Unify Bubblegum and Taffy moves. Improve flow of Bubblegum section. [[Issue #1045]]

[NZadeh]

After much thought and deliberation (also thanks to HelanaAshryvr for walking through this with me), it has become clear that Bubblegum and Taffy are actually the same.

The difference, if any, is whether the number the pink card could be is actually greater than (Taffy) or less than (Bubblegum) the clue's number. EDIT: this is not quite accurate.

I also tried to improve the narrative of the section. Thoughts and suggestions for improvements are, of course, welcome.

[NZadeh]

Linking this to the issue it is addressing: #1045

[NZadeh]

@Zamiell PTAL

[Zamiell]

ok, take another look at the pr to see if i made any mistakes

[NZadeh]

thanks for taking a look @Zamiell!

I left some comments... if you want a "typo-review", I can do that once any other edits (in response to outstanding comments) are done or declined. 😄

[NZadeh]

Accidentally entered this review mode, so here you go :)

[NZadeh]

Sorry, I'm on mobile, so I can't easily find the old language. I really do prefer it though, as I had reviewed that multiple times already before submitting it for review.

Can you think of a less invasive way to update the old language if you feel it needs additional emphasis on the fact that other conventions like 2 saves exist?

[Zamiell]

not sure, suggest something using the suggest feature

[NZadeh]

- Note that, as with a standard _Bluff_, the receiver of a _[Bubblegum Bluff](#the-bubblegum-bluff)_ marks their pink card as the lowest-possible, useful value it could be (given the team's preceding actions).
- However, it is sometimes possible that the lowest-possible, useful value is actually _two-away-from-playable_.

What about something like this? (I'll find the suggest feature shortly).

• Got rid of "good touch" and replaced it with "useful"
• Added "(given the team's preceding actions)" to hint at the fact that there might be blind plays, etc... a 2 save does not a bluff make :)

[Zamiell]

Note that, as with a standard Bluff, the receiver of a Bubblegum Bluff marks their pink card as the lowest-possible, useful value it could be (given the team's preceding actions).

That's not how "standard" bluffs work though. After a normal bluff, the receiver marks their card as all the matching one-away-from-playable cards. And if we are including all bluffs, then the receiver marks their card as that + all of the N arbitrary bluffs that were previously agreed upon before the game started (3 bluff, critical 4 bluff, etc.)

[Zamiell]

Continuing: Trash bluffs exist, and trash bluffs are done with 1's, so correct me if I am wrong, but the "lowest rank" of the card isn't really relevant, its the N-away-from-playable part.

[NZadeh]

would it be clearer to hyperlink the text to the bluff docs? https://hanabi.github.io/docs/level-11#the-bluff

I used the word "standard" to not have to worry about all of those other bluffs. is there another word you'd like better?

The "lowest rank" matters when determining the possible values of the target of a bubblegum move. For example, on turn 1, Alice gives Cathy a "2" clue focusing slot 1. Bob blind plays red 1 from slot 2. What is Cathy's note?

"Logically" it could be i3, i4, or i5 (not i1 as Bob would have played from slot 1, and not i2 as Bob would have played from slot 1). We agree that it's the lowest rank of these, in this case i3.

(EDIT: I should add it's obviously not any non-pink/non-omni card -- as no other conventions would result in Bob blind playing from slot 2.)

[NZadeh]

Suggested change

	- Normally, _Bubblegum Bluffs_ are always performed by touching _one-way-from-playable_ pink cards.
	- Note that, as with a standard _Bluff_, the receiver of a _[Bubblegum Bluff](#the-bubblegum-bluff)_ marks their pink card as the lowest-possible, useful value it could be (given the team's preceding actions).

[NZadeh]

Could also drop the leading "Note that, ..." and start with "As with a standard Bluff, ...."

[NZadeh]

Tried to add changes and keep them in a single batch... let's see if it works.

[NZadeh]

just a heads up that the language "lowest-possible, useful value" here might be incomplete/lack context if we aren't also taking the rewrite suggestion for the first line.

[NZadeh]

"...lowest-possible, useful value of a focused pink card is actually..." ?