On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 06:19:52AM -0400, Adam Kopczenski wrote: > Apologies for the attachment. (I tried to keep it tiny.) > > Is this what you're describing? (Notice the very slight overlap between the > small and medium pieces.) Yes, or see Chris's picture. > This feels like an unintended consequence of the definition of a unit. Maybe > change the definition to "a group of connected pieces, at most one of which > is both grounded and non-poised"? It's less ambiguous, and I don't think the > 5/5 supergroup would be possible that way. However, nests would now be > basically unacceptable (trees are still cool). I don't know if it's intended, or not. It seems like a perfectly reasonable unit to me, though. I don't think that eliminating this unit would help the situation, either. The attack 8/2 unit will also stalemate. If I build one, my prey can never score. The only thing my prey can do is prevent his prey from scoring, which is achievable with an 8/2, and so on, around the circle. Or, what if I just keep my original 2/8? My predator has no incentive to make himself vulnerable, because he cannot ever score against me. So it really seems as though no one should ever score unless someone else lets them. > (My inner refactoring nut is awake now.) Come to think of it, isn't your > total offense/defense just your number of offensive/defensive pips, plus > three, minus the number of groups? If you define it that way, you don't > technically need the "plus three" part in the definition (since relative > scores don't change), nor do you need the definition of a single unit's > offensive/defensive rating at all. I believe you are correct. -Jesse