Mamma Mia! question
Rich Heimlich
them all to fill orders? Rules say you MUST play at least one so do you skip a
turn and draw back up?
Jordan Wolbrum
Rich Heimlich wrote:
It's happen twice to a player in two different groups and both (by consensus)
forced the player to lose a turn. It never was me, luckily.
-JW
Chris Lohroff
of your hand in the first and second rounds. You must keep one for
your first turn in the next round. I no longer own the game, so I
can't look it up, but I thought that's what the rules said. However,
I looked on riograndegames.com and the Mamma Mia rules are online and
they say...
"If a player has no ingredient cards in such a case, he takes his
normal turn, but without playing any ingredient cards."
I believe this addresses your question. I don't know if the online
rules match the rules published with the game.
Chris Lohroff
Fair Play Games
Chris Lohroff
Fair Play Games
http://www.fairplaygames.com
lohr...@bigfoot.com
David
> normal turn, but without playing any ingredient cards."
This is correct.
So, if you start the next round with no ingredient cards you MAY, on your turn,
play a pizza card if you want to (and have one in your hand) - though this
action is not required. Then, regardless of whether you played a pizza, you
re-fill you hand back to 7 from the deck of your choice.
NOTE: You are not required to draw ingredients at this point, though I can't
really see why you wouldn't want to. But, theoretically, you could draw all
your pizzas and then play another one on your next turn (without having to play
ingredients). At that point, however, you will be out of pizzas and must then
draw ingredients.
Are you playing the game with the Mamma Mia card variant? The person who draws
the MM card does NOT reveal it until the end of the round. This way the other
players do not know who's going first and cannot plan accordingly, and the
person who does get the advantage of going first has had one less space in
their hand for an ingredient or pizza... but at least they can plan
accordingly.
Much better this way, IMO.
-Dave
-----------------------------
Remove "post" to reply privately
-----------------------------
Tim Sharrock
wrote:
>What happens if you begin a round with no ingredients to play because you used
>them all to fill orders? Rules say you MUST play at least one so do you skip a
>turn and draw back up?
What we do, with no rules justification... is draw the top ingredient
from the deck and add it to the stack.
Tim
--
Tim Sharrock (t...@sharrock.org.uk)
CafeJay
used them all to fill orders? >Rules say you MUST play at least one so do you
skip a
>turn and draw back up?
Ship a turn and draw.
Jay
Rio Grande Games
Rich Heimlich
>Ship a turn and draw.
>
>Jay
>Rio Grande Games
Thanks Jay. Seems we have several people who aren't playing that way around
these parts.
Mark Jackson
Jay...
Hmmmm. This is not what you said back in '99. Here's what you wrote me back
then:
From: Caf...@aol.com
Mark asked:
>Let's say that on a player's turn, he has no ingredient cards in his hand
(because he used them all in the previous scoring round). What happens?
Since the player has no ingredient cards, he need not play any, but may play
an order card.
Jay
And here's how I summarized you on Game Central Station:
Rules Clarification
Due to an unusual bit of wording in the Rio Grande rules, I was taught to
play that you must play one or more ingredients per turn. According to Jay
Tummelson and the 2nd edition rules from Abacusspiele, you may pass on
playing ingredients if you are out of ingredients and simply play an order
card.
Which is correct?! :-)
mark
--
Inigo: Fezzik, you did something right.
Fezzik: Don't worry, I won't let it go to my head.
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
Mark Jackson
Game Central Station
http://geocities.com/scareyjo/
Nashville, TN
marianna
don't play any. and if you happen to have an order card you may play that.
where do you read jay giving confusing answers?
cheers,
marianna
Rich Heimlich
>i don't see the contradiction mark. if you have no ingredient cards, you
>don't play any. and if you happen to have an order card you may play that.
>where do you read jay giving confusing answers?
Simple. In one post he says you can play an order card. In the other (the one to
me) he says you must skip your turn and draw back up. Skipping your turn
entirely and playing an order card are hardly the same thing. <grin>
marianna
you may (not must) play an order.
i see the answer to you as incomplete perhaps, but that might be because
your concern was about having to play ingredient cards. i think he only
meant to say that you're allowed to skip a turn in a situation where you
have no ingredient cards. as english speakers say, you can't squeeze blood
from a turnip, and as my mother in germany would say: you can't reach into
the pocket of a naked man.
it is safe to assume that a player may skip a turn if s/he has no ingredient
cards, it is also safe to assume that you may place an order card in such a
situation.
hope this clarifies the rules and my earlier response somewhat. or should i
duck and run?
cheers,
marianna
Rich Heimlich
>true. but, i still don't see the contradiction. you may (not must) skip or
>you may (not must) play an order.
If he'd said that, and I'm sure he'll be back to clarify, then there'd be no
confusion. <grin>
CafeJay
where you have no ingredient cards.
This is correct - you may play an order card if you have one. Sorry for the
confusion.
Jay
Rio Grande Games
Tim Sharrock
This does leave a theoretical deadlock - if no one has any ingredients,
but a full hand of recipes, and there are not enough ingredients on the
stack to satisfy an order then no one has an incentive to play anything
at all. This was why we chose to flip an ingredient from the deck to the
stack - to avoid stasis.
Another cure for this very rare situation would be to limit the number
of recipes in the hand to forbid a hand completely full of recipes, so
that next-time round you must draw an ingredient
Thorbjörn Engdahl
> >> i think he only meant to say that you're allowed to skip a turn in a
situation
> >>where you have no ingredient cards.
> >
> >This is correct - you may play an order card if you have one. Sorry for the
> >confusion.
> >
> This does leave a theoretical deadlock - if no one has any ingredients,
> but a full hand of recipes, and there are not enough ingredients on the
> stack to satisfy an order then no one has an incentive to play anything
> at all. This was why we chose to flip an ingredient from the deck to the
> stack - to avoid stasis.
I'd have to say that a deadlock is very theoretical. But on the same note, I
often have more orders on hand than I really need. In those cases I almost
always play an order card to get my hand moving again. I don't see that we would
ever get a stasis situation. On a tactical note, I do believe that agressive
play with lots of cards passing the hand usually pays off, both in successful
orders and in confusing the other players. This also reduces the chances for a
deadlock.
--
Thorbjörn Engdahl
th...@fy.chalmers.se
Magagnosc Family
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rule change, posted at
http://www.abacusspiele.com
January 23, 2000. I'll excerpt here the relevant bits, with my
translation (100%
Babelfish?free).
Phase 1: Ausspielen fon Zutaten und Bestellungen
> Phase 1: Playing ingredients and orders
Wer an die Reihe kommt, führt die folgenden drei Aktionen der Reihe nach aus.
Dabei darf
jede Aktion auch übersprungen werden.
> In his turn, a player carries out the following three actions
in order.
Each action may
> also be skipped.
A) Zutaten ausspielen
> Play ingredients
B) Bestellungen auspielen
> Play orders
C) Karten nachziehen
> Draw replacement cards
Keine der drei Aktionen is Pflicht. Ein Spieler darf auch passen, nur Karten
nachzuziehen
oder nur eine Bestellung legen und Karten nachziehen. Wichtig ist aber,
dass bei
mehreren
Aktionen die Reihenfolge eingehalten wird.
> None of the three actions is required. A player may even
pass, in order
just to draw
> cards, or may play only an order and draw cards. It is, however,
important to preserve
> the order in which the actions are performed.
Though these rules don't say, I should think it reasonable to require
each player
to perform
at least one of the actions to prevent to possiblity, however remote, of
the game
stagnating.
David Magagnosc