Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamH]

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/98778/hanabi

I got this game for Christmas and have played it with a variety of groups of people. Nobody in our groups has yet to see a game with a perfect score of 25 (so we haven't broken out the rainbow cards yet) but I have a few observations I'd like to share.

Hanabi seems to be best played with the same group of people -- I find myself having the most fun when I've played a few games with a particular group and we can really open up our play style. With different players who think differently, the group doesn't really function well and it can be frustrating. With a group I'm familiar with, we keep finding new ways to insert subtext into our clues and it's a lot of fun when it works (and when it doesn't work)

Newer players seem to want to give lots of clues -- and this is a really bad thing. One of the worst things you can do is to have a play (play or discard a card) given to you and then not do it, especially if you're going to spend a clue token. Is it due to a fear of discarding an unknown card? Playing an unknown card? Usually in games with people like this I find myself just blind-discarding cards the whole time because running out of clue tokens is really bad.

Our group has found that blind-discarding, especially in the early game, is quite a good thing. Don't know what to do? Blind-discard your oldest card! It's predictable (so people will know to warn you of important cards you're about to discard) and it gets information out there when we can't find any good plays to make. It's much better than giving clues about discardable cards (which, the more we play, the more we've realized that this is pretty much never a good idea).

Standard protocol seems to be that if a clue is given that singles out a card in someone's hand, that card should be played (unless it's clearly impossible, like I'm telling you about a 5 in your hand or something weird.)

I really enjoy some of the more "meta" clues we give: A says "B, I'm going to give you a clue; C, this card is a 4". Now it's B's turn and he knows a certain card in his hand is yellow, see C's yellow 4 in hand and knows his yellow card must be a 3 that plays -- two clues in one by slightly abusing the phrasing of a clue (which is still technically within the rules of the game).

Does anyone else have any fun "meta" clues or protocols their group uses to squeeze in more information? Is a score of 25 really possible without something that's blatantly cheating?

[Teproc]

I love this game to death, but we pay with a variant, which is the "win or lose" variant (it was in the rules, but it's an edition that only exists in French so I don't know if you have that in the US).

It's basically the same as the base game, except it doesn't end when you run out of cards. But if you don't complete all 5 colors, you simply lose. Thankfully, it's a lot easier to do it because when you finish the pile you can deduce everyone's hand and it gets pretty easy. Getting there is not though, since anytime you discard a five or a second copy of any card (except ones), you just flat-out lose.

It's a lot more tense, which I like. I find the end result of the game base to be kind of meh : you never actually win, but you don't lose either, so you're just playing to a score, which isn't very exciting to me.

We do those meta clues A LOT, because the game is still hard (and VERY hard when you play with the multicolored cards), but we don't actually say we're giving a clue to B in that case. We still do talk too much sometimes, because we're only humans, but we try to avoid it.

[theory]

I think there are three truly great board games that stand out from every other game I've played: Dominion, Twilight Struggle, and Hanabi.

I really enjoy some of the more "meta" clues we give: A says "B, I'm going to give you a clue; C, this card is a 4". Now it's B's turn and he knows a certain card in his hand is yellow, see C's yellow 4 in hand and knows his yellow card must be a 3 that plays -- two clues in one by slightly abusing the phrasing of a clue (which is still technically within the rules of the game).

That seems abusive, but you know, it's something for each group to determine!

Another version of what you do, which is perfectly legitimate, is that in the endgame, when you're all looking for a certain card, cluing the next person can tip off the previous person that their newest card is the one you're looking for.  If you all need the Red 3, and A suddenly draws it, B can now tell C about his 4.  C knows it's not playable yet but will be soon.  A knows that B will only tell C about that if they found the Red 3, and given that A can't see it he knows he must have literally just drawn it as his newest card.

In our group, there's an established groupthink where people will blind discard their oldest cards, as a rule.  This is extremely helpful in general and although I think it's OK, I am open to persuasion otherwise.

We do those meta clues A LOT, because the game is still hard (and VERY hard when you play with the multicolored cards), but we don't actually say we're giving a clue to B in that case. We still do talk too much sometimes, because we're only humans, but we try to avoid it.

We give out "cheater" tokens, which don't really do anything but are a lighthearted way to remind people to play by the rules.  You can't get a true perfect game with one of them.

[AdamH]

That seems abusive, but you know, it's something for each group to determine!

[...]

We give out "cheater" tokens, which don't really do anything but are a lighthearted way to remind people to play by the rules.  You can't get a true perfect game with one of them.

Our interpretation of the rules is that the only words that are allowed to be spoken are the ones allowed in the rulebook -- I stated an action I was going to take and then changed my mind and took another action Besides, we've sort of replaced that with staring deeply into someone's eyes for an uncomfortable amount of time before giving such a clue, which you would probably feel is more legitimate. It's much more entertaining too

It's along the same lines as asking someone "what do you know about your hand?" (which is allowed by the rulebook) is the same as saying "discard that card you know is bad, you idiot, I/we have a plan and I/we don't want you to screw it up."

I do like the idea of cheater tokens, though. I mean, the game is about bending the rules and sneaking in information in between the lines as much as you can.

We could come up with a protocol that if you give a clue that singles a card out in someone's hand, that the one to the right of that one is a player, so now you get extra information. While that's technically not cheating by the rulebook it's definitely not within the spirit of the game (and also definitely not fun). So of course it's open to interpretation.

[Teproc]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

[AdamH]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

People have tried doing this before and it's resulted in the wrong thing getting communicated. If you asked my group if that was allowed, "THIS CARD IS A 2, and this one too" they would say it is neither allowed by the rules nor a smart thing to do. In this case, we'd making the person shuffle the cards in their hand that met this clue so that information is lost.

Now, yeah we want to get the same result without directly saying it. I mean, that's kind of the point -- to squeeze in extra information when the rules aren't looking. Perhaps you've had success with this type of clue?

[Twistedarcher]

Hanabi's a fun game, I like it a lot. I've gotten 25 with 2 players, but haven't been able to get there with 3+.

I agree that your example is a little bit outside of the rules, and I would probably discourage it with my friends.

Your tips are definitely helpful, I'll have to try them the next time I play (and hopefully not throw anyone off).

[Teproc]

@Adam : what you're doing is akin to saying : "This card is a 2... and by the way, this one too". So it's outside the rules. It's fine, the rules of the game are pretty elastic and it's impossible to give nothing away (like, just by taking a lot of time to think, you're giving out information), but it's not strictly within them.

People have tried doing this before and it's resulted in the wrong thing getting communicated. If you asked my group if that was allowed, "THIS CARD IS A 2, and this one too" they would say it is neither allowed by the rules nor a smart thing to do. In this case, we'd making the person shuffle the cards in their hand that met this clue so that information is lost.

Now, yeah we want to get the same result without directly saying it. I mean, that's kind of the point -- to squeeze in extra information when the rules aren't looking. Perhaps you've had success with this type of clue?

When I said we do meta clues, I was more referring to using info in other players hand. Like, if I say "you have a 4", and all 4s are playable but the red one, and both red 4s are in some other player's hand, that's obviously meant to mean you should play your 4.

One rule we have that is really important (again, I do play with a variant so it might not apply to the normal game), is to never discard when you have a blue token. If you have a blue token, you're supposed to use it. That way you can leave people with dangerous hands (several fives or cards that have already been discarded once) without having to indicate what they should NOT discard. Now this doesn't work with 2 players (because you get stuck with the same player giving info all the time) and they are certain times when you can break that rule, but it's a good guideline.

Also one thing I always say to newer players : If I give you info, it's probably to make you play a card. It's not always true of course, but early on new players always hesitate if there are already three 1s on the table and you indicate a 1 to them, when 95% of the time it's because you're supposed to play it.

[AdamH]

When I said we do meta clues, I was more referring to using info in other players hand. Like, if I say "you have a 4", and all 4s are playable but the red one, and both red 4s are in some other player's hand, that's obviously meant to mean you should play your 4.

[...]

Also one thing I always say to newer players : If I give you info, it's probably to make you play a card. It's not always true of course, but early on new players always hesitate if there are already three 1s on the table and you indicate a 1 to them, when 95% of the time it's because you're supposed to play it.

Ah, in our group we've realized that the explosions are there to be used. We tend to go for it (play cards) whenever there's any question of what we're supposed to do -- the "meta clue" you describe is certainly something we've used before in our games, and then once a person plays a card with certainty when given that clue, someone else can deduce cards in their hand because they know those cards were visible and they can't see them.

I'm speaking of clues that go beyond the mechanics of the game and process of elimination, like subtext. If those are illegal by definition to you, then fine, but I think our group has come to the conclusion that we'll never get 25 points without using these types of clues, and they're also by far the most fun clues to give or receive.

One rule we have that is really important (again, I do play with a variant so it might not apply to the normal game), is to never discard when you have a blue token. If you have a blue token, you're supposed to use it. That way you can leave people with dangerous hands (several fives or cards that have already been discarded once) without having to indicate what they should NOT discard. Now this doesn't work with 2 players (because you get stuck with the same player giving info all the time) and they are certain times when you can break that rule, but it's a good guideline.

This is really interesting, I/my group feels exactly the opposite about clue tokens. If we run out of clue tokens, it's usually because something bad has happened. I usually feel like after two turns of the game, people have had enough time to tell me about important cards in my hand and blind-discarding my oldest card is always a safe move to make. If a new card makes it all the way there it must not have been important, and this option really helps with sequencing our moves. Perhaps we should try this strategy out?

[Lekkit]

I bought the game, the rules were German only, and because of it we decided to play Five Crowns that night instead. I still want to try it out, since it seems fun.

[Jimmmmm]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

[AdamH]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

It's been tried before here, but I really don't think it would be much good. It would be a group that doesn't have any experience playing together, and it's hard to stare furtively into your teammates' eyes over the forums. 

[Jimmmmm]

Would Hanabi work as a forum game?

It's been tried before here, but I really don't think it would be much good. It would be a group that doesn't have any experience playing together, and it's hard to stare furtively into your teammates' eyes over the forums. 

From looking at the game that was played it seems like it worked pretty well and was enjoyed. I'd play if another one was run.

[yed]

It is better to play with the rainbow cards. Try it if you did not already.

[Teproc]

Hanabi is pretty much made to be played on the Internet imo, precisely because you can't "cheat". So I would certainly be interested !

Adam, I think your method is probably better in the normal game, it's an entirely different dynamic where I suppose you have to take more risks if you're trying to get the 25. You can't take any risks in the variant (or at least you don't want to), because you might just discard a ward that makes you lose on the spot.

Rainbow cards are cool but they make the game much, much more difficult.

[Kuildeous]

I did not play the forum Hanabi game, but I would imagine that it'd be a little easier in the fact that you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

I actually ordered this little gem from Amazon earlier this week. Apparently, free shipping has been bumped up to $35, so I had to pad my $30 order. I thought Hanabi would make a fine addition. And besides, it shouldn't take up too much space in the gaming closet, which is chock full of larger games. I really should consolidate all my Dominion cards into one card mega-box.

[AdamH]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

[Kuildeous]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

I'm not following what you mean by different directions. You hold them outward, right? My experience with the game is very limited. I marked up a standard deck of cards and attempted to play Hanabi using those, so I have an idea that rearranging your hand is good practice, but I'm not sure what you mean with your statement.

[theory]

you can keep track of your cards a little more easily. At least you don't have an excuse for forgetting that your second card is red.

We've found that holding your cards facing different directions helps us to remember what our cards are. People that are shy about doing this and arranging their cards weirdly seem to be the same ones that forget the clues they were given.

I'm not following what you mean by different directions. You hold them outward, right? My experience with the game is very limited. I marked up a standard deck of cards and attempted to play Hanabi using those, so I have an idea that rearranging your hand is good practice, but I'm not sure what you mean with your statement.

The back of the card is asymmetric.

For people who are learning the game, we permit them to do things like hold certain cards above others.  This helps them remember what they know, and more importantly helps us remember what they know.

[AdamH]

I'll put cards I know something about below my hand, facing the table, or maybe off to one side. I'll put cards I don't know anything about facing up like I would normally hold a card.

[Teproc]

Oh by the way, if any of you has the Asia expansion for Ticket to Ride, I would strongly recommend using the racks from that game to hold cards in Hanabi. Scrabble or Mah-jong racks don't really work (or at least mine don't), but those are pretty great.

[Twistedarcher]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

[yed]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

For me that is cheating.

[ConMan]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

We generally allow it, although it can get a little tricky if, for example, they were told they had three 2s, then played one or two of them, and drew more 2s to replace them, as then it's on us to remember which ones they knew about already. But we will always happily remind people of which cards they should know they have - especially if they're trying to check whether they've rearranged their hand correctly.

[AdamH]

How do you guys feel about repeating hints that have already been given? We're pretty lenient on it -- if someone's been told they have a 5, they can ask "I know I have a 5, is it this one?" and we'll tell them which one it is. Basically, we want to make it a logic game and not a memory game.

Are you guys forgiving on repeating hints that have been given, or does that pass into the realm of cheating?

For me that is cheating.

Same here.