Talk:Viking Secret Wildcard Poker

From LoadingReadyWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I added the Basic Gameplay of the game. Not to be an annoying person but please be aware of what they said in the podcast. I can't totally remember what that is though -.-. Think it's something along the lines of Calvinball. - Exachix.

I think we have to accept that it may not be possible for the actual VSWP game to incorporate all of the gibberish and nonsense from the Poker Before Dusk video. Where possible, try to make them line up, but if something in the video makes zero sense for the game and you can't reconcile them, don't worry about it. I'd rather have a game that can be played than one that perfectly matches the video.

--Tim 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exachix; Indeed. However, it should be that we can include as much from the video as we can, making use of the 'You can *Blah* on a *Day*/*You are sitting to the right of the dealer*/*You are wearing sunglasses*'. I think that should be exploited.

On that subject, it should be playable, however complicated.

My hope is that if VSWP is ever played in the real wold it will be so complicated that it will have to be played by teams. Each player will have a support team of several people just to sort through all the rules and make suggestions. There also would have to be some sort of referee (probably also with a research team) to settle disputes. -Paul 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Once this is set up enough to be played, I will attempt to set up a game on the forum, or maybe the IRC would work better (In the IRC, you know everybody's there, but the forum would allow more time for much-needed research). Pit cards would be dealt through PM, everything else would be open. Other than Monty Python, I think I have all the cards in the video for me to deal with, (although not Vaevictus Asmati specifically. Sadly I had to part with most of my cards a few years ago, but I still have a couple decks lying around).--Master Gunner 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I like seeing that people have added a couple of more "special rules," and these are the ones I really think we should exploit for the ridiculousness of the game. However, some of the stuff about reversals and whatnot and "temporal paradoxes" is not something that allows the game to remain playable.

Bear in mind that I will be simplifying or modifying some of these things to allow the game to continue to be playable. I'm not trying to squash your creativity or anything, ok? No hard feelings. : )

Also, in reference to Paul's quote, Paul is a very silly man. In the interest of making the game playable, complexity will be supported, but not the level of complexity that literally requires multiple referees and "research teams." He was using hyperbole to be funny.

I'm the one who did the rainy day reversals bit - I was listening to the podcast at the time and Paul was mentioning Mornington Crescent, so I wasn't sure how silly/playable you wanted the rules to be. I do think "reversing play" in a game like Viking Secret Wildcard Poker should change more than just the order of play, but feel free to mess around with those rules. Kristopf 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Things That Need to be Done:

  • Create and write up the different hand gestures for all of the Bet Multipliers.
  • Figure out how M:tG cards work. How is mana accumulated, and how does it affect the special effects of different types of M:tG cards when they are dealt into the Knuckle?
  • Come up with more Clue combinations with different effects.

--Tim 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm just creating an image/diagram for the Sequence of the bet multipliers.

Also, maybe to keep the game playable with all sets we should forgo the mana... or create additional sections below the normal text (and above the history, which I may devise soon) for 'expansions', using the additional Card sets (Mtg, Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, etc etc).

I also propose to add a 'Terminoligy' Section.

Exachix, the image is great! I was hoping someone would do that. There are a couple of typos, but that's minor. *shrug*

Oh, and there is a Terminology section at the bottom. I called "Notes and Terminology."

I think I'll create a forum thread to help us discuss the core of the game and to direct more people here.

--Tim 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

new rule

items, including clothes, must have a tag on them in order to prove their worth, if the item does not have a tag on it, then it is worth half of it's original price. Items such as car keys include the cars that they go to, and anything, inanimate or otherwise, is also included.

@Flanman: I think that would probably be a bit complicated. Also, there's already a rule for determining the value of an object being introduced as a betting item. Thanks, though!

--Tim 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the rule for Sir Robin's Minstrels? Or the Elder Dragons for that matter? Since we put a "less than 3 base value cards" requirement for Gargle, and the 3 and the 8 are base value cards, SR's Minstrels AND the Elder dragon can't be a base value card (but Magic normally are - their mana cost).

--VanSlick 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Different card games

Don't forget to add systems for values of cards from games other than Uno, Magic and Happy Families! Such as, Star Trek CCG.

As an aside, I don't know if Magic cards need to be limited to the Knuckle deal. I sort of figured they could show up anywhere, but you're already so far along with everything, I wouldn't worry about it. Suffice to say I love where this is going.


It was mentioned somewhere that we may need to make seperate pages for the seperate add-ons to the game, e.g. Mtg, etc etc, rather than have it in the main section of the work. I sort of would like this for ease.

I will re-update the graphic soon. May make more.


I like the bet multiplier diagram, but I feel that the line should have arrows on them to indicate the progression. This would make it easier to read.

I am a little confused as to how the Clue cards work. Currently, they form their own separate decks to be played during the Flaps. Does this mean that there is automatically one stack of Clue cards (person, object, place) played as part of the Flaps? That seems too predictable to me. I would suggest shuffling the character cards in with the general deck and keeping the others separate. If a character card is played, then the dealer places the object and location on it from the separate piles. This also means that character cards can turn up in other rounds.

Davefp 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea for the Clue cards, dave, except that it means there needs to be a whole new system for how to deal with them if they are dealt into a player's Pit cards. Which is fine, I guess. If you come up with a way to handle Clue cards in a player's Pit, then go ahead and make that change.

--Tim 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tak: I rearranged your rule a little to make it clearer and allow it to have more of a practical effect on the game, without unjustly rewarding or punishing players who drink or do not drink (certain types of) alcohol. If you don't like my change, feel free to rework it again.

--Tim 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@VanSlick: I undid your change to the rule about UNO wild cards coming up in the Pants position. Normally I would say your change to it was a good one and would make the game more balanced, but I made that rule in order to explain how Paul was able to win all of Bill's chips in the video. Normally, Paul should have been able to win $25,000 chips from Bill, but something made it so that Bill had to give Paul all of his billions of chips. The UNO wildcard Pants rule was what I used to explain that.

Of course, Bill actually pushes all of his chips in when Paul makes the Gargle bet, so maybe that should somehow explain the whole thing... If you can come up with a reasonable way for Gargle to make someone have to put all their chips in, even when they have the other player covered, then we can change the "UNO wildcard in the Pants" rule to what you put.

--Tim 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tim: The problem persists however that a Uno WIld Card could come up on the first hand when all players are still in on a low hand, and end the game on the first deal. This would make the original Vikings very upset and angry.

I thought that a Head's Up version of Gargle would account for this. Bill looked ASTONISHED when Gargle came up, but it would have been no more than 2x more than his own chips after he flipped (even though he was already pushing Paul past his total), which would have already been WAY more than Paul had. Thus there must be a cause/effect: I suggested that the Gargle in "Helmets Off" (= to Heads UP) force a player to put in ALL his chips, but gives that player an advantage (4 Community/1Pit OR 3 COmmunity/2Pit). The Uno could nullifies this, thus Paul looks so smug when it comes up.

I was actually thinking of coming up with some additional "Helmets Off" variants to the BM.

--VanSlick 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Came up with an idea for the Clue cards. Suspect cards go in, but if one WOULD be dealt the the player's Pit, it just gets burned to the bottom of the deck. I updated 3 spots where Clue cards occur.

--VanSlick 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Gargle requirements slightly so that fewer than three regular playing cards have to be on the table, rather than three base value cards. Does that work?

I like what you've done, VanSlick. I may tweak a couple of wordings here and there at some point, but it's good stuff.

--Tim 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes to the wording of the Clue section to make it coherent: Clue cards are only allowed in the community cards, not just the Flaps. Also added a bit more explanation of what happens when a Clue Suspect appears as a community card.

There is a snag, however: In the video, only the Candlestick is placed on top of Col. Mustard (the Suspect), there is no Location played as our rules currently state. My solution is to shuffle all the Location and Weapon cards together in a single pile and only draw one to place on the Suspect. This means there will either be a weapon OR a location played. This would make the ruleset consistent again. HOWEVER: There is already a rule covering the case where both the Knife and the Kitchen are played in the same stack. I don't want to just wipe this rule out, so I'm going to make a couple of suggestions here: Instead of requiring Kitchen + Knife, we switch it to either Mrs. White (the cook) + Kitchen or Mrs. White + Knife.

--Davefp 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Knife: Earlier I accounted for Colonel Mustard and his lack of a room card - this will also negate the chance of a weapon/location match being made while he's played. Basically, you don't play a room card with the Colonel. (which is plausible since these cards are kept separate).

@In General I've been thinking on the Minstrels card. Right now, prior to the Secret Card, Paul was sitting at (8+8+3)*3*4 = 228. But Graham says it is close. So have to come up with a way to boost Bill's score(Since he has to remove a special effect, and wastes a card with a Joker - destroying his chance for a good score yet he bids strongly (assuming he's not bluffing).

So since they were force to eat Robin's Minstrels (and there was much rejoicing) I think that this card should sacrifice itself for a positive outcome. Since we know Jokers are anti-wilds, but they are also entertainers, Robin's Minstrels could actually cause the Jokers to become significant multipliers (MUCH rejoicing). Say...(x4)? This would bring it up to a (8+3+(8*2))*4.

Also, giving Suspects points based on the difference in the number of letters between the weapon and the room( 11 in this case since no room) would make the playing field much better: Paul: (11+8+8)*3*4 = 324 Bill: (2(11)+8+8) * 4 = 152

Finally, rather than multiplying multipliers (3 * 4 = *12) I think it would be better to add consecutive multiples (so a *2 and a *2 would be = *4). This makes it a little less unreasonable This would be the final totals to: (11+8+8)*(3+4) = 189 (2(11)+8+8)*4 = 152 And there we go - close hand, new rules, AND everything works together (sans figuring out what that dragon did, but it should just help very little and it solves the problem.

Appendum: I THOUGHT I put the Colonel Mustard rule in: If Colonel Mustard is played, his commanding presence is not restricted to a single room. Only play a weapon card on him (ability with said weapon is improved - military training, you see).

--VanSlick 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@VanSlick Interesting idea about Col. Mustard. It certainly works, but my preference would be for a general rule rather than a specific one in this case. My thinking is that the commentators in the video didn't seem at all excited or compelled to comment at the lack of a Location card. This suggests that a single card is the norm rather than the exception. Also, it makes the whole thing a little more streamlined (although I guess that's not really the point of this :P ).

Just noticed that the diagram and the descriptions of the Bet Multipliers don't match up. Whoever wrote those entries should go back and make sure everything is consistent.

--Davefp 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Davefp: True, but the commentators did make a general exclaim at the Flaps, and if Colonel Mustard is NEVER played with a location, not seeing one wouldn't make that much rustle.

Added "Optional Game Pieces" section. Added Jokers to Optional Game pieces.

Optional Game pieces entries should link to the pertinent rules for that set of pieces, wether that be just a section of the main page, or a seperate page. I will work on this at a later date. --MadAlric 03:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I reccomend that all VSWP-related rules pages be prefixed with something such as VSWP:. EG "VSWP:Magic: the Gathing cards." This should help to prevent the VSWP main page from becoming too large.

Added rules for Fluxx 'Rules' cards. Reccomend Fluxx cards not be played in this game until rules are finalized for all card types. It may be prudent to note that Fluxx cards have similar colors to Uno cards. Card color/suit may start to play a large role in this game. The new rules may need to be copyedited and revised for clarity. --MadAlric 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished up rules for Fluxx Keeper, Goal, and Action cards. Feel free to add aditional rules for any cards I didn't write specific rules for. I think I'll work on Risk cards next. --MadAlric 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

updated Fluxx card rules in order to be consistent with current vocabulary. --MadAlric 09:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see both a Weapon and a Room played on top of a suspect card, because it's more complete and allows for more variables. The rule about Colonel Mustard only getting a weapon explains the situation in the video and is an interesting twist.

This is my personal opinion, but I think people are getting a bit too worried about reconciling things to the video. They say so much complete gibberish and nonsense in the video that I don't think we can tie ourselves too literally to what happens there. We can only go so far.

In fact, I'm thinking about making it a rule that commentators are required to make up as many meaningless terms as possible while commentating on the game. They are actually not allowed to make very much sense. This would allow for discrepancies, and would be a heck of a lot of fun, IMO.

--Tim 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tim: Oh ye of little faith. I've almost finished defining all the slang they used - got 2 left I need to work out. Just going back through it again to make sure I didn't miss something. Also, I'm going to put those previous revisions I mentioned above in, so NOTE: large revision coming up (once I finish writing down this new terminology).

<Not timestamped till I post my revisions.>

Ok, there. Revisions added are as follows:

  • Added an extensive Terminology section (accounting for everything in the video and more)
  • Added the multipliers added together rule (x3 & x4 = x7, not x12)
  • Added Sir Robin's Minstrels into the "Holy Grail Cards" section - if someone knows the actual set name its from, please correct it.
  • Updated the rule to allow Magic cards to be played in any position.

--VanSlick 08:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Please correct the list of optional game pieces and link to the "Holy Grail" header if corrections are made to the set name.

--MadAlric 08:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the correct full name of the Monty Python game. Monty Python and the Holy Grail CCG. I will be updating the VSWP main page with this information. --MadAlric 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a page for the Monty Python game, and set up the links in the main article. --MadAlric 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is getting large enough that the wiki software is starting to give me warnings. We should consider moving rules for specific sets of optional pieces to their own pages within the wiki. MadAlric

Added Non-Card Game Pieces header. We need some HeroClix/HorrorClix/MageKnight players to chip in here. Maybe some Warhammer 40k? Jenga? Scrabble? DnD Miniatures? Maybe LEGO Bricks have a place in this game.

Side note: we need to determine how card color and suit affects gameplay. How does a Red one differ from a Blue one in effect? Do Fluxx cards have additional effects not yet noted (they have colors, depending on card type)? Does a 2 of spades tie a Green 2?

Mostly I'm just brainstorming here. I'll need to get to bed before too long. --MadAlric 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking up some rules for Settlers of Catan Resource Cards (Wood, Rock, Clay, Wheat, Sheep). Hopefully I'll have something up by the end of the day.

--Davefp 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved the optional card sets to their own page. Some formatting needs to be done, I suggest a template to replace the first line describing what the page is for.

Thank you! I have corrected the Links in the Optional Game Pieces header under the Overview to match this change. --MadAlric 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So I'm thinking sometime in the next few days there should be a rule freeze for a little while so we can do some playtesting. After a couple of actual games have happened, then we can reevaluate and see if any modifications need to be made.

Right now, it's all theory-crafting, and while that's fun, it's impractical.

So consider this a warning: if I think it's necessary, I may impose a freeze on new rules so that we can test the system. I'll let everyone know before I do it.

--Tim 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tim: Why don't we see if we can get a table and do a test at Gottacon? Also prior to a rule freeze the following should be resolved:

  • Points for Colour combos (all of one colour or suit) and full house
  • Clarification: Do base value of multiple sets match together (ie - Uno's Red 3 + 3 of hearts = Colour combo, Pair Combo?)
  • Definitions of the Elder Dragons

Clarified/removed rules which were marked as unclear or as not in keeping with the "rules about rules." --MadAlric 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Magic card page, added some preliminary descriptions for the Elder Dragon Legends. --VanSlick 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a consistent page template that can be applied to all current and future add-on deck pages. I'm prototyping it over on the Settlers of Catan page. Comments/Suggestions are welcome --Davefp 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What does the page template consist of? I'm currently working on formatting and editing the Fluxx page for consistency both internally, and with the main article. The only thing is, the formatting within the main article is consistent within sections, but overall depends on who wrote which section. --MadAlric 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Settlers page looks good. I've been trying to follow your template for the Fluxx page. I also started the page for Category:VSWP_Add-on_Deck. --MadAlric 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Added notes that "base value" and "rank" are essentially the same term. Merged multiple "Multiplier cards" sections. Added definitions of terms "rank," "base value," "multiplier," and "bet multiplier," as well as links to the appropriate sections into the terminology section. We need to finish filling out the terminology section with terms used in the rules, and synonyms. What I've added is a start, but I'm sure there's more that needs to be added. --MadAlric 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)