It's no secret that the rule book that comes with the Corellian Spike Sabacc game sold at Disney Parks is filled with errors. Most of these flaws aren't that big of deal. A misspelled word here, ambiguous descriptions, mismatched images to cards...etc. For the most part the underlying logic and design of the game is simple and honestly pretty elegant.
But there is one error that stands above the rest. An error so glaring and confusing it almost literally breaks the game. Many an internet argument has broken out due to this one thing in particular.
No, it's not the gain/swap debacle. But that's the second most confusing thing. Although I've covered that technically.
WHAT IS A ONE PAIR SABACC?
On the surface this seems like a straight forward question. You might consult your handy dandy rule book and say "Ah yes, a SABACC is zero with one pair". But then you look at the example next to it and start to question your whole existence.
By most traditional definitions a pair or something is usually two. We could be talking about a pair of shoes, socks, gloves, aces, whatever, it's almost always over 1 and below 3.
But the example they chose to show for the most important hand of the game has 3 cards.
Per the description, +3 +3 -6 would be considered a one pair Sabacc. Or even +5 +5 -10. However the rules are nice enough to state that the +3 +3 -6 would win (lowest integer wins), despite not making it clear that the +5 +5 needs a -10 to complete the hand, but whatever.
So what does this mean?
It mostly means that whoever did the graphical aspect of the rule book was wrong and misinterpreted the text that was given to them. Kinda like how they put the wrong card images on the FLEET example.
Thankfully they're aware of this error and are supposedly fixing it. But I'd imagine that won't happen until they run out of their current stock. As of late last year, no corrections have been reported.
Anyway, a mismatched example isn't going to bother most people. The description of the hand and the values printed are still correct. So even if you notice the misprint, the underlying concept of the hand is still pretty clear.
Ok, that's all great, but which one is correct???
In short the correct "one pair Sabacc" should be two cards. Or at least the higher ranked hand would be the "one pair Sabacc". But I'll concede that the "3 card one pair Sabacc" (wow that was weird to type) does "technically" count as a "one pair" or does exist in the context of the flawed rule book. However I would caution against playing Sabacc with that level of semantic overlay...
>>>>>the internet
>>>>> "no, you're wrong"
And Now 3 Reasons Why This is Correct
- Hand Hierarchy
A Sabacc consisting of two cards is a "Sabacc", a Sabacc that has 3 cards is a "Sabacc". But the one with 3 cards has more cards and that's ranked lower than the SABACC hand. Basically the hand hierarchy still indicates which is the winning hand.
- Other Hand Examples
The one pair Sabacc shows up in other hands as well. The most notable example is the YEE HAA, which "Zero with one pair and a zero card".
- Amount of Cards
In most games there are rules either clearly stated or inherently defined within the design of the game that are so key to it's operation, they are usually printed before anything else. Or really, if you're trying to decide if a rule works, or in this case if your interpretation of the rule works. Then it at the very least it should not violate any of those core concepts.
A Rule of Two is "Zero with two pairs". The rule book shows one example with 5 cards and the other with 4. Not only does the 4 card "two pair" rank higher given the hierarchy, but the 5 card should almost need to violate one other rule. There is no way you can have over 5 cards in normal play. To be consistent (and that's a key word here) with the "one pair" thing, the Rule of Two would have to consist of 6 cards. Like... (+5 +5 -10 ) + (+1 +1 -2).
BONUS
However you might still be asking yourself, "How can two cards of different values be considered a pair?"
There are two answers to this:
- It's about the AMOUNT of cards in your hand
Example: +2 -2 has two cards, aka "one pair" - Sabacc is a zero/absolute value based game
Example: hands are judged on their location to zero on a number line (kinda).
It's why a (+1,-1) beats a (+2,-2). So for all intents and purposes, aside from a (+1,-1) just being a Sabacc, the absolute value of -1 is 1 and the absolute value of 1 is 1. And isn't 1==1?
So there you have it. I'm not even going to go into why a two card hand is statistically more difficult to achieve. The way I see it if you still don't believe anything I said, a statistical analysis will just fan the flames. And sure, I could be wrong and the designers of the game intended for a one pair Sabacc to be three cards. If that's the case I'll stand by my usual "I will literally eat a Sabacc card if I'm wrong" bet on all this.
But more importantly I just want to help make the game easier to understand and enjoyable to play. If you enjoy playing with a 3 card Sabacc beating a 2 card, whatever. Play how you want to play if you enjoy it. I only do all this to help those confused about the rules understand and play the most enjoyable ways possible.
And if you like Sabacc and want to support the development of my online Sabacc game.
Click here for my gofundme.
The "one pair" example shows two hands, separated by a vertical bar.
ReplyDeleteThe +5 / +5 is incorrect, it should be +5 / -5.
Coming at this not as a poker player but a long time board game rules reader and explainer, I think your interpretation is incorrect. Here's why:
ReplyDelete1) I do see your version of the rules is incorrect with the picture example: my purchased rules correctly have +5/-5. But they did not change the scenario that a pair of cards with additional cards to bring the hand total to 0 is a Sabacc with One Pair.
2) If we went by your interpretation with the reading of the rules, a Banthas Wild would be impossible:
"Sabacc: Zero with one pair"
"Banthas Wild: Zero with three of a kind"
If Banthas Wild could ONLY be 3 cards total (like interpretation that a Sabacc Pair is ONLY 2 cards total), it would be impossible to get to 0.
3) A Pure Sabacc is defined as "Zero with EXACTLY two Zero Cards". Two Zero Cards with other cards to bring to 0 is not a Pure Sabacc. Full Sabacc: "Zero with EXACTLY these cards." So the rules writer demonstrated the use of adjectives to explain what they mean. If the writer intended to make a Sabacc Pair only two cards, they would have written "Zero with EXACTLY one pair", or "only".
For the Yee-Haa example ("Zero with one pair and a zero card"), I believe additional cards to offset the pair would be valid, even though there isn't an example (+5, +5, -10, Zero Card). I think they ran out of room to add this additional example, and the wording of Sabacc Pair with that example demonstrated this intention.
Now my question is, what is a Two Pair with a Zero Card? Is this a Rule of Two, or a Yee-Haa? I think it's a Yee-Haa since it fulfills the criteria and doesn't punish the player. It's also a shame they don't have a Straight Khyron with a Zero Card as another winning hand.