Honestly, so long as at least 1 player isn't a machine, I feel like it's
easy to just come to a draw in that case. I'd use 3 cycles of the loop
as signal for end-game. Count up point totals, and in the case of a tie,
count up the point total of the pieces you have in play, using half of
the disputed piece's point value.
While we're on the subject, does anyone have any good house rules for
Whenever I play 2-player gnostica, we play for 25 points... which means
that both players need to be much more defensive... so when war breaks
out towards the 25-pt mark, there's a lot more movement and stuff. We
were thinking about using 2 stashes each next game with a 35pt total....
but that's like signing up for a risk tournament!
Doug Orleans wrote:
In a 2-player game of Gnostica, it's possible (and pretty easy) to get
into a situation that would be a cycle (infinite loop): I create a
piece, you destroy it, I create the same piece, you destroy it again,
etc. I suspect that in most cases, there is something better for one
or the other player to do. But how should this be handled if both
players are convinced they will lose if they break the cycle? Should
there be something like Go's ko-rule, i.e. no repeated board
P.S. We were playing with the variant end-game rule: if you have 10 or
more points (including shared territories) at the beginning of your
turn, you may declare the game to be over, and everyone with 10 or
more points gets a shared victory. Would some other victory condition
prevent cycles somehow?
Icehouse mailing list