Jump to content


Photo

2 Square Rule Change Suggestion


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#41 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:44 PM

 

Surely the majority on this site will agree that a Miner-versus-a-Marshal scenario where both pieces are away from a bombed flag SHOULD BE A DRAW. 
 
Hold on a second. You illustrated a good example, above, of where the Miner vs. Marshal scenario is away from the bombs. Why shouldn't the miner be able to take advantage of the zugzwang principle to march towards the bombs and setup the desired position whereby the Marshal eventually gets "move-restricted" by the (approached) bombs?

How can I help you?

#42 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:46 PM

Trickz - can you illustrate the issue you have with the two miners vs. gen + marsh? Like TheProf, I'm having trouble understanding how the 2-square rule causes a problem (you can just continually attack, alternating between gen and marsh, under current programming).


How can I help you?

#43 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,389 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:31 AM

It is not necessary to eliminate the 2-squares rule to change this endgame scenario.  If you don’t think the miner should beat the marsh, or that the two miners should win against the marsh/gen combination then why not just allow a player who has previously moved all of his movable pieces to be allowed to “pass” (not move) on his turn?  This would guarantee a draw in all these situations being discussed.  Although, I still think the current rule is preferable because it means a player who skillfully plans his movements can earn a victory. 

 

Getting rid of the 2-squares rule (without Gary’s 3/4 idea) will just open the door all kinds pointless chasing of pieces that cannot be captured.  This type of play leads to the same board positions over and over and does not advance the game toward a resolution. The 2-Squares Rule is the first line of defense against this.  The second line of defense against continuous chase is the limit of 10 consecutive full-bind reconstructions made by a single piece.  This idea of HmmNess was a great programming improvement to the site, and it has been very effective in limiting pointless chasing.  I suppose at least one would have this to fall back on in the event there were no 2-Squares Rule, but then you could get chased up to 10 moves side-to-side every time instead of just 3 moves.  It would be quite annoying.

 

So as things are right now, continuous chasing with one piece is limited, but continuous chasing with two or more pieces is not blocked by the site's software.  I can’t understand why if you think something is bad if it's done with one piece why you wouldn’t think it’s bad when it is alternately occurring in two places on the game board.  The solution is to reset the AI cache only when a chasing player makes a move that does not reconstruct ANY semi-broken full-bind.  Thus, he must eventually make a move that does not threaten a piece.   



#44 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:47 AM

It is not necessary to eliminate the 2-squares rule to change this endgame scenario.  If you don’t think the miner should beat the marsh, or that the two miners should win against the marsh/gen combination then why not just allow a player who has previously moved all of his movable pieces to be allowed to “pass” (not move) on his turn?  This would guarantee a draw in all these situations being discussed.  Although, I still think the current rule is preferable because it means a player who skillfully plans his movements can earn a victory. 

 

So what happens if both players decide to "pass?"


How can I help you?

#45 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,389 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:24 AM

If both players pass then it would be a draw.



#46 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:15 PM

Trickz - can you illustrate the issue you have with the two miners vs. gen + marsh? Like TheProf, I'm having trouble understanding how the 2-square rule causes a problem (you can just continually attack, alternating between gen and marsh, under current programming).

 

 

That's right, you can continuously attack and switch with gen and marsh the whole time.

The software allows you to do that but this is in violation with the ISF-rule regarding continuously chasing.

The 2s rule is not a real problem on its own,....it's not a bad rule but the problem is when you have the classic example where there are TWO 2s-situations on the board (gen chasing miner and marsh chasing other miner).

You can't kill the miners, you can't ambush them without risking your flag so the only thing you can do is "continously" chase (according to the ISF this is illegal).  

You will lose this game for sure if it was an ISF-tournament and their rules cuz' it means that one miner will get your flag eventually since you can't continuously chase that or both pieces.

They don't make difference between chasing one or more pieces continuously.

 

The 2s-rule serves both defender and attacker if you play it good but it doesn't serve the defender in the endgame if he's two ranks up.  So if you attack and exploit the 2s-rule, then it could very well be in your favour but if two stronger pieces want to block off the path of two inferior pieces, then suddenly it's not possible because of continuously chasing.

 

What I'm saying is,....the 2s-rule tells you exactly what the consequences are in ONE situation and somehow the ISF automatically decides that ONE situation on the board is the same as TWO or MORE 2s-situations on the board, which of course isn't the case.

 

Maybe it's too drastic from me to say to ban the rule for this reason but it's with these situations that I think this rule combined with the rules of continuously chasing is bogus.

Cuz' suppose not you but I (the defender in this case) is the agressor and I trapped your miner on your own territory while your other miner is guarded at my flag..........well, it still means that I will officially lose the game.

I have to release one of your miners namely so that would be the miner in your own territory (I can't release the other at my flag or I lose right away), which means the agressor has to withdraw back and becomes the defender.

It's like the stronger guy just hasn't got any choice left no matter what he does.

If he is the agressor and traps the second miner on his own territory, then that bloody miner IS STILL IN POSITION according to the ISF!!

No, that miner is ONLY IN POSITION if he's on the outter edge on a diagional with my marsh or gen.

He's not in position if I trap him on his own territory in second row center for instance.

 

That's what it makes it so weird,.....so the miners get encouraged to come in position on a diagonal as soon as possible with the marsh and gen but the marsh and gen are NOT being encouraged/rewarded to do that although they would also  be IN POSITION to win the game like that (they have to kill everything to win the game, the flag can't be reached).

For the ISF it doesn't matter where the miners stand on the board,...as long as they are on a diagonal when their opponent attacks, they're fine and they will win the game, that's all they have to do.

That should not be the case.  

 

Suppose I had another piece left, scout or spy,....then I will win the game for sure.

Although that spy or scout is really USELESS on the board, it wins me the game then, logic?!

But if I don't have a useless scout or spy but still two stronger pieces blocking each miner off, then I will lose?

No, then it should be a tie of course.

 

 

An infinite loop of double chasing patterns (I call it an infinite defend pattern, it's not a continuously chasing pattern)

will have to result in an automatic draw after x-period of time.

If that would be implemented, there is no problem at all.

And if the ISF then just evaluate their continuously chase-rule, being more specific about the 2s-situations on the board regarding continuously chasing, then this would be even better.

They need to detail it more and say for instance : 

 

"It is not aloud to continuously chase one piece.

However, it is aloud to chase more pieces simultaneously because there would be an interruption in time with one attacking piece which allows the other chasing piece to attack again."

 

 

That adjustement plus an automatic draw-system and you're done.

Then the 2s-rule is absolutely a good thing cuz' it now also serves the defender in the endgame.

You can't defend if you're not stronger on the board,......in this case the defender is obviously stronger on the board but he's not being served with the current rule.

 

 

It's not the 2s-rule that is the problem,..........but it is the 2s-rule that WILL BECOME the problem because of the continuously chase rules in two or more 2s-situations on the board in the endgame.

 

Hopefully, it will be done like I said but I don't get my hope on that :)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#47 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 746 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:00 PM

@ The passing idea

 

http://i.imgur.com/9KTnvlF.png

 

Red's turn: Red passes

If blue passes, it is a draw, even though he is in a won situation

If blue moves, he loses because of the 3move rule ^_^ (unless he moves once, then passes... will go on endlessly)


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#48 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:55 PM

 

 
Hold on a second. You illustrated a good example, above, of where the Miner vs. Marshal scenario is away from the bombs. Why shouldn't the miner be able to take advantage of the zugzwang principle to march towards the bombs and setup the desired position whereby the Marshal eventually gets "move-restricted" by the (approached) bombs?

 

 

Because, LTG, in a phrase, the infernal 2 Square Rule.  This Rule puts the Miner in power when away from the Bombs.  Next to the Bombs he only needs the zugzwang principle.  The Bombs will stop the Marsh's movement there.  Away from the Bombs it will be the 2 Square Rule doing the stopping.   OF COURSE, ALL THIS PRESUPPOSES THE MARSHAL HAS THE FIRST MOVE.  Starting from diagonal positioning, if the Miner has the first move, he cannot win.  He will, in fact, lose because the Marshal will just chase him down and eventually corner him.  

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#49 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:10 PM

Cuz' suppose not you but I (the defender in this case) is the agressor and I trapped your miner on your own territory while your other miner is guarded at my flag..........well, it still means that I will officially lose the game.

I have to release one of your miners namely so that would be the miner in your own territory (I can't release the other at my flag or I lose right away), which means the agressor has to withdraw back and becomes the defender.

It's like the stronger guy just hasn't got any choice left no matter what he does.

If he is the agressor and traps the second miner on his own territory, then that bloody miner IS STILL IN POSITION according to the ISF!!

No, that miner is ONLY IN POSITION if he's on the outter edge on a diagional with my marsh or gen.

He's not in position if I trap him on his own territory in second row center for instance.

 

That's what it makes it so weird,.....so the miners get encouraged to come in position on a diagonal as soon as possible with the marsh and gen but the marsh and gen are NOT being encouraged/rewarded to do that although they would also  be IN POSITION to win the game like that (they have to kill everything to win the game, the flag can't be reached).

For the ISF it doesn't matter where the miners stand on the board,...as long as they are on a diagonal when their opponent attacks, they're fine and they will win the game, that's all they have to do.

That should not be the case.  

X
 

 

Trickz, would you clarify the phrase "IN POSITION", please.  What does it mean, exactly?  In position to do what?  When you say "He's not in position if I trap him on his own territory in second row center for instance."  are you saying your stronger piece is in the 2nd row and the Miner is on the back edge row?

 

GLS 


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#50 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:30 PM

Trickz, would you clarify the phrase "IN POSITION", please.  What does it mean, exactly?  In position to do what?  When you say "He's not in position if I trap him on his own territory in second row center for instance."  are you saying your stronger piece is in the 2nd row and the Miner is on the back edge row?

 

GLS 

 

 

In position means to be in position of deciding the game.

If that miner is near my flag, then he's in position and if he's on his own territory, then I'm in position by blocking him off there.

But because the two miners have always the advantage, I can't be in position so it doesn't matter if I trap a miner on his own territory.  As long he's on a diagonal, he's fine.  The defender can only be in position if he can kill one miner but he can't (unless the opponent makes a stupid mistake of course) so that means that suddenly the way of winning the game with killing all the pieces is no longer possible. The ISF thinks that only the flag matters in this situation and that's just bs :)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#51 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:04 PM

 

 
Hold on a second. You illustrated a good example, above, of where the Miner vs. Marshal scenario is away from the bombs. Why shouldn't the miner be able to take advantage of the zugzwang principle to march towards the bombs and setup the desired position whereby the Marshal eventually gets "move-restricted" by the (approached) bombs?

 

 

I also want to note here, LTG, that we are not talking about Trickz' situation with continuous chasing here.  We are only talking about one Marshal defending his pyramid bombed flag against a single Miner.  Starting from diagonal positioning away from the bombs, as I illustrated previously, if the first move is the Marsal's he will be stopped by the infernal 2 Square Rule, and the Miner will win.  I disagree that this with anyone who thinks this is okay when the Marshal is simply defending his flag at that point.  

 

To my way of thinking it is somewhat a matter of 50-50 luck, as to whether it will be the Marshal's turn out of diagonal positioning.  For the Miner to be accorded a win based on such luck, due to the 2 Square Rule working in the open field, is wrong.  But if zugzwang and the bombs get the Marshal, then he deserved to lose, yes.

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#52 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:57 PM

It is not necessary to eliminate the 2-squares rule to change this endgame scenario.  If you don’t think the miner should beat the marsh, or that the two miners should win against the marsh/gen combination then why not just allow a player who has previously moved all of his movable pieces to be allowed to “pass” (not move) on his turn?  This would guarantee a draw in all these situations being discussed.  Although, I still think the current rule is preferable because it means a player who skillfully plans his movements can earn a victory. 

 

The Prof, this may be the only time you ever read me saying anything nice about the 2 Square Rule, but it is preferable to any "pass" rule that might be enacted.  Having to move on one's turn, this "zugzwang" LTG first brought up does not bother me at all.  It is the same in chess, checkers, and any strategy game I am aware of, after all.  

 

Getting rid of the 2-squares rule (without Gary’s 3/4 idea) will just open the door all kinds pointless chasing of pieces that cannot be captured.  This type of play leads to the same board positions over and over and does not advance the game toward a resolution. The 2-Squares Rule is the first line of defense against this.  The second line of defense against continuous chase is the limit of 10 consecutive full-bind reconstructions made by a single piece.  This idea of HmmNess was a great programming improvement to the site, and it has been very effective in limiting pointless chasing.  I suppose at least one would have this to fall back on in the event there were no 2-Squares Rule, but then you could get chased up to 10 moves side-to-side every time instead of just 3 moves.  It would be quite annoying.

 

 

The Prof, I admit I honestly would vote to eliminate 2 Square entirely if such were put to the democratic process.  But an alternative which removes its teeth somewhat, such as my 3/4 idea is a starting point.  You say that play without 2 Square would lead to "the same board positions over and over and does not advance the game toward a resolution".  I think it might do just the opposite.  If it takes two pieces to do a kill instead of one, well, then that's what will happen.  Players will develop the old-fashioned board game skill of bringing along two strong pieces.  How would this shake up the game elsewhere if that 2nd piece has to go off?  I don't know, but it would very possibly lead to weaknesses in other parts of the board that an opponent might be able to attack.  Would this be closer to "resolution"?  It might very well be.  How easier to tell other than throw the 2 Square Rule out, or enact my 3/4 change, for a trial period next year and find out?

 

The difference between my 3/4 idea and throwing out 2 Square entirely would be that with my 3/4 idea the 2 Square Effect would still be present to assist the single Miner to defeat the single Marshal defending his bombed flag, as I have illustrated with LTG recently.  That is why we should just throw the thing out and be done with it.  Or, as I have also said, just make the 2 Square Rule with my 3/4 idea only in effect on the neutral and opponent's side.  On one's own side the 2 Square Rule would not be in effect.  This would allow the Marshal to defend his flag as well.  

 

So as things are right now, continuous chasing with one piece is limited, but continuous chasing with two or more pieces is not blocked by the site's software.  I can’t understand why if you think something is bad if it's done with one piece why you wouldn’t think it’s bad when it is alternately occurring in two places on the game board.  The solution is to reset the AI cache only when a chasing player makes a move that does not reconstruct ANY semi-broken full-bind.  Thus, he must eventually make a move that does not threaten a piece.  

 

Of course Trickz has gone into the definition of "continuous" sufficiently already.  But I would add that "alternatively" and "continuous" are mutually exclusive by their own definitions.  If you reset the cache as you are saying, it would match what the ISF is currently doing, I believe.  They don't care which semi-broken full-bind you re-establish.  Won't this guarantee a win to the Miners?

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#53 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,389 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Miner

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:44 AM

Gary, currently if two pieces are diagonally across from each other the weaker piece cannot be captured by the stronger piece, since the 2-squares rule limits the attacker from threatening more than three times.  Thus, the attacker must bring a second piece in order to trap the weaker piece.  So in this case the 2-squares rule brings about EXACTLY what you are advocating for.  However, without the current rule, the stronger piece can just keep threatening the weaker piece over and over WITHOUT having to bring a second piece, and may even be able to induce the evading player to give up the piece or lotto it out of pure frustration.  This type of aggression requires no skill and is akin to bullying.  Unfortunately I suspect new and less experienced players would be the primary victims of this type of play, since they may not know they have a right not to be continuously chased.  So, in the case of pieces at a diagonal, I think you are advocating for a rule change that will have the opposite of your desired result.



#54 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:07 AM

Because, LTG, in a phrase, the infernal 2 Square Rule.  This Rule puts the Miner in power when away from the Bombs.  Next to the Bombs he only needs the zugzwang principle.  The Bombs will stop the Marsh's movement there.  Away from the Bombs it will be the 2 Square Rule doing the stopping.   OF COURSE, ALL THIS PRESUPPOSES THE MARSHAL HAS THE FIRST MOVE.  Starting from diagonal positioning, if the Miner has the first move, he cannot win.  He will, in fact, lose because the Marshal will just chase him down and eventually corner him.  

 

GLS

Perhaps I misunderstood something. To me, if there is otherwise an open field, the miner would just march toward the triangle bomb formation to reach the starting position in my example where the marshal must make the first decisive move. I'm not sure how the 2-square rule would prevent the miner from running to the bombs if the miner successfully arranges a vertical chase setup (vs. a horizontal setup, where I could see the 2-square rule posing a challenge if by the lakes).


How can I help you?

#55 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:12 AM

 

 

Hey, trickz,

 

I guess what I potentially take issue with is that a player who ends up with a marshal and gen vs. two miners should automatically be considered at least as good (i.e., draw worthy). To me, this only holds if one takes a narrow view of pieces' worth based on their ranking. To me, the rank of the piece is only important given the context of the overall situation. I would personally rather reward the person who smartly trades down to the two miner vs marshal/gen situation and is able to recognize how to use that to their advantage so that the two miners become stronger in the endgame. I think the marshal/gen player perhaps should be "penalized" for not having better used their advantage in the rest of the game (if at all possible). 

 

It's in a way similar to someone intentionally sacrificing pieces to get to a scout vs. two non-scout, non-miner pieces endgame in an open board with bomb-enclosed flags to force the draw. I think that should be rewarded.


How can I help you?

#56 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 21 November 2013 - 05:45 PM

Perhaps I misunderstood something. To me, if there is otherwise an open field, the miner would just march toward the triangle bomb formation to reach the starting position in my example where the marshal must make the first decisive move. I'm not sure how the 2-square rule would prevent the miner from running to the bombs if the miner successfully arranges a vertical chase setup (vs. a horizontal setup, where I could see the 2-square rule posing a challenge if by the lakes).

 

LTG, it is a 50/50 proposition as to who will enter into diagonal positioning.  Of course the piece that enters into it, wins in this example.  The Miner may very well march right up to the Marshal as you state, but he might just as easily march right up and find the Marshal one square off of what he, the Miner, needs.  Then the Marshal would win.  

 

It all depends on whose turn it is.  Who enters into the diagonal positioning and therefore who has to move out of it first are the questions.  No one would want to move out of diagonal positioning first, but one has to in this game.  

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#57 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 21 November 2013 - 06:59 PM

Gary, currently if two pieces are diagonally across from each other the weaker piece cannot be captured by the stronger piece, since the 2-squares rule limits the attacker from threatening more than three times.  Thus, the attacker must bring a second piece in order to trap the weaker piece.  So in this case the 2-squares rule brings about EXACTLY what you are advocating for.  However, without the current rule, the stronger piece can just keep threatening the weaker piece over and over WITHOUT having to bring a second piece, and may even be able to induce the evading player to give up the piece or lotto it out of pure frustration.  This type of aggression requires no skill and is akin to bullying.  Unfortunately I suspect new and less experienced players would be the primary victims of this type of play, since they may not know they have a right not to be continuously chased.  So, in the case of pieces at a diagonal, I think you are advocating for a rule change that will have the opposite of your desired result.

 

The Prof, in the example LTG and I are discussing, there are only two movable pieces, one for each player.  One has a Miner, the other a Marshal defending his triangle bombed flag.

 

In general you are correct when you say

 

"currently if two pieces are diagonally across from each other the weaker piece cannot be captured by the stronger piece, since the 2-squares rule limits the attacker from threatening more than three times.  Thus, the attacker must bring a second piece in order to trap the weaker piece."   

 

But in the specific example on the board, that is not true. There is only ONE MOVABLE PIECE PER PLAYER in this example, and so the Marshal can indeed capture the Miner out of diagonal positioning, IF it is the Miner's turn to move,  Given the opposite fact, then the Miner will win in this scenario. First the 2 Square will stop the Marshal in the open field, and then the zugzwang principle will finish the Marsh off when he has to move away from his triangle bombs in his turn...because he has to make a move...thus allowing the Miner to enter in victorious.

 

As you state, though, and I agree, the Marshal would GENERALLY need a backup piece to finish off the weaker piece. Even if it were the Miner's turn to move out of the diagonal, he could always move another piece to satisfy zugzwang, and then the Marshal would need help to do the trick.  You put up a very wry example to put me into sympathy with 2 Square here.  It's very logical.  Of course, I'm not biting on it; I have no sympathy for the 2 Square Rule.

 

The Prof, a note here: you are forgetting the HmmNess rule you mentioned earlier when you state that the stronger piece could chase "over and over".  Now, if a newbie doesn't know about HmmNess's rule, I say he will probably be enlightened by it before he decides to "give up the piece or lotto it".  That rule is only 10 Squares (or is it officially 8 now?), and I don't think that's a lot of chasing.  But if you feel like the newbies are at a disadvantage, then let's post both the 2 Square Rule and the HmmNess 10 Square Rule BIG ON THE MAIN PAGE.   Put links there that thoroughly explain them so that everyone can freely know these VERY IMPORTANT RULES.

 

One advantage of doing this would be the effect on people coming to this site.  At the outset they would clearly know the site does not permit chasing. I say let's pass Auto Draw and put that Rule up on the main pages also.  

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#58 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:21 PM

Hey, trickz,

 

I guess what I potentially take issue with is that a player who ends up with a marshal and gen vs. two miners should automatically be considered at least as good (i.e., draw worthy). To me, this only holds if one takes a narrow view of pieces' worth based on their ranking. To me, the rank of the piece is only important given the context of the overall situation. I would personally rather reward the person who smartly trades down to the two miner vs marshal/gen situation and is able to recognize how to use that to their advantage so that the two miners become stronger in the endgame. I think the marshal/gen player perhaps should be "penalized" for not having better used their advantage in the rest of the game (if at all possible). 

 

It's in a way similar to someone intentionally sacrificing pieces to get to a scout vs. two non-scout, non-miner pieces endgame in an open board with bomb-enclosed flags to force the draw. I think that should be rewarded.

 

LTG, it is not "narrow" to view the Marshal and General pieces as "deserving" a Draw.  It is "narrow" to take the view that the lesser pieces, the Miners, ought to be aided by government help, ie., game rules, to receive victory when it would otherwise have been a Draw under the old board game rules.  The Marshal and General don't "deserve" anything special from the game rules, true, but neither do the two Miners.  Award Trickz the Draw.  That's only right.

 

Taking your 2 Square Rule and Continuous Rules out of the game would restore the freedom of common sense movement to the Marsh and Gen and what's wrong with that?  

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#59 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 746 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:16 PM

"LTG, it is a 50/50 proposition"

 

Blue usually has an advantage here. It can be influenced by trading scouts on the right moment.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#60 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 21 November 2013 - 10:55 PM

"LTG, it is a 50/50 proposition"

 

Blue usually has an advantage here. It can be influenced by trading scouts on the right moment.

 

Yes, it is something that can probably be strategically planned for.  The Miner needs to be looking for the Marshal's square to be an odd number of square movements away.  If even, the Marshal has the advantage.  But to me the vagaries of the game play seem to make this a difficult thing to "plan" for.  That's why I maintain it's almost a 50/50 proposition.  

 

GLS


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users