Early Game playable 5 on chop

[Blacktango]

As usual, I would say "it depends"

If you don't play Avalanche mode, then, maybe, you might not need the number clues on chop to finesse another card, because most of the time you can do the same thing with a color clue.
But if you play with Avalanche AND Black powder… then these clues are very valuable, because there are many times when you can't use the color to give a finesse. (I don't have real stats but I'm pretty sure it's useful at least once per game)

You can already "pre-save" a lot of cards by using them for bluffs, which usually gives more information, like the color AND the number of the card.
Also, if you forbid early saving, then a card saved on chop can be totally known (ex: you save a 3 when only the R3 is critical).

IMO, the only concession that might be useful enough, would be to allow early saving on 2.
The problem is that this is an arbitrary convention: why 2 and not 3 ? It is not really based on logic.

[Travis Hall]

I guess I knew early saves are not allowed. It makes sense with the rest of the convention. I'm curious how often a number clue that means play is given to a chop card. I mean, is it about once per game? Twice? More? If it's less than that, I think allowing the saves of non-unique cards on chop would be more useful than the restriction of never being about to save a card you'd like to keep.

Hold up, Wreckage. You’re conflating two different types of early save: saving when the clue receiver has a known play, vs saving a non-unique card.

You can make an argument (that I don’t currently agree with, but you can make it) that saving non-unique cards is worth allowing. That’s why it’s done in 2-player, where you can’t save non-unique cards using bluffs. However, if you do allow saving of non-unique cards, that just strengthens the argument against saving while the hand contains a known play. Now you can’t use a number clue to call for the play of a recognisably non-unique card on chop, so you really want to be able to clue something else that is playable and follow up with another clue to allow the chop card to play.

Most players play with flamboyants on, which is VERY forgiving, because you get a second and third chance if you lose an important card early.

It’s nowhere near as forgiving as is usually made out when these sorts of arguments are made. You have a chance of retrieval, but no certainty. Too often the play-from-discard gets played too early (because you can’t really afford to hold your 5s for that long - it makes play too unpredictable, and often loses more cards than it saves as a result) and then the return-to-deck comes out too late, and you retrieve nothing at all. Far better to ensure you don’t lose unique cards, and use the flamboyant retrievals to reduce the probability of the second copy of a card being on the bottom of the deck.

[Jellby]

Too often the play-from-discard gets played too early (because you can’t really afford to hold your 5s for that long - it makes play too unpredictable, and often loses more cards than it saves as a result) and then the return-to-deck comes out too late, and you retrieve nothing at all.

This site is rigged (where have I read that today?). You get the return-to-deck, return 5r, and then play-from-discard, which would have been great for 5r, but 5r is not there any more. Then 5r comes out last in the deck, and is draw by a player who has 2 other 5s to play. Happens 99% of the time

[Wreckage]

Hold up, Wreckage. You’re conflating two different types of early save: saving when the clue receiver has a known play, vs saving a non-unique card.

I am indeed making a separate argument for saving non-unique cards. I am not saying it's better, I'm just suggesting it might be.

It’s nowhere near as forgiving as is usually made out when these sorts of arguments are made.

I would bet that at least 1/2 of the games that end with 30 points, required a retrieval from the discard or else would have had a lower score.

Far better to ensure you don’t lose unique cards, and use the flamboyant retrievals to reduce the probability of the second copy of a card being on the bottom of the deck.

Of course this is true.

It would be interesting to compare a couple of games with identical preset decks, using different basic conventions. One thing to note, if you want to play the same preset deck multiple times, to see a different outcome if different choices are made, you must turn flams off. The deck will be identical in every way for a 24 hour period, except the flams are randomized, so they will not be in the same order each game.

[Travis Hall]

Hold up, Wreckage. You’re conflating two different types of early save: saving when the clue receiver has a known play, vs saving a non-unique card.

I am indeed making a separate argument for saving non-unique cards.

If you really want a serious discussion of that, I’d suggest making a new thread for it. It’s got nothing to do with the original topic of this thread.

I would bet that at least 1/2 of the games that end with 30 points, required a retrieval from the discard or else would have had a lower score.

Perhaps, but that’s not the point. A highly skilled group is working to avoid losses of unique cards and valuable non-unique cards, and can usually achieve that well enough to not even need a flamboyant retrieval to avoid a last-card loss (where “highly skilled” means much better than the typical 700-rated player).

And not saving non-unique cards became the prevailing convention on BGA long before Flamboyants were implemented on BGA, so you’ve got a hard time arguing that it is the result of players relying on Flamboyants.