Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] Icehouse Rules video

  • Fromdean@xxxxxxxxxx
  • DateWed, 18 Jul 2007 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT)
It's been a while since I've read the  rules online, when I read them they
made sense, but couldn't ever get from making sense to an actual game,
mostly because it involved me teaching a game I've never played, with
folks that wouldn't give it a shot if they had to read the rules too. I'm
not sure if that makes sense or not.

Listening to Eeyore explain the rules, following along with his hand outs,
it made sense, and didn't seem nearly as complicated in my head. And for
of us who had never played before were able to play a complete game
relatively easily.  It helped having  Eeyore there to bounce questions off
of, but they were more strategy and logistics than rules questions.

To that end, I think that an Icehouse 101 video would be most excellent. 
It'd be like having our own personal Eeyore, there to explain Icehouse to
Noobs.... and how many people wouldn't want their own personal Eeyore?

I didn't get to attend the 201, so I would rather see a 201 video before
seeing a 101, but I'm sure that's not the case for most people.

One of the things in Eeyores handouts that stood out to me was the clarity
and attention to detail that he put in the pictures, especially seeing
them in color on the laptop.  I would hope that the video would be filmed
in the same manner, on a plain white background/light tent - with as few
pieces involved in the examples as possible.

I'd love to hear from folks who've actually learned from the printed rules.

On Tue, July 17, 2007 5:41 pm, Elliott C. Evans wrote:
> Joshua Kronengold wrote:
>> I need to check in the book, but I do think that over-icing needs to
>> be clarified as previously discussed.  "if you could remove a piece
>> and have it still be iced" is too ambiguous.
> Yes, that's ambiguous; yes, you need to check in the book.
> PwP, p. 89:
>  > If so many attackers are pointing at a defender that some of them are
>  > extraneous, that defender is said to be ?Over-Iced?.
>  >
>  > An attacking piece is extraneous if subtracting its value from the
>  > total value of the attacking pieces leaves a number that still exceeds
>  > the value of the defensive piece.
> My apologies to class attendees if I was unclear when describing this
> rule in the class. The hand-outs use the same text as the book. (I just
> don't have it memorized verbatim. =^)
> --
> Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans
> eeyore@xxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse