I showed the v. 3 rules to a very intelligent mostly non-gamer, and he understood them all perfectly except, of course, dig. He also was a bit iffy on Swap, but got it right, assuming that right is what Zarf said above. For Dig, he thought it might not be able to go under other pieces, or might take them with it, or might only be able to 'scoop up' pieces pointing the same direction, etc. I showed him Zarf's proposed 'tunneling' version, and he understood it perfectly in an instant. I think that's the way to go.
On 1/27/06, Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Marc Hartstein wrote:
> It seems you may now only pass if you cannot perform the action on your
> own trio. Is this intended?
It's a clear wording change. I think it's a better game this way, too. (We
played a few rounds of v2 this week, and being able to always pass was a
safe-but-boring option. If I'm forced to make a negative move
occasionally, I have to rethink my strategy, which is more fun.)
The DIG rule still causes me to blink and stare. (I know, we keep
complaining...) Maybe "If its destination is occupied, it goes under the
piece that was already there (uprighting it, too)."
Or you could rewrite the whole thing to be more parallel to the HOP
construction (which is very clear). "A sideways piece tunnels down, and
surfaces upright at any spot in the line (where it was, or along the
direction it pointed). Stand up anything that it rises underneath."
Putting DIG after HOP would make this easier to assimilate.
> SWAP: I'm a little unclear on "if it must". Does that mean that if you
> have a lying down L pointing at an S stacked on top of an M and choose
> to SWAP the S and the L, the L reorients to be upright stacked on the M
> (it *must* reorient to be legal), but the S ends up upright next to them
> (this being a legal positions)? I had read the prior rules to suggest
> that each swapped piece reorients to face in the direction the other had
> be facing...if I was wrong, this is clearer, though still slightly
I think this is a change from the original rules, and yes, it is clearer.
(It's also a spot where the players *might* misinterpret it, but if they
do, they won't notice and they'll still be playing the game.)
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
If the Bush administration hasn't thrown you in military prison without trial,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're an American.
Icehouse mailing list