The problem with saying “a comment to the Game’s Table that names exactly one Card in their hand” is that if someone accidentally says the 7 of Cups instead of the 8, that play becomes against the rules of BlogNomic. Meaning that they haven’t performed that play after all, and with both players oblivious.

Which most likely means that their opponent’s next move will also invalid (it isn’t really their turn) and the player’s subsequent move would become the next valid one. If we realise this at the end of the game, then the game becomes actually still ongoing, in a surprise order with probably different scoring, with two cards left to play.

You’re going to have to change a lot of Masks for that, too.

@Kevan How is that any different from someone playing a card they don’t have now, and it getting caught in the fine? Besides the fact that I forgot to change the fine; see my edit on the post.

I see, I should remove the condition that you can only play a card in your hand, and just let it get caught in the fine. Hang tight…

How’s that?

Pretty sure that might be scammable.  I tried doing that in my first game but was blocked by that exact rule.

Pretty sure that might be scammable.  I tried doing that in my first game but was blocked by that exact rule.

Tried doing what?

Playing a card twice.  The Clean check only checks for if you had that card, not if you played it more than once.

But if you have a card and you played it, it’s not in your hand anymore.

had*

First off, I feel like this could get cleaned up a bit. Something like “Post a blog entry to that effect, with that entry being known as the Game’s “Table”” should come last, so that it can be used to announce things like the starting player.

Secondly, there is a lot of implied lifting that parts of this rule due. “generating a secretly random Hand of seven Cards for each of them (as if both those sets of Cards had been taken from the same shuffled version of the Deck)” makes it clear that randomness is properly involved. “shuffle the deck” and then “deal cards from the deck” while the intended meaning its clear I’m not sure if its formally defined enough.

There is a similar issue with using “that named a card in a Play, that they did not have in their hand at the time”, as there is nothing that actually removes cards you’ve already played from your hand.

But I think my biggest issue is that this feels like its setting up the possibility to draw more cards later. And I think that is a can of worms we really don’t want to get into because it requires three people to coordinate instead of only two. Right now, we only need Kevan at the start and at the end. But if you start introducing drawing cards, now you need Kevan for that with both puts a lot of extra workload on him and slows the game down considerably. If two people in the US want to have a game at 9PM ET they can right now. Can’t do that if you start needing Kevan to perform steps mid game.

I think talk of shuffling and dealing is plain enough. Probably does need clarifying that played cards are removed from the hand, but read the other way it’s still just the same as the current rule.

Good to see an atomic, although posting the blog entry before determining the starting player is backwards.

Shuffling and dealing cards from a deck doesn’t need to be explicitly defined as they are already defined by the English language. For the atomic action, I just copied the order it was already in on the wiki, but it’s not that big a deal for the starting player to be named in a comment.

As for the card not actually being removed from your hand when you play it, I mistakenly thought that was already covered in the rules, but it was removed when Winnows was repealed. But I think it stands to reason that playing a card moves it from your hand onto the table without that having to be explicitly defined for the same reason as above.

I disagree that shuffle and deal are well enough defined to make it clear what should actually happen. And no, it doesn’t stand to reason that a card ceases to be in your hand once you play it.

Nomic is, in many ways, a pedantic game. Which can be both a blessing and a curse. But it does mean we can’t just fall back on what words generally mean and make assumptions.

plus, like I mentioned, the biggest problem is that there just isn’t any real need for this. the only thing it opens up is mechanics that would slow down the game considerably.

Same page as Kevan here.