Thanks for the report!
100 % agree that all card drawing should happen at end of turn, as a signal for the next player to take his turn. And yes, ideally, every turn ends with drawing at least one card. That's consistent. Let's always draw 1 card even after a challenged sneak.
For both the single 52-card or double 104-card standard deck, it makes sense that straight ranks higher than flushes. Compared to Five Crowns, in standard decks, the suits are longer, thus it's harder for any two cards to be consecutive. And there are fewer suits, thus it's easier for any two cards to be of same suit. My only reservation remains how { straight ranks higher than flush } breaks Poker hand rankings, but that's not a strong counterargument. Make Sneak as good as it can be on its own.
How do you feel about the value of two identical cards? They always feel stronger than straight flush, but it's hard to define a nice ranking that captures the idea. E.g., I don't feel that ♠3-♠3-♦J-♦J should beat a 4-card straight flush.
I like the simplicity of how all midgame plays must be sneaks. But if you're allowed to draw
n cards when your sneak/flaunt remains unchallenged, I see one opportunity for midgame flaunting: Flaunt a 5- or 6-card flush (the weakest combination) and hope that nobody has a better flush. Convert it into points, draw 5 or 6 random replacement cards, and hope that these random cards are not too weak -- after all, you could have hung to your 6 same-suited cards and eventually turned them into a straight flush. Would we flaunt such a 6-card flush or rather try to improve it? If you wouldn't flaunt it, I think you can safely remove midgame flaunting from the ruleset.
After the game is concluded, cards that remain on a player's hand count as negative points.
The last rule is crucial: This discourages bunkering, at least in the later stages of the game.
Negative points for cards in hand is a substantial change. It will dovetail into several rule adjustments such as the explicit no-undercutting. We'll have to sleep over it.
It sounds like it dampens the need for consolation prizes for a challenged losing sneaker: At least he got rid of
n − 1 cards because he draws 1 card at end of turn. We'll have to see if it's enough compensation. In my one playtest (that I described on 2023-11-06), players felt like losing to challengers was the worst fate in all of Sneak. But we had not yet reward unchallenged sneaks, nor had we drawn 1 card at end of turn after sneaking.
Counting was easy with worthless hand cards:
- Toss your hand face-up in the middle of the table.
- Place your squared-up pile next to the opponents' biggest-looking pile.
With negative-value cards in hand, either keep them near you in a second pile, subtract two pile counts, and announce the difference, or count cards off your points pile before comparing piles by height.
(not challenging is rewarded with drawing a card). It sounds interesting, but my main concern is that the pile will get depleted too fast like this. Especially near the end of the game, if there are many players, you last chance to sneak may be while there are still 20 cards on the pile, because next time it is your turn the pile is gone.
I agree that the low-running drawpile has always been a strategic concern. Now it's even more a concern if cards in hand are worth negative. I haven't playtested this idea to reward non-challengers, it was merely the most obvious first idea.
In general, doling out more cards as rewards for doing X isn't the nicest design. It's so easy to come up with it and to write it down in a ruleset, but it messes with the game ending.
If we reward an unchallenged sneaker with
n cards, does it have a similar effect? I.e., when the pile is at 15 cards, do you worry about getting more sneaking turns? I expect { reward A: the unchallenged sneaker draws
n cards } to be less critical for pile depletion than { reward B: non-challengers draw a card } because a single challenger is enough to block all
n cards of A, but there will always be 1-4 non-challengers that would draw for B.
Thus, good call.
During the last round, cards still have to be played openly, but the leading player does not determine what kind of hand can be played (so like with sneaking, best overall hand wins).
I'll call the existing rule
same-type challenging: When your opponent flaunts, you may only challenge with a combination of the same type. If he played a straight, you may only challenge with a straight; even your straight flush counts only as a straight here.
Maybe same-type challenging served to improve the midgame flaunting, which we are about to cut from the rules. In that case, you may remove same-type challenging altogether.
But I believe (untested) that same-type challenging is crucial to the endgame. In the middle game, you have two tasks: Get points with smaller sneaks and challenges, and build your one true magnificent flaunt for the endgame. That flaunt can be even of a weaker type because the rule of same-type challenging protects it. It introduces a separate direction of hand management into Sneak.
And this build-up of tension -- you have exactly one flaunt during the game, at the very end -- goes in a great way with your proposed cut of mid-game flaunting for simplicity. It sounds wonderful on paper.
Downside: Same-type challenging is a special rule only for the very end, with unclear purpose. If somebody happens to make the same type of combination, you're hosed while everybody else's flaunt stands. That will feel random. If we remove the restriction of same-type challenging, more people get hosed. It will still feel random; will it feel better?
I think I'll try next time:
- No flaunting when there are cards in stock. Sneak or draw.
- The usual sub-round during a sneak/flaunt, but no reward for nonchallengers.
- After sneaking n cards, draw 1 card. If nobody challenged, draw n cards instead of 1.
- A single round of flaunting after the stock has run out. Probably with same-type challenging.
- Leftover cards in hand are worthless, but not negative.
Worthless leftover cards seem like the cleanest design, both for easy bookkeeping and to avoid extra rules like no-undercutting. I really want to make that work. I'm open to switching to negative points when worthless cards don't produce the desired strategic late-game decisisons.
-- Simon