Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

[Icehouse] Re: Trehouse set v. single stash

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 06 Apr 2007 09:46:37 -0700
>Zamboni Wars is currently under the CC "non-commercial" license.  I hereby
>grant a license for the purpose of your book (since that's technically a
>commercial use).

Glad to have permission, but I don't see how my making a PDF book (for
free) and Looney Labs hosting it for download (for free) adds up to
"commercial." Doesn't someone have to make money on the work itself? I
can't see how the fact that one must have TH/IH pieces to use the book

>RE: Opaques in TTD

My initial (minor, anecdotal, example for a larger issue) points about
the game not working "properly" were mainly a handling issue, which
others have conceded exists. If one must inspect under a stack, the
game is slowed down. Not broken, no. Not unplayable, no. But slowed. Is
it trivial to peek? Sure. Is a game working "perfectly" if you have to
touch pieces to check on the game state? No.

More so, suppose I want to step away from the game for a bit; upon
returning on my turn, I have to ask about the play, or remember the
WHOLE board and notice an opaque now covers a smaller, or peek. It's
just inelegant, IMO, as compared to playing with transparent pieces
(or, better still, playing with all large one color, all mediums
another, and all smalls another, as in the game rules).

But then I read:

>we noticed the problem with opaques and played a simple variant
>based on the principle "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist"
>in which a nest is considered indistinguishable from a
>single pyramid of the outermost size. Seemed to work, anyway.

Hmmm... so one could strategically nest over a small with a large
opaque--making the small not only not count and also "not exist"--then
tree it with another small later--because if the nested small doesn't
exist then it's not a nest and can be treed?

Definitely a variation worth documenting on the wiki. IF there was a
rule doing either what you and your daughter do OR an advisement
similar to the one in my last post, then TTD could be a SS-trans OR
SS-Tree... hmmm, or even a SS-Rand... "Tic Tac What?" - dump 5 TH
stashes into an opaque bag, and reach into it to choose pieces to play;
so you can choose size but not color/opacity. Play ends when there are
no more legal moves or someone gets 3 of same size in a row.

>The only time where opacity is a significant issue is where
>a) what's under the opaque piece is somehow secret information
>b) what's under the opaque piece is important to know and it's
>difficult to inspect it for some reason.

You cover two sides of the "significance" coin:

(a) would be a function of a game rule; (b) would be a detriment to
playing a game which does not normally call for opaques. Thus, (a)
would suggest/require a SS-opaque or SS-Tree game, while (b) would
preclude a TH set from being used.

Anyhow, I'm still wondering about changing wiki Categories....

Current Thread