Star Wars Card Games and others
- Thread starter Raptor98
- Start date
Aliaz
Active Member
Another thing I found strange is the wording: ”ended the game”. In the Hasbro version the game ends when all the Bounty tokens are gone from the pot, but how do you set a limit on when the game ends if playing with credits in a poker style game?
In the original Sabacc, you needed pure Sabacc to win the Sabacc pot... so that must be equivalent to having zero with the Sylop card.
From what I remember, you always needed at least two cards in your hand.
Just as in Poker, the game ends when you get up and walk away with the credits you've won (or lost)... or you go broke.
From what I remember, you always needed at least two cards in your hand.
Just as in Poker, the game ends when you get up and walk away with the credits you've won (or lost)... or you go broke.
scoobz
New Member
impossible, (in the solo card game at least) as you must draw a card in order to discard a card and you are dealt 2 cards to begin with.
Aliaz
Active Member
I've been thinking a lot about ways to actually play Corellian Spike Sabacc, especially about the ranking of the different hands.
I've tried to combine the rules of the Han Solo cardgame with everything we've seen and heard in the Solo movie.
Though I'm not completely satisfied yet, I'd still like to share my thoughts so far:
General Gameplay:
Basically according to the rules as mentioned in the article on Wookieepedia: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Spike
As there is no mentioning of when and how much to put into each pot, I'd propose the following procedure as adaptation of the classic Sabacc rules:
1.) Ante paid into both Hand-Pot and Sabacc-Pot
2.) Two cards dealt to each player
3.) Play Round (each player may choose to draw a card from the deck or the discard-pile, then may discard a card or stand)
4.) Dealer rolls dice. In case of doubles all player are dealt new cards in the number they had on their hand before
5.) Betting Round (First player places a bet into the Hand-Pot, others can then decide to either call the bet or fold. If they fold, they have to place an agreed amount into the Sabacc-Pot. Then the next player can start to place a bet, again with all others having the chance to pay the bet or fold, until every player who's still in the game had the chance to place a bet)
6.) Hand is Called during any Betting Round after the first (Or second? Or third? Maybe should be adjusted to the numbers of players? Not sure on this one.)
7.) Hands are revealed and Winner is decided. (If the player who called doesn't win, he has to pay a certain amount into the Sabacc-Pot. Don't know how much. In classic Sabacc it's the same amount as the current value of the Hand Pot. But I think that's too much. If a player has bet all his money and loses, how should he additionally pay into the Sabacc Pot? Maybe we can come up with something more practical).
### Remark: Don't know yet, how many playing rounds and betting rounds are rational. Maybe Playing and Betting should be alternate? Or a fixed number of playing before betting starts? Should be decided after enough players have tested it out! ###
Winning Hands:
This is the part that kept bothering me the most. Following Star Wars lore and the rules of the Solo cardgame, any hand with a total of zero should be called a "Sabacc". The player with a sum closest to zero wins. In case of equal totals a positive beats a negative, higher number of cards beats lower AND (thats my new proposal as the Solo cardgame doesn't feature different suits): hands with more matching suits beat hands with less. (So if both have the same total, but one player carries only coins and staves, then he will beat a player who carries all three suits.
Special hands:
"Pure Sabacc": Unfortunately I don't recall if Lando's winning hand is shown in the movie. It would be logical, if a "pure" Sabacc consisting only of identical numbers is ranked higher than any "mixed" hands. So similar to the Solo cardgame the highest form of pure Sabacc should be only Aces. (Not necessarily featuring a Sylop). Of course the number of cards should be important again. So four Aces would beat two Aces, etc...
"Straight Sabacc": If a player is able to collect a total of zero with consecutive numbers this should be valued higher than any "mixed" total of zero. (but lower than a "Pure Sabacc"). If two players got a Straight, then again the number of suits is important, the best being again a straight of one suit ("Straight of Staves"... I'm sure the prop-guys in the movie just handed Alden the wrong cards... ;-) )
"Paired Sabacc"?? : Don't know if this should be considered as a lower form of "Pure Sabacc" or as something different. But as in Poker I'd consider a hand consisting of pairs more valuable than any mixed hand. But where to rank it? Above or below "Straight"? Ideas welcome!
"Sabacc": Any other total sum of zero. Again in case of a draw the number of suits will be accounted for. Similar to a "Flush" in real-world-Poker a hand with only one suit involved will be the best possible simple "Sabacc".
"Idiot's Array": I definetly wanted to include an equivalent to this hand for Correlian Spike. This is what I came up with: Two Aces of the SAME color (not suit, just two greens or two reds) plus a Sylop. It somehow catches the flavor of the orginal Idiot's Array by combining two cards that would otherwise be of no value. As only an Idiot might add up 2+3 to a total of 23, he might also think that two Aces of the same color equal up to zero instead of 20.
Maybe the Corellians would call this hand differently due to the name of the Idiot. What about "Sylop Spike"?.
According to the classic rules, such a hand would beat all others.
(I also thought of the extreme version of only having both Sylops. But as the sum is also zero, it's basically just a "Pure Sabacc". Surely this one would also rank above a Pure Sabacc with Aces, but below the "Idiot's Array")
Role of the Sylops:
I don't think a Sylop should be mandatory for any hand except the Idiot's Array. But of course a Sylop might decide many games! In case of a draw, a hand including a Sylop will always beat a similar hand without one. And as the Sylops add to the total number of cards in a hand, they are a quite valuable.
Winning the pots:
I haven't calculated the probabilites for the different hands, so I'm not sure if the same conditions may be applied as in classic Sabacc. Of course it can be played out similarly:
The Sabacc-Pot is won by any player who wins a game be eiter a Sabacc or an Idiot's Array. (If testplaying shows that these conditions are too likely, then maybe we can alter it to "Pure Sabacc". But I guess a probability of 1:5 up to 1:10 in any game should be practical, because you would want to give the Sabacc-Pot to someone in a given evening of playing. If it is too unlikely, let's say 1:50, then the Sabacc-Pot will have to remain unwon for days to weeks. That won't be fun...)
Additional thoughts:
- In the rare case of exact identical hands of any pure suit, maybe we could think of kind of a"Stone-Paper-Scissors"- way of deciding which one wins. Let's say Coin beats Sabre, Sabre beats Stave and Stave beats Coin?
-Anyway in case of a draw, a "Sudden Demise" might be played out by both players drawing cards and declaring the one as the winner whose number is lowest. (Might be repeated until definetely decided).
- Protecting cards from shifting: Similar to classic Sabacc it should be possible to prevent cards from being shifted if you just place them openly in front of you. But when and how many? According to the classic rules, you should only be allowed to secure (or take back) one card per round. But only during playing rounds? Or also during betting? Not sure yet.
So that's what I got so far.
Ideas and comments welcome!
I've tried to combine the rules of the Han Solo cardgame with everything we've seen and heard in the Solo movie.
Though I'm not completely satisfied yet, I'd still like to share my thoughts so far:
General Gameplay:
Basically according to the rules as mentioned in the article on Wookieepedia: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corellian_Spike
As there is no mentioning of when and how much to put into each pot, I'd propose the following procedure as adaptation of the classic Sabacc rules:
1.) Ante paid into both Hand-Pot and Sabacc-Pot
2.) Two cards dealt to each player
3.) Play Round (each player may choose to draw a card from the deck or the discard-pile, then may discard a card or stand)
4.) Dealer rolls dice. In case of doubles all player are dealt new cards in the number they had on their hand before
5.) Betting Round (First player places a bet into the Hand-Pot, others can then decide to either call the bet or fold. If they fold, they have to place an agreed amount into the Sabacc-Pot. Then the next player can start to place a bet, again with all others having the chance to pay the bet or fold, until every player who's still in the game had the chance to place a bet)
6.) Hand is Called during any Betting Round after the first (Or second? Or third? Maybe should be adjusted to the numbers of players? Not sure on this one.)
7.) Hands are revealed and Winner is decided. (If the player who called doesn't win, he has to pay a certain amount into the Sabacc-Pot. Don't know how much. In classic Sabacc it's the same amount as the current value of the Hand Pot. But I think that's too much. If a player has bet all his money and loses, how should he additionally pay into the Sabacc Pot? Maybe we can come up with something more practical).
### Remark: Don't know yet, how many playing rounds and betting rounds are rational. Maybe Playing and Betting should be alternate? Or a fixed number of playing before betting starts? Should be decided after enough players have tested it out! ###
Winning Hands:
This is the part that kept bothering me the most. Following Star Wars lore and the rules of the Solo cardgame, any hand with a total of zero should be called a "Sabacc". The player with a sum closest to zero wins. In case of equal totals a positive beats a negative, higher number of cards beats lower AND (thats my new proposal as the Solo cardgame doesn't feature different suits): hands with more matching suits beat hands with less. (So if both have the same total, but one player carries only coins and staves, then he will beat a player who carries all three suits.
Special hands:
"Pure Sabacc": Unfortunately I don't recall if Lando's winning hand is shown in the movie. It would be logical, if a "pure" Sabacc consisting only of identical numbers is ranked higher than any "mixed" hands. So similar to the Solo cardgame the highest form of pure Sabacc should be only Aces. (Not necessarily featuring a Sylop). Of course the number of cards should be important again. So four Aces would beat two Aces, etc...
"Straight Sabacc": If a player is able to collect a total of zero with consecutive numbers this should be valued higher than any "mixed" total of zero. (but lower than a "Pure Sabacc"). If two players got a Straight, then again the number of suits is important, the best being again a straight of one suit ("Straight of Staves"... I'm sure the prop-guys in the movie just handed Alden the wrong cards... ;-) )
"Paired Sabacc"?? : Don't know if this should be considered as a lower form of "Pure Sabacc" or as something different. But as in Poker I'd consider a hand consisting of pairs more valuable than any mixed hand. But where to rank it? Above or below "Straight"? Ideas welcome!
"Sabacc": Any other total sum of zero. Again in case of a draw the number of suits will be accounted for. Similar to a "Flush" in real-world-Poker a hand with only one suit involved will be the best possible simple "Sabacc".
"Idiot's Array": I definetly wanted to include an equivalent to this hand for Correlian Spike. This is what I came up with: Two Aces of the SAME color (not suit, just two greens or two reds) plus a Sylop. It somehow catches the flavor of the orginal Idiot's Array by combining two cards that would otherwise be of no value. As only an Idiot might add up 2+3 to a total of 23, he might also think that two Aces of the same color equal up to zero instead of 20.
Maybe the Corellians would call this hand differently due to the name of the Idiot. What about "Sylop Spike"?.
According to the classic rules, such a hand would beat all others.
(I also thought of the extreme version of only having both Sylops. But as the sum is also zero, it's basically just a "Pure Sabacc". Surely this one would also rank above a Pure Sabacc with Aces, but below the "Idiot's Array")
Role of the Sylops:
I don't think a Sylop should be mandatory for any hand except the Idiot's Array. But of course a Sylop might decide many games! In case of a draw, a hand including a Sylop will always beat a similar hand without one. And as the Sylops add to the total number of cards in a hand, they are a quite valuable.
Winning the pots:
I haven't calculated the probabilites for the different hands, so I'm not sure if the same conditions may be applied as in classic Sabacc. Of course it can be played out similarly:
The Sabacc-Pot is won by any player who wins a game be eiter a Sabacc or an Idiot's Array. (If testplaying shows that these conditions are too likely, then maybe we can alter it to "Pure Sabacc". But I guess a probability of 1:5 up to 1:10 in any game should be practical, because you would want to give the Sabacc-Pot to someone in a given evening of playing. If it is too unlikely, let's say 1:50, then the Sabacc-Pot will have to remain unwon for days to weeks. That won't be fun...)
Additional thoughts:
- In the rare case of exact identical hands of any pure suit, maybe we could think of kind of a"Stone-Paper-Scissors"- way of deciding which one wins. Let's say Coin beats Sabre, Sabre beats Stave and Stave beats Coin?
-Anyway in case of a draw, a "Sudden Demise" might be played out by both players drawing cards and declaring the one as the winner whose number is lowest. (Might be repeated until definetely decided).
- Protecting cards from shifting: Similar to classic Sabacc it should be possible to prevent cards from being shifted if you just place them openly in front of you. But when and how many? According to the classic rules, you should only be allowed to secure (or take back) one card per round. But only during playing rounds? Or also during betting? Not sure yet.
So that's what I got so far.
Ideas and comments welcome!
Last edited:
Hello everyone! So, I joined these boards just so I could post here. You guys have been doing nice (very nice) work, and in very little time no less! 
Although I'm very interested in the Solo-style game, we don't know how it can be used to play "regular" sabacc, so I'm more interested in an accurate reproduction of the Rebels-style game, a.k.a. the one from Anaheim. Has anyone made a printable sheet of it?
I did find something here, but although it greatly resembles the Anaheim deck, it's not quite accurate enough for my taste.
P.S. I wish LFL had ever released a complete "Naboo-style" deck. The few cards we've seen of such decks are GOR-GEOUS.
Although I'm very interested in the Solo-style game, we don't know how it can be used to play "regular" sabacc, so I'm more interested in an accurate reproduction of the Rebels-style game, a.k.a. the one from Anaheim. Has anyone made a printable sheet of it?
I did find something here, but although it greatly resembles the Anaheim deck, it's not quite accurate enough for my taste.
P.S. I wish LFL had ever released a complete "Naboo-style" deck. The few cards we've seen of such decks are GOR-GEOUS.
Aliaz
Active Member
Some very good ideas here!
Ante to both the hand and sabacc pot sounds good. Should they be the same amount? Are antes raised during the course of the game?
I think that three rounds (one round being a play round (draw or discard a card or stand), roll of the dice and then betting) sounds good. I'm not sure on the calling though, does a player specifically have to call a hand or can they just match the bet to follow along to the next round of play? Like in Texas hold'em, I think the round should always go for three rounds and then a show of cards.
I like the part about players folding paying a fine, should keep people playing hands instead of playing it safe. It should be the same amount as the ante IMO.
As for the winning hands, I think we should not overcomplicate it. "Pure Sabacc" Two aces of opposite color (or four like you suggested but that is unlikely to happend) are the best, with a Sylop making it even better. Just having Two Sylops being even better.
As for a straight or pairs, I think that is to complicated. Do they mention a Straight of Staves in the movie? I think it should just be a "Pure Sabacc" and then any kind of "Sabacc" aslong as you get zero. And if two people have it, number of cards/total value of the cards if the number of cards are the same. If everything matches (very unlikely) it should be a draw of cards, the one drawing the lowest number winning. That should be the case for any kind of draw. After those hands it just moves to the one closest to zero to win the hand pot.
I like the idea for the Idiot's Array. The name should be the same though, something about winning with a hand called the Idiot just feels good. And I agree about the sylops, they should automatically make a hand better. Which they kinda do by themselves, since it adds a card to your total card count.
The Sabacc pot should be won by any player that wins with Sabacc or Idiots Array. I don't see a reason why this can't happened more than once per game, since the pot will be refilled with every hand. Since the game should be played like poker in that you play until only one player has credits left, the amount in the Sabacc pot can stay untouched and the game can still end.
I think the drawing of cards to decide a draw is better than ranking the suits.
If you want to protect a card against shifting, it should be done only in a playing round, before the dice are rolled. And I think that should be your only action in that case, place the card openly in front of you, but you can't take or discard a card if you do. Plus this adds to the mind game against other players and put's pressure on them to fold if you protect and ace for instance. Maybe sylops should be excluded from protection?
Thanks for the comments! Regarding the different forms of winning hand - there is surely no need to make it too complicated from the start. Actually I don't know yet how common the different hands might be in actual gaming rounds. The Solo-Movie just left me wondering how they ranked their hands (which seemingly where both Sabaccs in the important games). After I receive my deck I'm planning to do a lot of test-playing to get a feel for it. After all these are just proposals for ranking and discussing them with you all is really important for me. ;-)
I like your thoughts to the protection of cards! Placing a card openly instead of doing anything else sounds reasonable. But I would also allow it for the Sylops, because that's just the fun part! Intimidating your opponents by showing your Sylop should be a viable strategic step.
On winning the pots: maybe me mentioning the odds was too confusing. I think we both mean the same: Having somebody win the Sabacc-Pot should be quite likely to keep the game fun. So any form of Sabacc or an Idiot's Array should win the pot.
Do you have any idea for implementing the "bombing out" part into Corellian Spike? I'd like to add some equivalent to this effect, but didn't come up with anything playable yet. (As all players are trying to aim for zero, there is no real way of "overshooting"...)
Hello everyone! So, I joined these boards just so I could post here. You guys have been doing nice (very nice) work, and in very little time no less!
Although I'm very interested in the Solo-style game, we don't know how it can be used to play "regular" sabacc, so I'm more interested in an accurate reproduction of the Rebels-style game, a.k.a. the one from Anaheim. Has anyone made a printable sheet of it?
I did find something here, but although it greatly resembles the Anaheim deck, it's not quite accurate enough for my taste.
P.S. I wish LFL had ever released a complete "Naboo-style" deck. The few cards we've seen of such decks are GOR-GEOUS.
View attachment 822156 View attachment 822157
There are some guys on reddit who made a quite accurate deck. Their free-to-share-link to the complete deck is here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B62WplduZvqmdktRWHNjNUNjXzg
The problem is that such high values are quite unlikely - unless you get such a hand after a Sabacc-Shift. In this case you would be kind of punished in a double way. The original version seems to be based on the idea that you would want to aim for a total of 23 - but not more. If you aim for zero but end up with -2 that's still not bad in Corellian Spike. So it's hard to find something that resembles the aspects of Basic Sabacc and is still playable in Correlian Spike.
But maybe we just gotta playtest this!
It does look more accurate than an earlier version I've seen. The only remaining differences I can spot at a glance are the coin and flask symbols. (There's also the fact that the background isn't white, but I guess that's a case of personal preference.) I guess the only way to make it more 'i.e. 100% accurate) is to trace everything from an Anaheim deck. (See below a scan of the the Anaheim cards describing the rules, terms, and card symbols.)
BlastedBiggs138
New Member
You should join us over on the Sabacc-discussion dedicated subreddit: reddit.com/r/StarWarsSabacc I've been wanting to steer the discussion to standard Sabacc over there too as I think we've nearly got Corellian Spike figured out.. We just need to playtest it!Hello everyone! So, I joined these boards just so I could post here. You guys have been doing nice (very nice) work, and in very little time no less!
Although I'm very interested in the Solo-style game, we don't know how it can be used to play "regular" sabacc, so I'm more interested in an accurate reproduction of the Rebels-style game, a.k.a. the one from Anaheim. Has anyone made a printable sheet of it?
I did find something here, but although it greatly resembles the Anaheim deck, it's not quite accurate enough for my taste.
P.S. I wish LFL had ever released a complete "Naboo-style" deck. The few cards we've seen of such decks are GOR-GEOUS.
View attachment 822156 View attachment 822157
TB-7021
Sr Member
Love your analyses Great work already! I've also been thinking about the rules. Here is my take on it:
THE DECK
"The deck consists of 30 green cards, 30 red cards, and 2 blue cards. The greens and reds are numbered 1 to 10, and there are three of each. The blues are both numbered zero."
This is consistent with what the visual dictionary tells us.
"Corellian Spike rules favor a 62-card deck, with cards ranging in value from -10 to 10, and two zero-value cards known as sylops (Old Corellian for "idiots")
In my opinion, these are the most logical card values. There are no coins, staves, stars or any other named cards in Corellian Spike other than the Sylops.
SETUP
Except for the bounty tokens, these rules do not change. Instead of the Token Stack, there is a Hand Pot and a Sabacc Pot.
The two pots are mentioned in the visual dictionary.
"The object of Corellian Spikesabacc is to achieve a card total closest to zero. Two pots accumulate in value during a game, with hand pot won each round."
Ending a game by drawing a total of exactly zero is way to easy. We should scratch this. There are better ways to win the Sabacc Pot as mention in previous comments.
HOW TO PLAY
1. DRAW PHASE
This part of 'how to play' is useful. No need to change anything here.
2. SPIKE PHASE
The Spike Phase is the same in both the visual dictionary and the Hasbro game. There are no mentions of ways the protect cards from shifting. Corellian Spike might be an older, less modern version of Sabacc without the protection rules. So we can keep this part of the classic Sabacc out.
3. BETTING PHASE
This part sounds pretty similar to Texas Hold'm. "I'll see your bet and I'll raise you, two-thousand", "I'll see your two-thousand and I'll raise you however much this is". "And I'm calling". In the second game Lando's says "If you fold now, you'll walk away with enough to buy your own ship. If you call, I'm gonna clean you out again".
Fold, Call, Raise, Bet.
REPEAT TWO MORE TIMES
"The round is then over and all players reveal their cards at the same time."
WINNING A ROUND
Best hand wins.
Here are all the possible hands as mentioned in the game or in the movie:
GOOD HANDS
VERY GOOD HANDS
BEST HANDS
Nope, not listening to the Hasbro game here. The movie showed us a Strait Staves and a Pure Sabacc. Does that mean we have these options?
In all cases, the player with the highest value card wins. If the values are the same, the player with the highest positive card wins. I both players still have the same, they both draw a card, highest drawn card wins.
WINNING THE GAME!
Not the Hasbro-way. Texas Hold'm style, When one player takes all the credits.
So, yeah, I think this version is a lot simpler and sticks closer to known info about Corellian Spike. The rules others have suggested are closer to classic Sabacc I think.
Great work already! I've also been thinking about the rules. Here is my take on it:THE DECK
"The deck consists of 30 green cards, 30 red cards, and 2 blue cards. The greens and reds are numbered 1 to 10, and there are three of each. The blues are both numbered zero."
This is consistent with what the visual dictionary tells us.
"Corellian Spike rules favor a 62-card deck, with cards ranging in value from -10 to 10, and two zero-value cards known as sylops (Old Corellian for "idiots")
In my opinion, these are the most logical card values. There are no coins, staves, stars or any other named cards in Corellian Spike other than the Sylops.
SETUP
Except for the bounty tokens, these rules do not change. Instead of the Token Stack, there is a Hand Pot and a Sabacc Pot.
The two pots are mentioned in the visual dictionary.
"The object of Corellian Spikesabacc is to achieve a card total closest to zero. Two pots accumulate in value during a game, with hand pot won each round."
Ending a game by drawing a total of exactly zero is way to easy. We should scratch this. There are better ways to win the Sabacc Pot as mention in previous comments.
HOW TO PLAY
1. DRAW PHASE
This part of 'how to play' is useful. No need to change anything here.
2. SPIKE PHASE
The Spike Phase is the same in both the visual dictionary and the Hasbro game. There are no mentions of ways the protect cards from shifting. Corellian Spike might be an older, less modern version of Sabacc without the protection rules. So we can keep this part of the classic Sabacc out.
3. BETTING PHASE
This part sounds pretty similar to Texas Hold'm. "I'll see your bet and I'll raise you, two-thousand", "I'll see your two-thousand and I'll raise you however much this is". "And I'm calling". In the second game Lando's says "If you fold now, you'll walk away with enough to buy your own ship. If you call, I'm gonna clean you out again".
Fold, Call, Raise, Bet.
REPEAT TWO MORE TIMES
"The round is then over and all players reveal their cards at the same time."
WINNING A ROUND
Best hand wins.
Here are all the possible hands as mentioned in the game or in the movie:
GOOD HANDS
VERY GOOD HANDS
BEST HANDS
Nope, not listening to the Hasbro game here. The movie showed us a Strait Staves and a Pure Sabacc. Does that mean we have these options?
In all cases, the player with the highest value card wins. If the values are the same, the player with the highest positive card wins. I both players still have the same, they both draw a card, highest drawn card wins.
WINNING THE GAME!
Not the Hasbro-way. Texas Hold'm style, When one player takes all the credits.
So, yeah, I think this version is a lot simpler and sticks closer to known info about Corellian Spike. The rules others have suggested are closer to classic Sabacc I think.
TB-7021
Sr Member
I've made a Google docs file with better graphics.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k4KbfVqM7OTXEqv1DlP6VXBgL7-laHLSWqIoJsWr1ek/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k4KbfVqM7OTXEqv1DlP6VXBgL7-laHLSWqIoJsWr1ek/edit?usp=sharing
Cool! That already looks like real game instructions!
(Nice one to integrate the "Sylop Spike"
)I still somehow have the feeling that "Straight Staves" is a strange name for the shown array, but as this is what is seen in the movie, I guess we'll have to go with it.
Would be great, if we figure out some more general logic for ranking the combinations while integrating Han's hand from the movie, but so far I haven't come up with anything better...
So just gotta wait for the cards and go for extensive test gaming!! ;-)
