$5.00
$15.00
$30.00
$20.00
Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Abstract Games» Forums » General

Subject: New Game - Magbago rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rey Alicea
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Magbago

Rey Alicea
Saturday, November 12, 2016


Magbago is a Squava derivative, that is a Yavalath derivative.

Materials

8x8 board
2 players
Supply of Black and White stones

Definitions

Adjacent – Orthogonally or diagonally adjacent

Play

One player plays Black the other White

Board starts out empty

First player starts by dropping a Black stone onto an empty space on the board.

Turns now alternate

On a turn,

•Drop a stone onto an empty space on the board or
•Drop a stone onto an empty space that is adjacent to any number of stones, then you may optionally move any enemy stones that are adjacent to the stone just placed, into an adjacent empty space.

Object

Make a four in a row horizontally or diagonally in your color for a win, lose if you make a three in a row first or if your last move is pushing an enemy stone into a space that makes a four in a row for your opponent.

Edit - I've seen the error of my ways and scraped the previous design, thanks guys. The rules now describe an entirely new game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan James
United States
Covington
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
Quote:
lose if you make a three in a row in any color before making a four in a row.

I wonder if this is necessary? Because the stones are shared between players, I would expect that if the first player makes three in a row, the second player would win on his next move.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rey Alicea
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
NJames wrote:
Quote:
lose if you make a three in a row in any color before making a four in a row.

I wonder if this is necessary? Because the stones are shared between players, I would expect that if the first player makes three in a row, the second player would win on his next move.


Thanks Nathan, I've edited the rules,
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Blizzard
Canada
Salt Spring Island
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I may be missing something but I don't see how after 3 black or 3 red stones in a row, the next player will win on the next turn. Sure if there are 3 white stones in a row.

This seems like an interesting game, I'll have to give it a try.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
NJames wrote:
Quote:
lose if you make a three in a row in any color before making a four in a row.

I wonder if this is necessary? Because the stones are shared between players, I would expect that if the first player makes three in a row, the second player would win on his next move.

There are various ways that would not be possible, e.g.:

If both spaces beyond the ends of a white 3-in-a-row are occupied by non-white stones (or non-existent due to the edge of the board!), then the second player would not be able to use it to win on the next move.

Similarly if both spaces beyond the ends ends of a black 3-in-a-row are red or empty or non-existent.

Or if both spaces beyond the ends of a red 3-in-a-row are white stones or empty or non-existent.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

What motivated this design?

(as a general rule, I think we should all take a little time when we post designs to explain where they came from - though I confess to sometimes failing to comply with this directive myself)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bentley
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
My criticism: with shared pieces and a shared goal, it seems like the incentive for the players may be to spend much of the game more or less stalling. I think of these games as sort of analogous to competitive self-organized criticality: nobody wants to put more sand on the pile, for fear of triggering a critical event. So you sort of pepper sand elsewhere and nothing happens for long stretches.

(I realize this analogy will only make sense to those who've heard of self-organized criticality, so here's an explanation)

For the same reasons, the game will come down to controlling parity. Any ideas about how to do this? Answers to this question will help us understand whether my stalling speculation is right or if there's something to do early in the game (as in, e.g. dots and boxes). I have my doubts, given the tactical nature of the goal, but I'm happy to be wrong.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rey Alicea
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
milomilo122 wrote:

What motivated this design?

(as a general rule, I think we should all take a little time when we post designs to explain where they came from - though I confess to sometimes failing to comply with this directive myself)



Good question Nick, for one I really like the way Yavalath works. The second reason was that Stephen Tavener also inspired by Yavalath came up with Intercardinal Yavalath.

For me it simply boils down to a challenge. If you dig deep enough you just might find gold.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rey Alicea
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
milomilo122 wrote:
My criticism: with shared pieces and a shared goal, it seems like the incentive for the players may be to spend much of the game more or less stalling. I think of these games as sort of analogous to competitive self-organized criticality: nobody wants to put more sand on the pile, for fear of triggering a critical event. So you sort of pepper sand elsewhere and nothing happens for long stretches.

(I realize this analogy will only make sense to those who've heard of self-organized criticality, so here's an explanation)

For the same reasons, the game will come down to controlling parity. Any ideas about how to do this? Answers to this question will help us understand whether my stalling speculation is right or if there's something to do early in the game (as in, e.g. dots and boxes). I have my doubts, given the tactical nature of the goal, but I'm happy to be wrong.


What you say does happen in the game, but it doesn't happen intentionally.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
reyalicea wrote:
milomilo122 wrote:
My criticism: with shared pieces and a shared goal, it seems like the incentive for the players may be to spend much of the game more or less stalling. I think of these games as sort of analogous to competitive self-organized criticality: nobody wants to put more sand on the pile, for fear of triggering a critical event. So you sort of pepper sand elsewhere and nothing happens for long stretches.

(I realize this analogy will only make sense to those who've heard of self-organized criticality, so here's an explanation)

For the same reasons, the game will come down to controlling parity. Any ideas about how to do this? Answers to this question will help us understand whether my stalling speculation is right or if there's something to do early in the game (as in, e.g. dots and boxes). I have my doubts, given the tactical nature of the goal, but I'm happy to be wrong.


What you say does happen in the game, but it doesn't happen intentionally.

That, to me, doesn't seem any more reassuring than if it would only happen intentionally.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rey Alicea
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
christianF wrote:
reyalicea wrote:
milomilo122 wrote:
My criticism: with shared pieces and a shared goal, it seems like the incentive for the players may be to spend much of the game more or less stalling. I think of these games as sort of analogous to competitive self-organized criticality: nobody wants to put more sand on the pile, for fear of triggering a critical event. So you sort of pepper sand elsewhere and nothing happens for long stretches.

(I realize this analogy will only make sense to those who've heard of self-organized criticality, so here's an explanation)

For the same reasons, the game will come down to controlling parity. Any ideas about how to do this? Answers to this question will help us understand whether my stalling speculation is right or if there's something to do early in the game (as in, e.g. dots and boxes). I have my doubts, given the tactical nature of the goal, but I'm happy to be wrong.


What you say does happen in the game, but it doesn't happen intentionally.

That, to me, doesn't seem any more reassuring than if it would only happen intentionally.


Then my response should have been, play the game at least once, if you don't like it, stop.

Games are highly subjective, some you like, some you hate. The only way to truly find out is to play the game to be reassured.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
In every well-made snare trap dangles a
Sweden
flag msg tools
Help, I'm being held prisoner in an overtext typing facility! I don't have much time, they could find out at any m
badge
I'm that weirdo whose number of badges sold prior to yesterday Bail Organa is keeping track of
mbmb
Traffic Lights deserves a mention here. And I also suspect it's not exactly a game of strategy, but of making a comparatively large number of inconsequential moves until the point where the number of safe moves becomes human-readable, at which point it's a parity game. That's not to say it couldn't have a meditative quality to it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
christian freeling
Netherlands
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
reyalicea wrote:
christianF wrote:
reyalicea wrote:
milomilo122 wrote:
My criticism: with shared pieces and a shared goal, it seems like the incentive for the players may be to spend much of the game more or less stalling. I think of these games as sort of analogous to competitive self-organized criticality: nobody wants to put more sand on the pile, for fear of triggering a critical event. So you sort of pepper sand elsewhere and nothing happens for long stretches.

(I realize this analogy will only make sense to those who've heard of self-organized criticality, so here's an explanation)

For the same reasons, the game will come down to controlling parity. Any ideas about how to do this? Answers to this question will help us understand whether my stalling speculation is right or if there's something to do early in the game (as in, e.g. dots and boxes). I have my doubts, given the tactical nature of the goal, but I'm happy to be wrong.


What you say does happen in the game, but it doesn't happen intentionally.

That, to me, doesn't seem any more reassuring than if it would only happen intentionally.


Then my response should have been, play the game at least once, if you don't like it, stop.

Games are highly subjective, some you like, some you hate. The only way to truly find out is to play the game to be reassured.



My observation was a general one and could be applied to any game with a suspicion of said 'competitive self-organized criticality'. If stalling occurs unintentionally in a game, then it seems to me as much of a flaw as when a player could stall intentionally.
2 
 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.