Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: A Hanabi Card  (Read 4216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
A Hanabi Card
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:44:31 am »
+2

Hello!
As Governor is a Puerto Rico card, here is now the Hanabi card.


Fireworks (Aktion) $3
+1 Action
The player to your left looks at the top 4 cards of your deck.
He names a type or cost of one of these cards.
He shows you all cards whith that type or cost face down.
Put one of the cards into your hand and discard one.


So you get some information about your top cards but you don't get to see them (except the cards that you choose to draw or discard).
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2014, 11:17:13 am »
+1

I really like the concept. The card itself has a few issues, but I think they're fixable.

First of all, I'm assuming you can choose any card to put into your hand, not just the ones the player to your left indicates. Otherwise your opponent just shows you which cards are Victory cards and you have to draw one. The text isn't clear, but I think that's the common-sense interpretation.

The card has accountability issues. Yeah, you're probably going to see the 2 cards you put back eventually, but ideally you find out what they all are while the Action is resolving. At first I thought this couldn't be fixed, but one solution is to just discard all the cards you don't draw. That way you can confirm that the player to your left was honest about what was what. This also eliminates issues with ordering the 2 cards you put back on your deck. "Did my opponent reorder those cards? Hmm, better shuffle them up a bit." If they're discarded, you don't need to worry about this.

I would also simplify the card by just caring about types, not cost. The concept still comes across, but there's a bit less decision-making. I think my ideal version of this card would be:

Quote
Fireworks: Action, $2 or $3
+1 Action. The player to your left looks at the top 4 cards of your deck. He chooses a type that at least one of them has and indicates to you all of the cards that have that type. Put one of the cards into your hand and discard the rest.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2014, 12:01:37 pm »
0

I've never tried something with "choose a type", because I thought there was an almost unsolvable issue: it's not clear what "type" means. Is "Reaction" a type? what about "Shelter"? "Ruin?" "Looter"? "Kingdom"?

The only acceptable solution I came up with was to write the possible types in paraphrases (Action, Treasure, Victory, Shelter) - if you want to allow those 4.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2014, 12:04:33 pm »
+3

It is totally clear what "type" means. Any word on the bottom border of a card is a type. Reaction, Shelter, Attack, Prize, etc. all count as types.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2014, 12:12:16 pm »
0

It is totally clear what "type" means. Any word on the bottom border of a card is a type. Reaction, Shelter, Attack, Prize, etc. all count as types.

are you sure? my instinct would be that secondary types don't count as types. but if it's specified somewhere in the rules, my  bad.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2014, 12:13:15 pm »
+2

It is totally clear what "type" means. Any word on the bottom border of a card is a type. Reaction, Shelter, Attack, Prize, etc. all count as types.

are you sure? my instinct would be that secondary types don't count as types. but if it's specified somewhere in the rules, my  bad.
They aren't "secondary" types, they're just types. "Action - Attack" in Dominion is the equivalent of "Artifact Creature" in MtG.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2014, 01:12:37 pm »
0

and you know this how? i haven't read alll rulebooks, but i have read most (though the german ones have been missing things before).

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2014, 01:17:38 pm »
0

and you know this how? i haven't read alll rulebooks, but i have read most (though the german ones have been missing things before).

The burden of proof is on you. This dichotomy between primary and secondary types exists only in your mind. If you want to show that this distinction exists, show me where the rules delineate them. Let me save you time: the rules make no such distinction.
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2014, 01:37:18 pm »
0

and you know this how? i haven't read alll rulebooks, but i have read most (though the german ones have been missing things before).

The burden of proof is on you. This dichotomy between primary and secondary types exists only in your mind. If you want to show that this distinction exists, show me where the rules delineate them. Let me save you time: the rules make no such distinction.

so, to summarize, you don't have any proof for your claim that all the smaller stuff (attack, reaction, etc) are also types, you only think so because these things are printed on the same spot where other things that we call types are also printed. is that correct?

that doesn't seem convincing to me at all. the real question is of course not whether you're right, but whether or not most people would instinctively get to the same conclusion. if someone asked me, I'd say that it's not clear, and If i had to guess I'd say only the main 3 (action, victory, treasure) are types, because they include almost all cards and don't overlap. i apparently have a strange way of thinking, so it might be just me, but I really wouldn't take it for granted.

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2014, 02:08:09 pm »
+1

and you know this how? i haven't read alll rulebooks, but i have read most (though the german ones have been missing things before).

The burden of proof is on you. This dichotomy between primary and secondary types exists only in your mind. If you want to show that this distinction exists, show me where the rules delineate them. Let me save you time: the rules make no such distinction.

so, to summarize, you don't have any proof for your claim that all the smaller stuff (attack, reaction, etc) are also types, you only think so because these things are printed on the same spot where other things that we call types are also printed. is that correct?

that doesn't seem convincing to me at all. the real question is of course not whether you're right, but whether or not most people would instinctively get to the same conclusion. if someone asked me, I'd say that it's not clear, and If i had to guess I'd say only the main 3 (action, victory, treasure) are types, because they include almost all cards and don't overlap. i apparently have a strange way of thinking, so it might be just me, but I really wouldn't take it for granted.
I think it is clear enough. You can name Curse, Reaction, Price, Attack, Duration, whatever -- if at least one card among the four has that type.

I'm assuming you can choose any card to put into your hand, not just the ones the player to your left indicates. Otherwise your opponent just shows you which cards are Victory cards and you have to draw one. The text isn't clear, but I think that's the common-sense interpretation.
Yes, this is how it should work. I will change wording based on yours.

The card has accountability issues. Yeah, you're probably going to see the 2 cards you put back eventually, but ideally you find out what they all are while the Action is resolving. At first I thought this couldn't be fixed, but one solution is to just discard all the cards you don't draw. That way you can confirm that the player to your left was honest about what was what. This also eliminates issues with ordering the 2 cards you put back on your deck. "Did my opponent reorder those cards? Hmm, better shuffle them up a bit." If they're discarded, you don't need to worry about this.

I would also simplify the card by just caring about types, not cost. The concept still comes across, but there's a bit less decision-making. I think my ideal version of this card would be:

Quote
Fireworks: Action, $2 or $3
+1 Action. The player to your left looks at the top 4 cards of your deck. He chooses a type that at least one of them has and indicates to you all of the cards that have that type. Put one of the cards into your hand and discard the rest.
The original version tries to copy exactly the things that you do in Hanabi: Pointing at all cards with the same number or colour (the only difference is that in Hanabi you can say "you don't have any yellow cards"), then playing or discarding cards about which you have more or less information.

I intended the card to be a self-combo (and combo with other top-of-deck mocking cards) so that you may collect more information. Even if you know that the top 2 cards are not [insert cost/ type], it may be useful. E.g. you know that the top 2 cards aren't Treasures. You play the next Fireworks and get to know that the 2nd and 3rd card costs $0. So you will likely be discarding the 2nd card.
With your version, you can't collect information about your future cards.

Another difference of my card to Hanabi is not rules-wise but in real gameplay: The opponent will rather give you the worst hint; in Hanabi you'll get the most useful one as the game is co-op.
This makes the card bad and your version even worse because he won't give you a hint about a good card. Getting a good card becomes a "1 out of 3" gamble in most cases. It is more satisfying when you are able to discard that one card that you know it's bad - while your version discards everything.

I agree with you that caring about types is enough. It makes the card better because it leaves less choice for the opponent. Maybe it makes your version good enough.

Now I would do it like this:
Quote
Fireworks (Action) $3
+1 Action
The player to your left looks at the top 4 cards of your deck without changing their order.
He chooses a type that at least one of them has and indicates to you all of the cards that have that type.
Put one of the 4 cards into your hand and discard one.
I see the accountability issue, but, well, it's not a card for everyone, you need a honest playing group for it. If a player makes an untrue statement, it won't be by an oversight. So it's no problem in my opinion. If people don't trust their fellow players, they can use LastFootnote's version. :)
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2014, 02:08:44 pm »
+1

so, to summarize, you don't have any proof for your claim that all the smaller stuff (attack, reaction, etc) are also types, you only think so because these things are printed on the same spot where other things that we call types are also printed. is that correct?

that doesn't seem convincing to me at all. the real question is of course not whether you're right, but whether or not most people would instinctively get to the same conclusion. if someone asked me, I'd say that it's not clear, and If i had to guess I'd say only the main 3 (action, victory, treasure) are types, because they include almost all cards and don't overlap. i apparently have a strange way of thinking, so it might be just me, but I really wouldn't take it for granted.

Look, you are not the only person to come to the false conclusion that Dominion cards have "primary" and "secondary" types. I'll give you that. But the rules cannot possibly refute every possible misconception that players might have. Note that the rules also do not specify that there are primary, secondary, and tertiary costs because there aren't. The pertinent passage in the rules says:

Quote
Players will not use all of the cards in every game. Other than the players’ starting Decks, the other cards used in a game of Dominion are called the Supply. These cards are all placed face-up in the middle of the table where all players can reach them. The card types (Action, Treasure, Victory, Curse, Reaction, and Attack) for each card are listed at the bottom of the card. The randomizer card (the card with a different back) can be placed face-down at the bottom of each pile in order to help identify when the pile is empty. The Trash pile card is also placed near the Supply.

See? No distinction between "primary" and "secondary" types. And why would it matter to this Fireworks card even if there were such a distinction? "Primary" types and "secondary" types would still both be types, so the card would still work.

EDIT: Oh, note that this rules quote comes from the Base Set rules, which is why it doesn't mention Duration, Prize, Knight, etc. Those are still types, though, since they are listed at the bottom of the card, as described in the quote.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 02:11:52 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

silverspawn

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5301
  • Shuffle iT Username: sty.silver
  • Respect: +3190
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2014, 02:10:43 pm »
0

yea the bold passage is pretty clear

Fragasnap

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
  • Respect: +703
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2014, 09:16:54 pm »
0

The original version tries to copy exactly the things that you do in Hanabi: Pointing at all cards with the same number or colour (the only difference is that in Hanabi you can say "you don't have any yellow cards"), then playing or discarding cards about which you have more or less information.
Correction: You cannot identify a feature that a hand does not have in Hanabi.

Quote
I intended the card to be a self-combo (and combo with other top-of-deck mocking cards) so that you may collect more information. Even if you know that the top 2 cards are not [insert cost/ type], it may be useful. E.g. you know that the top 2 cards aren't Treasures. You play the next Fireworks and get to know that the 2nd and 3rd card costs $0. So you will likely be discarding the 2nd card.
With your version, you can't collect information about your future cards.
While I agree that this is one of the cruxes of the card, it doesn't make any difference, even if we ignore player accountability issues. As you say, players will try to give the worst hint which will be the hint that gives the least information. Upon playing a second Fireworks card (where the other cards are top decked) the worst hint will always be the same hint as the previous so that the player doesn't receive additional information about the top decked cards. The only reason you would ever identify something else about the cards is because you literally can't give the same hint.

Because this can draw or sift, it seems to me that showing which cards are Treasures will always be the worst hint. That information leaves the player to wonder whether the identified cards are crappy Coppers or good Silvers and doesn't identify whether the others are Actions or Victory\Curse cards. The only exception would be Cultist\Marauder games where Actions also encompass both bad and good cards.
Logged
Dominion: Avarice 1.1a, my fan expansion with "in-games-using-this" cards and Edicts (updated Oct 18, 2021)

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2014, 09:19:13 pm »
0

Correction: You cannot identify a feature that a hand does not have in Hanabi.
Yeah, but you can say "Here are all of your yellow cards" and point out nothing.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2014, 12:55:18 am »
0

Correction: You cannot identify a feature that a hand does not have in Hanabi.
Yeah, but you can say "Here are all of your yellow cards" and point out nothing.
Not in the most recent version of the rules.
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2014, 07:44:53 am »
+1

Because this can draw or sift, it seems to me that showing which cards are Treasures will always be the worst hint. That information leaves the player to wonder whether the identified cards are crappy Coppers or good Silvers and doesn't identify whether the others are Actions or Victory\Curse cards. The only exception would be Cultist\Marauder games where Actions also encompass both bad and good cards.

In the absence of trashers, this seems likely, and probably makes the card rather weak. But when you can trash all or most of the starting Estates or Coppers (and there's no junkers), the hint becomes more valuable.

What about forcing the other player to name both a type and a cost and show the cards corresponding to each? This would make the card quite a bit stronger...
Logged

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • Respect: +201
    • View Profile
Re: A Hanabi Card
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2014, 11:47:06 am »
0

Correction: You cannot identify a feature that a hand does not have in Hanabi.
Yeah, but you can say "Here are all of your yellow cards" and point out nothing.
Not in the most recent version of the rules.
At least my version of Hanabi and I belief also the SdJ version has this rule.
But hey, if you're right, this card is even closer to the game! :D

What about forcing the other player to name both a type and a cost and show the cards corresponding to each? This would make the card quite a bit stronger...
I am also thinking, maybe it is better to care only about cost?
The cost of cards give you a better idea of their strength. (Except Victory cards...)

In terms of decision time for the neighbour, giving both hints sounds a bit too much. But maybe it's the way to go.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 20 queries.