15 Responses

  1. bateleur
    bateleur January 28, 2013 at 10:04 pm |

    Is it clear what I mean there?

    Yes. 🙂

    As written, the ability to move cards serves literally no purpose. This may or may not be considered a problem.

    Reply
    1. venta
      venta January 28, 2013 at 10:31 pm |

      Doesn’t it? So if I have two red cards together, and you play a third elsewhere, why is it not in my interests to move your red into my row (assuming my scoring tariff requires three reds in a row?)

      Plus if – due to the cards in play – I can deduce that it’s likely you want and have played four greens in a row, I can disrupt your row.

      Reply
      1. venta
        venta January 28, 2013 at 10:31 pm |

        Ah. I misread the rules to say that I couldn’t move a card if you’d moved one on your last go. As you were.

        Reply
        1. bateleur
          bateleur January 28, 2013 at 10:45 pm |

          Your variant would have the even nastier consequence that one player chooses where everything goes! 🙂

          Reply
          1. venta
            venta January 28, 2013 at 10:46 pm |

            Yes, I wasn’t proposing it as a solution!


        2. undying-admin
          undying-admin January 29, 2013 at 9:05 am |

          Yes, sorry about that, is right — I’ve suggested a tweak to improve it.

          Reply
    2. undying-admin
      undying-admin January 29, 2013 at 9:03 am |

      Mm, I think we need a ‘a move may not reverse the other player’s immediately previous move’ or something like that.

      Reply
      1. bateleur
        bateleur January 29, 2013 at 9:07 am |

        I would recommend the slightly stronger “you may not move a card the opponent just moved”.

        Reply
        1. undying-admin
          undying-admin January 29, 2013 at 9:15 am |

          Yes, that’s better!

          Reply
          1. pengshui_master
            pengshui_master January 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm |

            You can’t have revert battles in this game anyway because after a move on your next turn you must place.

            but I’m tempted by the idea that each player takes two moves at once, a place and an optional move. This guarantees the game moves forward while not having your action s available depend on what you did last.


          2. undying-admin
            undying-admin January 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm |

            Mm, that’s an interesting idea, I’ll give that a go and see how it compares.


  2. venta
    venta January 28, 2013 at 10:29 pm |

    Is it clear what I mean there? This is really difficult to explain without diagrams…

    Well, I understood it, I think 🙂

    Sounds like it might be a quick and fun game to play.

    Reply
    1. undying-admin
      undying-admin January 29, 2013 at 9:05 am |

      thanks! — I think I’ve worked out the scoring system now, so I’ll do another post shortly when I’ve got it polished up.

      (I really have to stop spending time on things like this though, until I’ve got some of the paid work out of the way…)

      Reply
  3. Shape Up! variant scoring tariffs
    Shape Up! variant scoring tariffs December 8, 2013 at 10:22 am |

    […] at these three examples: http://www.holkar.net/wording_choices.png and see what you think. (And see here for a description of the game (slightly out-of-date but basically OK), if you’re going […]


  4. Japanese minimalism
    Japanese minimalism January 6, 2014 at 3:55 pm |

    […] up on what I’d seen called ‘microgames’ a year or so back, as first discussed here re what became Shape Up! And have bounced another couple of ideas around too, although they […]


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.