From Polarity

Current revision as of 17:31, 1 February 2006

Here's where to propose changes to the rules. Please include a quote of the text you are changing, how you would change it, how this affects gameplay or rules interpretation and why this change should be made.

Note that this is not the place to propose variants on the original game, only an improvement to the game itself. Variant rulesets or other changes that have a significant effect on gameplay should get their own pages.

Comments will be made by other users of the wiki. If there is substantial support for a proposal it will be included in this article's text.

[edit] Current Proposals

[edit] After A Fault Has Been Created

(No original text - Addition to current rules)

Addition (Alternative 1.):

• If the Fault caused discs to move fully outside the boundary circle without any other fault directly affecting those discs, those discs are left where they landed and the action disc is returned to the player's stack.

Alternative 2.:

• If the Fault caused discs to move fully outside the boundary circle without any other fault directly affecting those discs, those discs and the action disc are returned to the player's stack.

Alternative 3.:

• If the fault caused discs to move fully outside the boundary circle without any other fault directly affecting those discs, those discs must be captured by the opponent as you would for a tower.

Gameplay effects:

This should clarify a situation, but otherwise have no other affect on gameplay.

Notes:

Unfortunately, massive work needs to be done on the faults section and this is part of it. I have included multiple alternatives because I cannot find an answer to this problem anywhere. My group of players have been playing assuming the first alternative.

My real concern regarding the rules is that essentially the gameplay breaks down into two things. Playing a piece, and faulting. The playing a piece part can be simplified. The faulting part needs to be made more detailed (or at least more definitive).

After getting an answer to how this should be resolved I shall attempt to find a theme underlying all the fault rulings so hopefully they can be made easier to understand. If perhaps one ruling is off, then we should look into changing it to make the game simpler and easier to learn. Good rules should be consistant with all other rules as well as coherent.

[edit] Comments

Yeah, the out of bounds fault was what lead me to propose the "Well Defined Turn". I read that out of bounds pieces are returned to the faulting players stack. So really, your turn is NOT over after a fault, as you still have work to do in removing the out of bounds piece (meaning you can cause more faults). I had a situation where removing an out of bounds leaning piece caused another leaner to move out of bounds. I ruled that the second out of bounds piece must also be taken by the faulting player. I have read that the turn is really broken up in to two parts... Capture towers and play standing piece. I think there is really an extra part on the end for retriving out of bounds pieces. Check out the Well Defined Turn under rules variants for more info.--Dancingshadow 11:20, 30 January 2006 (PST)

(I liked the idea of capturing the out of bounds disc so i changed the tower power game rules to allow this)

[edit] Proposal for fixing Ambiguity

Other than the out of bounds thing, most other rules ambiguities can be resolved by careful consideration of the action piece (or pieces in the case of a tower.) In short: after a fault, the action piece should not be left lying or leaning on the board. See topics on scoring or resolving the action piece elsewhere in this wiki. Sadly this is contray to some of the stuff posted by temple games people on the fourm.

http://forums.templegames.com/showthread.php?t=120

Adhearance to temple rules also creates a timing problem where you have to know when the fault occoured and if the action piece was dropped before or after it (or during ??). (In which case if I see a fault starting I would plunk my action piece down as a foundation. Then an argument would start over whether I dropped it before or after the fault.)

I play using the following rules variants and have not encountered a problem (all of these are in the Variants section. I put them in the order I think they should be considered):

• Resolving the Action Piece (Not official, but it's simple and fixes most problems)
• The Well Defined Turn (More fully explains how to capture towers and deal with out of bounds pieces. Your turn is not nessicarily immediatly over after a fault as you may still have to return the action piece to your stack or take out of bound pieces (possibly causing more faults. Could be rewritten. Could have an intro describing typical play)
• Dropped action piece (Strictly to stop cheap impossible captures. This issue is talked about alot on the boards but to no good answer. I think this is a simple fix.)
• Modified method of ending the game. (I'm still not sure how to end the no foundations game... Should it be scored or should the player with no foundation lose ?)

--Dancingshadow 11:37, 30 January 2006 (PST)

[edit] Old Proposals