Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Single Stash Games

  • FromJesse Welton <jwelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateWed, 13 Sep 2006 17:31:33 -0400
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

> (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.


Current Thread