After many many games of testing id like to introduce my approach to Hanabi. Before i go into the details of additional rules, i have to say what bothers me in the regular rules, and why is it necessary to throw couple of tweaks.
You see, in my group we developed certain way of playing the game. No additional rules but more like know-how in order to maximize the effect. First, we basically assume in most cases that hints point you the cards to play. Because otherwise youre out of the hints soon and cannot complete the game. So whenever you get hint about two or more cards, it is assumed that you play the newest of them. Why is that? Because the newer card is making the difference (you got the hint now, not few turns earlier). Its still possible to blow up the game, but it is less likely to do that while proceeding with that assumption.
But even then there is major flaw with the rules, especially for two players. How can you know when you stop playing cards and start pointing cards to the other player? There is no mechanism in Hanabi that allows you to figure that out. For 2player game its always: one person gives the clues, and the other keep playing, until boom, or very unlikely coincidence in which you can rule out any card from playing. Both players cant give clues, because youre out of them soon and far away from success. So what can be done?
These rules were made in order to enhance experience for 2player game, but you can easily apply them into any Hanabi game (2,3,4 or 5p).
Whenever a player plays a card, there is instant effect depending on card's number.
1 - draw a card. Then you get additional turn. It can be different action, or the very same one. Yes, you can try at the beggining of the game place multiple 'ones' if youre lucky enough to start with the different 'ones'
2 - immediately shuffle your hand, and then draw card as normal. This means that some information of your hand is lost. It is best to avoid clues to a player who is likely to play 'two' in most cases
3 - draw a card. You HAVE TO move one card from any other player into the different spot of his/her hand. Preferably you can place card that can be played into a spot for the newest card, or place useless card into the spot of oldest card (indicating that this one belongs to trash). This rule allows you to break from 2player game endless loop of repeating moves. And allows you to develop your own strategy. Other player has a 'five' that cant be played but also cant be destroyed? So maybe place it in the second newest spot, indicating that the card is important, but not to be played yet. So many possibilities
4 - draw a card. One of your clues is lost forever - it goes to the box. If possible remove ready clue. So sometimes it is worth to wait for the right moment to play 'four'.
5 - draw a card. You can take a look at any of your cards. Replenish one clue.
As you can see 3 of these actions are positive, and 2 are negative. This renders the game easier in most cases. But not in all cases, because right moment for playing 'twos' and 'fours' is key to complete the game. Also playing all your 'ones' at once is risky. The key for optimalisation is to make use of playing 'three' in the right moment and to mess other player's hand in a way that favours you.
Action on 'fives' is optional if you feel that game is too easy. You can just stick to replenishing clue after playing 'five'.
Let me know what you think
Whatever works for you.
Grzegorz Oklinski wrote:
So whenever you get hint about two or more cards, it is assumed that you play the newest of them. Why is that? Because the newer card is making the difference (you got the hint now, not few turns earlier).Sure, but it may be that the playable card is not the newest. For example: your teammate has just played y2 and you have had y3 in hand for a while (but they didn’t clue it because they knew y2 was a 2 but not that it was yellow). So y2 gets played, you discard and draw a new card and you receive a clue: 3 x 3 3 x. y3 might be in the middle or on the right
But even then there is major flaw with the rules, especially for two players. How can you know when you stop playing cards and start pointing cards to the other player?When you know that your cards (provided that you know they are playable) are not copies of those on your teammate’s hand, you can clue theirs.
For 2player game its always: one person gives the clues, and the other keep playing, until boomWhy boom? Do you guys keep playing cards blindly until you bomb? Sounds like kamikaze playstyle.
In 2000+ games I’ve never notices that with 2-player.
Both players cant give cluesThey can. [A clues, B plays, A clues, B plays], is the same as [A clues, B clues, A plays, B plays].
For example: your teammate has just played y2 and you have had y3 in hand for a while (but they didn’t clue it because they knew y2 was a 2 but not that it was yellow). So y2 gets played, you discard and draw a new card and you receive a clue: 3 x 3 3 x. y3 might be in the middle or on the right
Possible but basically unfortunate scenario card you just drew also has to be yellow, because if not than you should get clue pointing all yellow cards (yes i would assume that my only yellow card is the one to be played). This is really simple.
Card order can produce twisted hands. We know that for a fact. Yet still it is more likely that fresh clue addresses newer cards, because your teammates could clue earlier if otherwise. Combine that with little flexibility and youre ready to go. Problem with Hanabi is that you cant be flexible in 2p game because you cant give two clues in a row, nor you cant know for a fact a necessary clue you just got is a part of 2clue set, because it wont work alone. But this actually makes my point: game rules does not give you (in some cases) any chance to follow logic, avoid risky longshots and still succeed. Thats why i prefer additional rules.
I definately havent played +1000 games, but easily +200 so at that point i do realize what the game is about. And blowing up the game is merely 1-2% of games so i cant honestly say that its a kamikaze style Its just efficient.
Anyway i was certain that first comment would be like "man youre playing it wrong!". Disagree but thanks for the input, its still valid point.
Im having difficulty of quoting on the cell, so ill just answer to your last sentence.
It is definately not the same situation
pA clues 1 cards (lets say single card). pB clues 1 cards (again single).
pA plays red1. p2 plays red1.
So this way you proposed is likely to produce unnecessary fireworks explosions Sure, its not that common scenario, but my point is that your way of double clue>double play cant protect from my scenario, and my way can.