$10.00
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Twixt» Forums » Variants

Subject: 2 pegs or 1 link rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drawing upon my experience with other abstract games (e.g., Ponte del Diavolo which was supposedly inspired by Twixt!), I came up with a not-so-original variant that makes better use of the fact that there are actually TWO different, distinct piece types (pegs and links) instead of just 1 primary type (pegs) that are the main focus of the game, with the other type (links) played secondarily and as a type of automatic "side-effect" to the primary pieces. I haven't really tested this yet, but it seems to work out okay in my mind! Anyway, I'm hoping others will try this out and report back here what they think.

Here it is in a nutshell ...

The object of the game is the same! However, now players have a choice on each turn of either:
1) Placing 2 pegs OR
2) Placing 1 link between any pair of their existing pegs.

The links would no longer be automatic! My hypothesis is that this will increase the strategic and tactical depth without destroying the clarity or overly lengthening the game; i.e., Should I "cash out" now and make a solid connection with a link, or should I increase my virtual connections with peg placements and hopefully connect/link later?

I haven't really worked out the best pie-rule for this yet, if indeed one is necessary. However, I'm thinking it would either be:
1) Deciding to swap the first two peg placements (since a link is obviously not available), OR
2) Just have the first move simply be an unrestricted single peg placement.

Comments?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Durango
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You'd lose the double link move.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, no links are automatic in this variant. Single, double, or otherwise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
mbmbmbmbmb
The game looks weaker to me. It losses the magic of the double link and isn't gaining anything.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems to me like you're gaining more choices.You have to consider explicitly playing links in order to not be cut at certain key points. You give potential links to your opponent when you do this which may end up being more valuable later. But, this is all speculation until an effort is made at playtesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bump!

I really think there's a quality game here. Does anyone care to try it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benedikt Rosenau
Germany
Göttingen
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Ask Twixter. I like the idea as such, but I do not know if it will not turn the game into a mess (like clogging up the board with pegs...).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Koch
United States
California
flag msg tools
How about this modification to your variation:

1. You can either place 2 pegs if neither of the 2 pegs forms a link, or one peg if that one peg forms one or more links BUT the linking is NOT optional, if you put a peg where it can form one or more links you must place them EVEN if you do not want to!! So if you really want to be able to place 2 pegs on a turn make sure neither of them form a link!

2. Instead of pie rule you could say that player one can only place one peg but anywhere they want, or you could allow 2 pegs to be placed but opponent gets both of them if they use the pie rule.

My guess is the early stages of the game would be players purposefully avoiding making links but setting up POTENTIAL links then racing to be the first to capitalize on them!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bush
United States
Shipman
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
qswanger wrote:
...

The object of the game is the same! However, now players have a choice on each turn of either:
1) Placing 2 pegs OR
2) Placing 1 link between any pair of their existing pegs.

The links would no longer be automatic! My hypothesis is that this will increase the strategic and tactical depth without destroying the clarity or overly lengthening the game; i.e., Should I "cash out" now and make a solid connection with a link, or should I increase my virtual connections with peg placements and hopefully connect/link later?

I haven't really worked out the best pie-rule for this yet, if indeed one is necessary. However, I'm thinking it would either be:
1) Deciding to swap the first two peg placements (since a link is obviously not available), OR
2) Just have the first move simply be an unrestricted single peg placement.

Comments?


It seems likely that more than 50 pegs for each side would be necessary.

Would removal of your own links be allowed? I regard this as an important point.

Has this been playtested in the 20 months since the original post?

IMO this is a bold claim, to say this would increase both the strategical and tactical depth of Twixt. The pace of the game would slow down, and the board would be more densely filled with pegs. Maybe it would be better, I dunno. Are you still interested in this variant?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quinn Swanger
United States
Holly Springs
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
twixter wrote:


It seems likely that more than 50 pegs for each side would be necessary.

Would removal of your own links be allowed? I regard this as an important point.

Has this been playtested in the 20 months since the original post?

IMO this is a bold claim, to say this would increase both the strategical and tactical depth of Twixt. The pace of the game would slow down, and the board would be more densely filled with pegs. Maybe it would be better, I dunno. Are you still interested in this variant?


Removal of own links? I hadn't thought about that. I suppose this possibility should be accounted for in the two move options somewhere.

Bold claim? It probably would be. Which is why I was merely hypothesizing.


Yes, I am still interested in this variant/new game. I have not playtested any of this since my original post, mostly because of a shortage of interested, real-life, 2-player abstract gaming partners. I would love to though!

Thanks for your reply!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.