I never play the "Tactics" variation of 6Nimmt!

[Rex Goodheart]

It's a shame, really, because most tables are opened with that option.

And now I'll tell you why:

Because "Tactics" allows any player to mark off/count all the cards that have been previously played That to me is a big turnoff that eliminates most of the fun of the game: the RISK that the card you're considering will not fit within the row. What fun is there in KNOWING that for certain?

So, please, people.... stop with the "Tactics"! There's nothing tactical about it. It robs 6Nimmt of what makes it a great game.

Don't invite me to your unwise, unfun version of the game. I have spoken!

[souly4]

Well, the fact that many people are not averse to something doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently good / morally acceptable... See slavery or torture and such in the past.

But if you pick a rather competent sample of people, the wisdom of the croud indeed should apply rather reliably. There come a few reasons to mind why the basic version would be boring to more experienced players and/or those who prefer less randomness.

Activating tactics doesn't change anything in conditions of fairness; everyone is allowed to count cards according to his scope of memory. So you could consider that a supplementary skill. It makes the game a lot more 'controllable' while there are still factors that keep it medium, like you can still be messed up with a heavy unbalanced hand or just happen to take many debatable close rows in quick succession.

Why do you see being certain of increasing your winning chances as negative? Then you would need to dismiss any abstract or other game where there is a sequence of no randomness... Sounds a bit undifferentiated to me.

That to me is a big turnoff that eliminates most of the fun of the game: the RISK that the card you're considering will not fit within the row. What fun is there in KNOWING that for certain?

If you favor luck/risk so much over skill, the opposite question would be: What fun is there to know that when you win it's not your merit, and when you lose it's not your fault? (a bit exaggerated, but that's the tendency when you lower the predictability/skill)

Let's assume you have a hand of 28 29 30 34, once with tactic, once normal.
Let's also assume in the first case (tactic) 31 32 33 have been played, and in the second only 31 (while 32 33 would not be in the current deck).

One row looks this (_ = free spot):
18 22 25 27 _

If you know no card is left between 30 and 34, that's extremely helpful for your remaining approach.

I'm not even a friend of tactic (only) myself, because it feels so reptitive/resctrive to me. The emphasize is on: compared to professional, where I feel you are not so affected by 'bad hands' and have more freedom to influence the course... But probably the biggest turn-off for my taste: without professional, frequently, at least 50% of a whole round revolves around the board being full and just one or two rows being continuously taken and then blocked high by some again. That's so much more varied in professional.

[Rex Goodheart]

If you favor luck/risk so much over skill

That's a strawman. I didn't say that nor imply it, and scratching off the numbers that have already been played is far from a skill.

Activating tactics doesn't change anything in conditions of fairness;

Of course not, but it certainly changes things in terms of skill and fun. Those who prefer tactics, as far as I see, are those who want the game even less uncomplex than it already is. To eliminate uncertainty when uncertainty is the entire thrill of the game produces robotic drudgery.

[Rex Goodheart]

And as far as "professional" goes it's an entirely different game. Hardly deserves to be labeled with the same name.

[souly4]

Fair enough. I didn't want to express there is much less skill in the very basic variant in the first place. Actually I think it contains some requirement on its own that cannot be matched with or compared to tactics indeed, the gambling or risk effect like you mentioned.

I do insist though that better players will win more often in tactics (pro) long term, and there is slightly more demand. You would only incidentally see someone with over 500 solely with the basic variant, let alone someone reaching the top 10. But those who are proficient in it earn my respect anyway, no intention from me to neglect it.

The problem with such rather 'offensive' or bold starting posts is always that by trend you will provoke answers that point to the other direction (and perhaps a little much for objective standards, just to kind of result in some balance). That's maybe the opposite purpose of communication as I understand it (commune-common -> doing together, approximate each other), while eventually it would be the same outcome (finding the common point)

[dudi2]

Does anyone know, if the preferences selected on "simple lobby" for real-time games or turn-based games are taken into account when invitable players are shown?
Suggestion, if not yet implemented: If someone selected "I never want to play tactics variant" ("Ich will niemals spielen mit "Taktik-Variante (Zahl der Karten hängt von der Spieleranzahl ab)") there it should not be possible to get invited to games where this option is set.

This should apply for every game and all options set there to "never".

[senatorhung]

anyone who cares at all about ELO in this game always chooses tactics pro with 5 players which involves the most skill and the least luck.

professional alleviates getting screwed with a mittful of low cards.

tactics allows you to know which cards have been played, which allows you to play your own hand more effectively.

playing tactics pro with 5 players allows better predictions of which rows are likely to get filled up.

non.tactics games are just random .. might as well just play bingo.

[Rex Goodheart]

I can guarantee you that anybody who cares about ELO and plays tactics has a piece of paper on the side and is ticking off all the cards that have been previously played. It's a really silly variation that robs 6Nimmt of what makes it great.

And, as I've said previously, "professional" shouldn't even be called 6Nimmt. Don't even know why somebody would call tactics tactics or professional professional because I see none of that in either option. What's "professional" about it? What's "tactical" about keeping a cheat sheet of cards?

And, no, non-tactics games are certainly NOT just random. It takes a lot more skill to analyze probabilities versus spaces available, and, given that, to try to anticipate what your opponents will play at any given time.

Sorry, but "tactics" is for players who want something predictable, robotic, and non-complex. It's rote drudgery.

[souly4]

Why would you repeat making plain exaggerated or weak statements that you know aren't ture? Let me guess, you wish to appear convincing or are too absorbed by your point of view that all the others must obey...

With another nick, I had over 130% wins in tactics pro, and I have never a single time counted all the cards. I wouldn't even track 12 and 13 if I have 11 14 15 in my hand, but rather do something that's less tedious and at the same time keeps the fun of not too much predictibality.
I would just organize the 1-54 in groups of 10. How many are still out there from 1-9, 10-19 ... until 30-39 where I would stop because higher is often not important. These four numbers I would repeat in my head as long as I assume it's useful. For example 4 1 5 2 when there are four from 1-9, one bewteen 10-19 and so on.

Very often I would cease even that though because I desire more challenge or just find it too straining.

[senatorhung]

without tactics pro .. there is zero 'expertise' ... it is just random luck.

the OP is obviously just a troll .. don't feed him.