Discard order & logic

Not discarding from the same spot at the beginning as you will do later in the game and as you did during most of the last game can only be negative, since all it does is adding randomness – i.e. risk – and, as you very rightly pointed out, forces the team to wait, i.e. lose time and most probably waste clues (i.e. subplay).<br /> So if it’s only negative, why do it? I find it obvious and therefore logical that something that is only negative should not be done in a coop game. No convention here.

Hello, someone on BGA told me to read this blog.I am slightly amused to read that a discard order is necessary at first.It is not.You could very well decide that your cards have an age, with your original cards all being Age_0, your first received card from the pile is Age_1, your second is Age_2,... and that you discard your oldest unclued card first (this fits with LL).Since there might be multiple unclued cards of Age_0, you can just discard one of them at random.It just forces everyone not to discard at first, as long as they have not had a chance to have someone warn them about their 5s or clue them some playable cards.Once one person has had a chance to have their hand clued and doesn't see anything urgent in others, they can discard one of their unclued cards of Age_0 at random... And they proceed with this randomized choice as long as there are unclued cards of Age_0 to be discarded. Maybe it should be included in the LL guide by the way as it's a way of playing that fits its philosophy since it assumes no conventional arbitrary order.PS: I have friends who do not accept the starting arbitrary order and use this randomized choice to discard their original cards.Works okay.

If B hasn't just discarded a 4, he will conclude that if this 4 was playable, you would have clued it earlier. Then he must check if you had an opportunity to do so earlier. And I'm quite sure you did.<br /> Save it on C's chop, it really depends if C could be clued with a pure clue. If he could, it would certainly be best to save the card on C. But sometimes it's not that easy. Situation, always situation, considering all possible terrible situations vs. reflexes.<br /> "If there was small amount of clue tokens, and cards of A or C need some save clues soon, B may think its playable." Yeah, small amounts of tokens always make things complicated and you can't handle all situations. But if there was a clue to save the 5 first, let B discard, then clue the new chop, there is a clue to let B discard first then do anticipated save. Since there was a clue, B could see you had an opportunity to clue (the card targeted by the anticipated save clue) if it was playable.<br /> "Even if it cost a bomb from B" – ah the dreaded finesse craze, that makes a lot of smart saves impossible and causes many bombs. What if B has a danger card as newest? Finesse craze makes the situation unmanageable.

I read you again and again and still I see the same.<br /> I mean I'd like you write about it. As you did.<br /> Re anticipated save. And how B should know it isnt a play clue, if there is any playable 4? Especially when the second chop isnt second from right, but lets say second from left card (if some other card was saved before). If there was small amount of clue tokens, and cards of A or C need some save clues soon, B may think its playable. Some cases it would be easier to save it on C's chop, even if it costs a bomb from B, but not always.

I don't want to use pre-game info, read me again, again and again.<br /> Re your next points, when you say "I wish you come back to" do you mean you would like me to discuss these points again (or write new posts about them) or to question my views about them and change my mind?<br /> 1) Re CL/LL, I'm really not sure LL wastes clues. On one hand it does. On the other hand, it allows moves CL doesn't. LL lets you give clues as soon as they are pure (all targeted cards are important, though not in order), while CL might force you to wait to avoid ambiguity and by the time you can clue safely, such things may have happened that you need more clues to make the first one clear. LL also allows long-term saves that may save a lot of time and some clues as well.<br /> In any case, even if CL was proven to be more efficient than LL, I just find CL highly inelegant and "easy". Hanabi is art and deserves better. Be this said once and for all (until someone performs the miracle of changing my mind).<br /> 2) Re anticipated save, except for exceptional situations, a clear non-play clue on second chop is to save chop. If you receive a non-play clue on second chop and you can see no cards that need saving, your chop is likely the same as the player before or after you.<br /> In the case you mention, I let B discard, C discards then I clue B about second chop to save it and the chop 5.<br /> This is always how I have played anticipated save with more than 2 players and I've adopted it for 2-player as well now, since I find it more efficient, helps handle emergencies.