Par berijeux le 16 Février 2019 à 03:19
The first impression a CL player might have after playing LL is – it’s slower and therefore less efficient. Let’s look into the advantages of both styles.
Note that not all these points have the same "weight".
You can save unique cards safely
True, with either value or colour if context allows
True. Value is more appreciated. You can save non-unique cards safely True, with either value or colour if context allows It depends. Therefore more sensitive to buried second copies.
Handles situations that the other style can’t handle
Play per clue efficiency
Less immediate plays.
Since you can save more easily, and saves will become plays in the longer term, play per clue ratio is not as obvious.
More immediate plays. Play per clue ratio seems more obvious, more easily observable.
Safer playstyle. Allows many clues – on chop or off-chop – that would cause bombs in CL.
This way you can save cards that are neither critical saves, nor immediately playable.
More importantly, cluing a group of cards in reverse order is situationally allowed.
More aggressive playstyle. Since saving tolerance is lower than in LL, more clues would be interpreted as plays, regardless of context. Therefore higher risk of bombing with “original” save clues. Pace
Lower % of clues that cause an immediate play.
May cause pace issues.
Higher % of clues that cause an immediate play.
Solves some pace issues.
Used very situationally – when the clue otherwise makes no sense and/or when the next player really is going to play because they have no way of knowing they shouldn’t.
Arguably better for safety and worse for pace.
Situation and history are far more important. Requires deeper analysis.
Therefore harder to master.
Much easier to teach to beginners. They can reach decent scores very quickly. Overall
More freedom in clue-giving.
More mid-term / long-term planning.
"Good engine, great brakes."
More immediate speed.
"Awesome engine, poor brakes."
Other LL links:
Par berijeux le 25 Avril 2018 à 10:41
When the following cards are successfully played, the subsequent effect applies.
m1: the team loses a clue*
m2: for the next three moves, no cluing
m3: for the next three moves, no discarding
m4: for the next three moves, no playing**
m5: the team loses a life or the game ends
*on BGA, you need to remember that you have one less clue token for the rest of the game, unless m1 was played when there were no tokens left
**if m2-m3-m4 are played consecutively, the next player can do nothing on their turn and the team loses
Par berijeux le 25 Novembre 2017 à 19:41
In several 2-player games, I found myself wishing my teammate discarded from the left instead of from the right, because it would make things much easier to handle.
So I’m thinking it would be good if there were a way to warn your teammate in such situations. The first thing that occurs to me is an empty clue.
Par berijeux le 5 Octobre 2017 à 19:18
(What is rightism?) A number of times I came across situations where I received a multicard clue including my second chop and it felt more logical to play rightmost. Would we be discovering a new case of rightism?
The following case shows this from the other point of view.
– B4 is the last played card
– we’ve been low on clues for a few turns (0-0-1-0-0-0-1)
– I want to clue blue (play right, then discard left) so that I can save G4 later
Looks like a new case of rightism to me. Any arguments for leftism?
Suivre le flux RSS des articles de cette rubrique
Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires de cette rubrique