Talk:Tactics
From Polarity
("That" I.C. tactic, caveats and controversy) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
So you gain 2 points. It's important to note who's turn it is and check the point difference when it is the same player's turn again. (If there has been an odd number of turns, the point total is not accurate) | So you gain 2 points. It's important to note who's turn it is and check the point difference when it is the same player's turn again. (If there has been an odd number of turns, the point total is not accurate) | ||
| - | |||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
I don't think we should promote it at all. ''It Utterly Ruins The Game'' and causes the shrewd black player to win every time. And I don't think the makers of the game intended it at all. | I don't think we should promote it at all. ''It Utterly Ruins The Game'' and causes the shrewd black player to win every time. And I don't think the makers of the game intended it at all. | ||
| - | + | ::Alternatively it is possible to simply drop your action piece when it is your turn so that it contacts the foundation/tower in question. This is a net gain of three or more [[points]] for you because you also played a piece from your stack. It is also your turn to play a standing piece! (Note that this method is legally questionable and could lead to abuse.) | |
| - | Alternatively it is possible to simply drop your action piece when it is your turn so that it contacts the foundation/tower in question. This is a net gain of three or more [[points]] for you because you also played a piece from your stack. It is also your turn to play a standing piece! (Note that this method is legally questionable and could lead to abuse.) | + | |
| + | |||
| + | I understand your concerns, but I believe this is a legitimate tactic under the rules of the game and so it should be on the page. Perhaps we should make it more clear that it could lead to abuse and that it was an unintended consequence of the rules, and return it. Here is my version which hopefully does the job: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Alternatively it is possible to simply drop your action piece when it is your turn so that it contacts the foundation/tower in question. This is a net gain of three or more [[points]] for you because you also played a piece from your stack and it is also your turn to play a standing piece. | ||
| + | ::This method, though technically allowed under the rules of the game is generally legally questionable because of the difficulties in determining the intent of the placement, and unfortunately it can easily lead to abuse. This was an unintended consequence of the rules as written, and many Polarity players play with some [[house rule]] which prevents the abuse of this tactic. | ||
| + | ::''See: [[Impossible Capture Controversy]].'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that makes it a bit more clear. Obviously links can be added to the house rules in question (it's just a placeholder at the moment), and we should probably have a seperate page detailing the controversy behind the tactic. What do you think? --[[User:Daxx|Daxx]] | [[User_talk:Daxx|Talk]] 02:46, 19 January 2006 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 10:46, 19 January 2006
To be clear on the impossible capture:
say black and white are tied (say 2 pieces in each stack and no towers) and it is white's turn. If white makes an impossible capture for black, then black takes the pieces. It is now white's turn again. Black has 4 pieces in the stack and white still has 2.
So you gain 2 points. It's important to note who's turn it is and check the point difference when it is the same player's turn again. (If there has been an odd number of turns, the point total is not accurate)
Im sorry I had to take out that other version of the I.C.
I don't think we should promote it at all. It Utterly Ruins The Game and causes the shrewd black player to win every time. And I don't think the makers of the game intended it at all.
- Alternatively it is possible to simply drop your action piece when it is your turn so that it contacts the foundation/tower in question. This is a net gain of three or more points for you because you also played a piece from your stack. It is also your turn to play a standing piece! (Note that this method is legally questionable and could lead to abuse.)
I understand your concerns, but I believe this is a legitimate tactic under the rules of the game and so it should be on the page. Perhaps we should make it more clear that it could lead to abuse and that it was an unintended consequence of the rules, and return it. Here is my version which hopefully does the job:
- Alternatively it is possible to simply drop your action piece when it is your turn so that it contacts the foundation/tower in question. This is a net gain of three or more points for you because you also played a piece from your stack and it is also your turn to play a standing piece.
- This method, though technically allowed under the rules of the game is generally legally questionable because of the difficulties in determining the intent of the placement, and unfortunately it can easily lead to abuse. This was an unintended consequence of the rules as written, and many Polarity players play with some house rule which prevents the abuse of this tactic.
- See: Impossible Capture Controversy.
I think that makes it a bit more clear. Obviously links can be added to the house rules in question (it's just a placeholder at the moment), and we should probably have a seperate page detailing the controversy behind the tactic. What do you think? --Daxx | Talk 02:46, 19 January 2006 (PST)
