Closed pianoblook closed 3 years ago
Seems like a cool idea. In your example for prophetic trash bluff, it doesn't seem like it's actually that much stronger (or even stronger at all) than a normal bluff on y1, followed by a 1's clue to Jerry (or whatever better clue kimbi finds)
Maybe the prophetic bluff should call for a different slot than slot 1 to make it a more useful tool?
lol well it was extra science-y here because I wanted to see if y2 would blind-play as a Push 😆
I agree that it's strange to be using a 'trash'-style clue to just get a few cards from finesse positions. So I think that a reasonable addendum would be:
the clued player should also treat this as an Unnecessary Trash move and therefore CM or Push.
^ thoughts? I think that would be much more useful than asking Bob to Eject or something strange like that
I like this convention a lot! 🔥 Would've been a super neat 4-for-1 in our game. I do tend to agree that it should only be done in early game (not sure about first round. Maybe.) Games in mid-game get increasingly complex and a prophetic discharge may be extremely confusing with other clued cards in hand (say Jerry had a clued b4 above and then writes b1 when a discharge occurs), or just with wanting Jerry to discard rather than play (! another reason for early-game).
Also, agree with the addendum suggested.
Big fan of this, even more-so than the cursed suite.
in-game Prophetic UTD:
This seems neat. Will try to look out for opportunities where it would be good.
https://hanab.live/replay/385769#1
https://hanab.live/replay/386260#1
altogether a 4-for-1 with good tempo and distribution
That's a 4-for-1😲 Spicy 🔥🔥🔥
Not the most exciting example, but still a 2-for-1 + TCM on a 5.
Pretty nice tempo with a yellow (to wump) prophetic UTD
In your first example, suppose kimbi had g1 on slot 2, and a Timehoodie had a blue 5 on slot 3.
Wouldn't this clue have been great for setting up a 5ce?
There seems like there might be some under-discussed value of simply moving the chop.
I wonder if it should just be prophetic trash bluff if:
This way it's legit so suboptimal (clue looks like the color-2), so as to almost necessitate that something weird is happening.
this seems good and i appreciate all of the evidence posted
do you want to do a pr piano
with either a CM or Push.
Really quickly on this. If the prophetic trash bluff is done on chop, then the recipient player should push? I actually lean to CM instead of push, just because in early-game, it seems pretty unlikely that the player has a playable push.
do you want to do a pr piano
Sure, I can over the weekend
I actually lean to CM instead of push, just because in early-game, it seems pretty unlikely that the player has a playable push.
There's not anything to CM though: it's on chop! Since all the other cards being gotten are by definition on Finesse, this is about as Unnecessary as it comes, and I can't imagine often deciding this would be a worthwhile line to take if it didn't get either a nice CM or Push on the clued player
There's not anything to CM though: it's on chop!
I mean to the left, similar to a TPE.
I can't imagine often deciding this would be a worthwhile line to take if it didn't get either a nice CM or Push on the clued player
Agreed, especially regarding the bluff from finesse. My remark is whether CM makes it more universally executable
Also, one more thought
In this instance, the next player can see that blind-playing their first finesse would lead to confusion and potential desync. Instead, they should Discharge, which will cleanly lead to everyone understanding what is going on.
Interestingly, a single blind-play from finesse is actually sufficient to demonstrate to the team what is going on. The clue recipient, say Donald, can see Cathy had the 1 on finesse, and there is actually no other identity of the card that would cause Bob to blind-play.
If it were b234, Bob would wait for Cathy. If it were b5, Bob would eject.
That in mind, do we actually prefer the discharge slot for one, and the finesse for the other? What if we preferred discharges for either choice? Or alternatively, a finesse for either choice?
I am rather compelled by discharge for either choice, on the first reflection. In early-game, (and in particular the first round, which I expect the 1s to have been used for) it is fairly evenly likely between slot 1 and slot 3.
This gives Alice the choice to give negative color or negative rank, and frankly a discharge + finesse combo may be valuable enough so as to not call for a CM / push.
Two 1's from finesse is also more likely to be consecutive, and executable with a 4DB or a Pestilent DB or a Bad Touch 3 DB.
I mean to the left, similar to a TPE.
This feels super unintuitive to me :/ There's a reason TPE is weird enough to warrant an Ejection haha. It's otherwise just incredibly weird to be intentionally cluing trash on chop. I don't think I'd ever want to perform this move if it didn't get a blind-play; CMing a card that would have just been safely in front of trash seems pretty low value
Interestingly, a single blind-play from finesse is actually sufficient to demonstrate to the team what is going on. That in mind, do we actually prefer the discharge slot for one, and the finesse for the other?
That is interesting, yeah. Personally I'm a fan of having a way to differentiate slot 1 vs slot 3 blind-plays in this sort of situation: more flexibility, and pretty intuitive either way. Getting a Discharge off of a 1 rank clue seems very weird too. I'll defer to @Zamiell / others on this though - thoughts?
I don't think I'd ever want to perform this move if it didn't get a blind-play
This line is interesting. Is the non-consecutive 2-for-1 just not a valuable choice in your view? I guess the logic might be we would prefer bluff + bluff + picking up a good card along the way as a 5-for-2.
I do think the non-consecutive 2-for-1 might be intrinsically more valuable on its own if it gets slot 3 as compared to slot 1, and not necessitate a cm/push read.
CMing a card that would have just been safely in front of trash seems pretty low value
Sounds good. Agreed.
Getting a Discharge off of a 1 rank clue seems very weird too
Haha totally! I wonder if that makes it ultra-clear that this move is being done 😂
i think that it is "sufficient" for slot 1 to play in theory, but not in practice. often times players will blind play without waiting for potentially matching cards because they have other contextual clues. when you design a convention you want to minimize vectors for mistakes. hard-requiring that donald sees that bob would wait for cathy sounds like a recipe for disaster
hard-requiring that donald sees that bob would wait for cathy sounds like a recipe for disaster
Agreed. I don't think color should call for a play from finesse.
I'm curious about the discharge + finesse option for both rank and color. I believe our rationale for "this move is not good enough without a push/cm" is because both are coming from finesse.
1 rank -> discharge allows you to perform this even when the player holds another card with that same color. It seems to me that getting a 2-for-1 from those different slots might be worth it to not include a cm/push component. The additional cm/push component, I think, actually makes this move less useable.
I've thought about this more, and I think discharge is the best way to approach this for rank. Here's why:
While cm/push makes it more efficient, a) if the 1 is on chop, there must be a good push (which is almost never the case if it is anything but a 1 or 2), or b) there is an extra variable of "are these valuable chop moves?" These two make the move rarer, in my view, and make a 1 in slot 4 typically unusable, and one in slot 2 likely undesirable.
And, as above, you can now use a blue 1 for this even if the recipient player has another blue card.
And most importantly,
In all of the bluff examples provided above, there are notably no cards played on the stacks, or the player who has the card on finesse comes before the clue recipient.
Here is an ambiguous example:
(This also applies in the weird scenario where Alice had clued Donald/Emily's 1s, and then Cathy gives a 1 to Alice which is also in Bob's finesse. Bob comes after Alice and can not demonstrate that it was prophetic, and Alice thinks the 1 she received may have been a trash bluff, resulting from duping Donald/Emily).
The beauty of the prophetic suite and having a discharge universally is that a single-card 1 clue should never cause a discharge unless it is prophetic. It can never be confused with a trash bluff.
Unfortunately I still don't see a rank 1 "UTD" being very well-aligned with the rest of Hyphen-ated.
There are plenty of "Call Out" bluffs that simply default to slot 1 because it's simplest, not because it's necessarily more theoretically justified. For example, we could just as easily decide a Pestilent reaction should actually be an Ejection/Discharge from Cathy, but slot 1 "is all that's required".
Now tbf that same argument could be used to say that the color form could technically just as easily work as a Bluff instead of a UTD. Sure, but the same could be said about other niche situations where a Discharge response wouldn't be necessary. e.g. there's no reason an Ejection wouldn't work for Unknown Trash if the 5 is already seen elsewhere; or no reason to 5CE if a double bluff would be sufficient to mark it as a 5.
Point is, there's value in having easy to remember patterns that can be learned and trusted. To me, a 1s clue very cleanly reads as, "aha this 1 is actually going to be trash; I'm therefore probably being asked to respond in the same way as every other trash bluff that exists".
Unfortunately I still don't see a rank 1 "UTD" being very well-aligned with the rest of Hyphen-ated. I'm therefore probably being asked to respond in the same way as every other trash bluff that exists
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way! Though, it is certainly possible that slot 1 from Bob is not "all that's required." The second point I made above speaks to it.
For example, we could just as easily decide a Pestilent reaction should actually be an Ejection/Discharge from Cathy, but slot 1 "is all that's required".
Agreed. But, there are much fewer useful reasons to getting 2 1s off of finesse.
Either way, I made the remarks above because they are my opinions on how to make this tool optimal and not a rarely used convention. If you think otherwise even in light of the points I made above, I would definitely just proceed.
At the end of the day, I'm just one player, and I am delighted to see creative convention innovation.
Huh, just realized something...Does this only apply to 1s? Or could we open this to any card as the game progresses 🤔
Huh, just realized something...Does this only apply to 1s? Or could we open this to any card as the game progresses 🤔
Yes, I think it should only apply to 1s, unless we want to add a lot of stipulations to it.
This is because 1) It is more likely to be in a scenario where we want Bob to discard instead of being the one to play b2 2) It is more likely that we are shifting the focus of Donald's chop 3) It is more likely that Bob has something else to do
How much more likely would be a great question. I'm not sure. It is just a hunch that it is not worth it. But the beauty of it being only on 1s in early-game is that there is so little reason to construct a starting line that intentionally does not use someone's finesse position.
Perhaps we would consider its extension to other ranks after a few months of having the convention on only 1s.
if these edits seem fine to you, then i will close
/accept
wru bot
oh because i changed the repo name
/accept
(For more information on how consensus is determined, please read the Convention Changes document.)
Inspired by the 'Cursed' idea, and attempted here for science. The screenshot below has the duped b1 edited out for clarity - I'll be on the lookout for better examples!
The Prophetic Trash Bluff
The Prophetic Trash Discharge