent.
If only one player has a keeper or no keepers are in play do nothing.
Notes:
The wording has been revised in newer editions
I understand the intention of the card, but believe there is a loophole in the rule.
fluxx
fluxx
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
asked Jul 1 at 7:45
MimiMimi
132 bronze badges
132 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
add a comment |
I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.
something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else
That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47718%2fexchange-keepers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
add a comment |
This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
add a comment |
This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
This is not address specifically in the official Fluxx FAQ
With the card as written in that edition, you should be able to do this.
It's worth noting that the word "exchange" doesn't matter here, because it's only used in the name of the card, not in the text of the effect.
Another card that has been renamed in newer editions shows that the name of a card is not important to its actual effect. After it has been played, the card "X=X+1" (later renamed "Inflation"), is actually now named "X=X+2". But the effect of that card is still to add one to each numeral, not to add two. So the fact that the card is named "X=X+2" doesn't matter.
So when you play the card, you simply follow the instructions as written, in order, which is to give a keeper to a player, and then to take a keeper from a player, who now has the keeper you gave them.
However I believe that the fact that the newer printings of the same card have changed the wording such that this interpretation is no longer possible, I don't see a good reason to choose to play with a card as written, instead of playing with the card as intended. The fact that the wording has been changed is clear indication of the intent of the card, and while Fluxx doesn't have as clear-cut rules about things like errata compared to something like Magic: The Gathering, I believe that for the sake of understanding rules in general, the most recent official version of a rule should always be considered to be the only one that matters. Playing by an older version of a rule is the same as playing by a house rule.
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
edited Jul 1 at 14:56
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
answered Jul 1 at 13:58
GendoIkariGendoIkari
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
46.9k3 gold badges103 silver badges189 bronze badges
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
add a comment |
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
Thanks, I wrote the action wrong it does state the same player.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 14:53
add a comment |
I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.
something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else
That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
add a comment |
I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.
something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else
That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
add a comment |
I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.
something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else
That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
I think thats a long stretch to try and bend the rules to your favour.
The wording is "exchange". I wont use a rules ref here as you quote the card and instead go the dictionary.com
One of the definitions of exchange as a noun.
something that is given or received in exchange or substitution for something else
That does not mean you can give a card and take the same card back as that is by definition not an exchange.
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered Jul 1 at 7:59
StartPlayerStartPlayer
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
3,4528 silver badges24 bronze badges
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
add a comment |
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
I do not believe you can make that argument because “let’s simplify” gives you the option of not doing anything and that’s not meeting the definition of simplifying. My argument is the title of the card is irrelevant and you only follow the steps written.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 9:01
1
1
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
You don't have to accept my answer buy judging by this similarly worded question on reddit ( reddit.com/r/fluxx/comments/c7pu0v/exchange_keepers ) your just going to ask a question with the answer you already want to hear in mind anyway. If you and your friends are happy to play it they way you suggest but playing games is about enjoying them, not bending tiny bits of semantics to your favour to win.
– StartPlayer
Jul 1 at 10:25
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
Sorry I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just trying to lay out all the points to my argument. We were split 50/50 on how to interpret the card, but I wanted to exchange anyways so we played on.
– Mimi
Jul 1 at 11:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47718%2fexchange-keepers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
