We had a big argument over this.

[Kaznaka]

https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=835931505


Nothing is played in the middle. At my turn, I gave the green clue to g5. Good clue or bad clue?

After g2 blind played, he discarded the g5, thinking that it was g3. Big argument ensues. My argument is that it can't be g3 because g3 was visibly layered at the time the clue was given. Even if g4 needed fixing, we had plenty of time to do so. The fact that g2 blind played means she also understood the clue.

[UmpireNate]

- is there a way to see the game chat? I can see replay of game but not chat. Curious because…

- I’d like to know what Diart, who is a solid player, thought. Did they see that and think they had g4?

- what was skill level of player in the g5 seat?

I think the only reason this clue is valid is bc the g5 person can see it can’t be 4. Assuming layered to 3, and seeing both g4 and knowing it must be green, I’d assume it’s 5

This is such a good and long clue though , you have to know the ability of your partners. That’s going to take 4 rounds to play and require a fix. I don’t think them not getting it is a knock on them per se

Also, knowing it’s green and can’t be 4, if they’re unsure they should stall a round and see, no harm in seeing if g2 plays blind again, though I wouldn’t discard.

Long story short, it works from their pov seeing it can’t be 4 and 3 is layered, but that’s a high level clue.

Why did they discard g3 (think it is)? Gentleman discard? If they see it gd to the 3, they should know it’s layered to the 3

[Kaznaka]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHR ... sp=sharing

Thank you, yes Diart thought that. Everyone was master. The plan was to green the g4 when Diart discards other g4.

BTTF discarded after y1 and y2 was visible, thinking he's GD'ing a g3 to get all of Capy's hand and my y1 (when he missed the initial layer), and kapkekop is mad that I didn't respond to his "GD", so he bombed. I'm just baffled how someone who's played over 35k games can't see the 1st layer to g3.

[_mg6maciej_]

It's a bad clue.

BTTF should assume the clue is correct with no additional fixes needed, so his card to be 3g (or possibly 2g if Capy's 2g does not play).
If instead of 1 to diart BTTF clued green, which would also mark both 4g, green to him would be correct, but in his position such a clue would seem unnecessary (bad) as he cannot see his own 5g to clue the whole color for play with 4 cards coming from Capy.

When trying to give fancy clues you need to be aware of consequences and ask yourself what others might think of their cards.

For example if Capy instead had 2g 1w 3g 3g, almost everybody would know BTTF knows his card cannot be 3g and everybody knows there is another fix needed to mark 4g with diart initially assuming her leftmost as 4g. It's a subtle difference, but it'd be a much safer clue.

[Romain672]

I want to add that with hgroup, clue 'like that' are more commun since people are more used to fix clues than on bga.

Still a clue which require a fix require a big problem/an enormous effeciency/most players aware of what is happening, and you got that effeciency here.

The problem here is that you are the only one which can give the fix. Everyone else can assume g3 on their hand.
To take kapkekop's pov they know m1, and if they hold g3, then they know that both Kaznaka and BTTF2 see both g3s and g4s, and that g5 is known green, which mean that there are [in that hypothetical] four players which can fix g4 which is amazing, and should work well. And so kapkekop can assume g3. [same reasonning for Capy's pov]
Diart's pov will assume g4 and can't fix neither.
If more than 50% of players can fix, that's fine. If it's 50%, that's annoying, but could work. And below 50% you really need strong reasons/you force your next turn to be the fix.

Another thing is that green to diart is without any lie and is much much safer. You duplicate g4 which is downside (but less so at 5 players, any color clue to diart would fix it).

Another downside when you force yourself into a line where you need to fix the following turn is that many things can be happening: b2 in your hand and b3 drawn, you who got bluffed, you who receive 3 playables, your trash hand which will be discarded one turn later, 0 clue for you which forces you to discard, your next player which got a critical card in chop that you need to save... All of those can happen if another player force a specific action on you, and even if others players suspect something weird (especially if you discard with a playable) they still need to assume two differents state of the game which is not good.

[Kaznaka]

It's a bad clue.

BTTF should assume the clue is correct with no additional fixes needed, so his card to be 3g (or possibly 2g if Capy's 2g does not play).

With no additional fixes needed, the clue should look like 4g (but it can't be 4g since he sees both 4g). What I'm trying to understand is, why do you guys default to 3g?

If more than 50% of players can fix, that's fine. If it's 50%, that's annoying, but could work. And below 50% you really need strong reasons/you force your next turn to be the fix.

Another thing is that green to diart is without any lie and is much much safer. You duplicate g4 which is downside (but less so at 5 players, any color clue to diart would fix it).

yes, I thought it was safe enough to avoid duplicating the g4. Assuming players 2 and 5 saw the layer, 3 players can technically fix, 1 is busy peeling off the layer, and the other is 1 discard away from the fix.

What 4 players should see is that no fix is needed all the way up to 3g; it is already layered/playable to 3g.

[Romain672]

Kapkekop know m1 and received a green clue on m1 and another green/multi card. Their chance to hold g3 is high (maybe 30/40%), m3/m4/m5 (m2?) are possible too.
But now you clue g5, and so Kapkekop will be able to fix only after m2 play, before trusting they hold g3 is good (I was going to said they should wait to see if m2 play or not, but after second though I think they should not, but it mostly depend of what you are doing in the following turn).

But as BTTF2, I would put priority on b1 myself, since g5 look possible on that spot, but I understand the g3 priority.

What I'm trying to understand is, why do you guys default to 3g?

You usually want the simplest explanation, the good explanation which require the less blind play for you.
Per example with r1 and y1 played, and if someone clue 3 to that hand: : x-x-y3-(r)3
And your hand is x-x-x-(r), you should assume the explanation which require the less blind plays, which is playing your r.
But that example is really close and depend a lot of how your red card was saved.

Here on your example it's the same thing for BTTF2, you either assume g3, or assume g5 with a fix. g3 is the conventionnal interpretation.


I already talked about it in my last post, but the problem with fix clues is that you don't know what will happen next, and so you force yourself into a weaker spot, and force everyone to keep track of one extra thing. And make everyone do worst clue while this is going on because they don't know the actual state of the game.

Do I advise that kind of clue? No. Do I like doing them? Yes.
At one point, having fun and adding some more or less controlled chaos is fun, but it's not for everyone, and from my experience, not everyone like that.


To others: I'm curious of your thoughs about BTTF2's play? Would you play b1 or g3 (g5?) first?

[Silene]

With no additional fixes needed, the clue should look like 4g (but it can't be 4g since he sees both 4g). What I'm trying to understand is, why do you guys default to 3g?

* it's not multi because neg color, so it's green.
* g1 and g2 plays, so it has to be g3, g4, g5
* it can't be g4 because both of those are somewhere else
* it can't be g5 because g4 is not in finesse position, so g4 can't be part of finesse.
> therefore has to be g3.

imo green on g4 was the chance to do the layered. the extra g4 doesn't hurt that much and a clue for g4 is needed anyway.

of course it's always an option to use different conventions that allows needed fixes in such non-obvious ways. but i prefer cleaner understanding of finesse and needed fixes only allowed for wrong-ordering-but-at-least-its-tagged kind of situations.

[Kaznaka]

* it's not multi because neg color, so it's green.
* g1 and g2 plays, so it has to be g3, g4, g5
* it can't be g4 because both of those are somewhere else
* it can't be g5 because g4 is not in finesse position, so g4 can't be part of finesse.
> therefore has to be g3.

I think this is the key difference then. Gotta ask yourself one more question: can it be g3 if g3 is possibly layered already? It's ambiguous in that sense. The question then is, do you give them a chance to blind play a second card? Under normal circumstances, I would.

In this game, unfortunately, he was quick to conclude it's g3, and he discarded thinking he would get my y1, the newly drawn y2, and all cards to g3.

[Silene]

I think this is the key difference then. Gotta ask yourself one more question: can it be g3 if g3 is possibly layered already?

if the g3 was already in line to be played from some earlier clues then it would make no sense no. but i don't see how that might be relevant as then it would be a bad clue either way. it's not a card that can be played and also promps no other cards to be played. worst case is it might disrupt the layers, best case is it does nothing apart from being confusing.

i can imagine the possibility of it to be a trash card, layering the g3, but definitely not in the given game situation because g1g2 were still to be played (and what green trash could it be then?). also g4g5 should probably be known/tagged for that to work.