News Shop
Events Chat

A couple of rules questions

Cross-posted from

Do I interpret the “Add” ability correctly:
I’m the last to act in the abilities phase. No one chose Add before.

I chose Add twice.
I draw 6th community card with the first Add ability.
I draw one more card with the second Add ability. If I like the new card better I can replace it. If I do not like the new card better I can discard it.

Is this correct?

How do Cassy and Bunny Hop Hotel interact?
We skip to the last betting phase, does this mean that this gambit Cassy’s special is useless?

Thank you in advance!

That’s right!

Correct. Cassy’s ability does nothing in Bunny Hop Hotel.

1 Like

A rules question from me: For Jokers Wild Resort, in what manner does the Splash “always contain a Joker”?

Does this mean that there is an imaginary 4th card dealt that is a Joker?

Does it mean that you can treat any one card in the Splash as a Joker?

1 Like

I think it means you always set aside the joker and put it in the splash.


As Bober says, put aside the joker and put it in the splash ^^

1 Like

Bober Fett
Bonty Huter


Ooops <3

stupid 10 character rules

1 Like

Thank you, @Bomber678 & @neigutten.

1 Like

btw, this Kickstarter update specifies that for Joker’s Wild Resort, the joker is specifically included as one of the three Splash cards, not a fourth additional card.

1 Like

Oops, I thought I included this link before:

Pandante kickstarter update

1 Like

With my new group Pandante does not seem to take off, because people “insisting” on never bluffing (well, not really insisting but no one ever bluffs), yet, each single hotsit gets challenged despite the tripple cost.

This is totally not fun to play this way, you just depend on the luck of the draw. Trying to bluff in this group is counter-productive, because you know you will get challenged no matter what.

That sounds pretty frustrating. Is it not even worth doing modest bluffs for the cheaper snacks?

I feel like you need to point out that they’re throwing away a lot of gold when they challenge a truth-teller, enough that the person who wins the pot goes from getting a small lead to being about to win even after just the first hand. It’s meant to be something they only do if they’re certain someone is lying, so if they’re doing it all the time they probably don’t understand just how bad a move it is.

Is it the same person who always challenges? Do multiple people often try to challenge at once? Or is it just that whenever one happens to not challenge the other decides that’s a good time to try challenging? Figuring out if there’s any patterns might help you find a solution too.

Perhaps a house rule could help, something like “if you challenge a truth-teller you only get one private card in the next gambit” seems like it would be extreme enough that they’ll finally be hesitant to pull the trigger (although I’d only do that as a last resort).

1 Like

Caveat: I haven’t played Pandante.

If the cost to challenging truth tellers is so high, shouldn’t it be easy to punish the players doing it in a way that makes it obvious that doing it is a bad move? How easy is it to exploit their willingness to challenge?

1 Like

The best way to punish is to never challenge anyone, because that means they’re constantly giving away gold. But even then, you’re somewhat at the mercy of the table to play rationally. In the long run, you’ll win over them by not challenging, because you don’t give out gold during the challenge phase and they do. By the odds of play, you’ll get lucky frequently enough that some of that challenge money will be going to you when they challenge you.

If that eventually leads to a meta where nobody challenges, you can now start bluffing some of the time, and now things are headed for a shifting equilibrium.


So this is a three players game, me and two others. I’m guessing that I contributed to this dynamic too, because I also challenged alot. In most pots we saw two challenges. Later in the game, I started passing the challenge, because the other person would inevitably challenge, that worked so far, but it does not help with winning.

So why did I challange in the first place? Because when we started I was not sure about peoples bluffing habbits. Then one time when I became aware of them I challenged because I thought that I might have a winning hand because chances of the hotsit holding a better one in my eyes were quite low so I had to challenge.

I pointed out repeatedly that with 3 people you have to cough up 15 golds for wrong challenge but it does not seem to make impact. Ironically, if people do not have a good hand they fold (happened more than once), and yet, the hotsit who did not fold gets challenged (and wins).

And you are right that sometimes a person wins a game from the very first pot - that happened.

Well in a weeks time another two people will join so we will be playing with 5; 25 is a bit more steeper than 15, and also may be the “new” people will shake things up. We’ll see how it goes. Thank you everyone for the responses.


Will fairy pay if some one raised and I don’t have 5 gold? Or do I have to fold?

Good question, I’m not exactly sure. My gut tells me you shouldn’t be able to choose an option that requires more money than you have, which would mean you’re forced into folding. (I say this because if you can go into “debt”, there’s nothing stopping you from power-debting into Snacks, although I guess constantly skipping gambits is a problem. And it means you’re also very low on gold frequently.)

Of course, any mandatory expenditure of gold (like when challenged) could put you below zero, and I’m thinking that possibly even the Community card “pay 5 gold if replacing someone’s card” is phrased as an effect, not a condition of taking the action, so that would work too.

Honestly, at my table, I’d be okay ruling that you can voluntarily put yourself to 0 gold. You’re already putting yourself at a significant disadvantage by doing so.

In the situation discribed the reason of not wanting to fold is hope of winning the pot of course, which I think is reasonable. (As opposed to “putting yourself at a significant disadvantage by doing so”).

1 Like

Yeah, although you’re probably not winning the game off of that gambit if you go down to 0 gold or less in the process. And with the added skip of the next gambit, you could wind up in a really bad position indeed.