Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Abstract Games» Forums » General

Subject: New game Canvas. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
A while back I was playing amazons and I got the notion to make a connection game using it as a source of inspiration. It quickly became Canvas. I played several games using Arty Sandler's Sandbox program on iggamcenter.com. After playing a few games he expressed interest in programming it for the site. I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't think much of Canvas at the time, because it didn't accomplish anything all that interesting from a design standpoint, but it's certainly a fun game. It's grown on me and a few people have told me they really like it, even though one of them is playing a bastardized version because of a misunderstanding about the rules. Well I'd love to hear what you fine folks think of it.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/81703/canvas

edit: I realize the representative image does not show the 7x7x7 hex hex mentioned in the rules. This was a mini version we were playing more recently, I image captured it for convenience sake.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
At first reading, I'm not sure what this adds to Hex. Players will have less choice about where to play their stones, based on where they can move their painters, but Hex, with its total freedom about where to play stones, already seems so perfect and simple. Canvas has less rules elegance and clarity than Hex, and the same strategic goal, so is increased tactical complexity worth it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
mhowe wrote:
At first reading, I'm not sure what this adds to Hex. Players will have less choice about where to play their stones, based on where they can move their painters, but Hex, with its total freedom about where to play stones, already seems so perfect and simple. Canvas has less rules elegance and clarity than Hex, and the same strategic goal, so is increased tactical complexity worth it?
Well, you can say the same about Amazons/Penguins and Go, or Yinsh and Gomoku.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
drunkenKOALA wrote:
mhowe wrote:
At first reading, I'm not sure what this adds to Hex. Players will have less choice about where to play their stones, based on where they can move their painters, but Hex, with its total freedom about where to play stones, already seems so perfect and simple. Canvas has less rules elegance and clarity than Hex, and the same strategic goal, so is increased tactical complexity worth it?
Well, you can say the same about Amazons/Penguins and Go, or Yinsh and Gomoku.


Not a completely valid analogy, I don't think. Amazons is not Go with an added layer of rules. Yinsh is not Gomoku with an added layer of rules. Canvas is Hex with an added layer of rules. The only question is whether or not the added layer of rules adds any tactical or strategic interest. The answer might be yes, but it's not immediately clear to me. By the way, the appeal to Yinsh would not be convincing to me anyway, since I think Yinsh is an okay, but not especially great or original game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
mhowe wrote:
so is increased tactical complexity worth it?


In a word, yes.

Okay I'll give you a better explanation, although we've had this discussion before. Your first mistake again is comparing the game to Hex. "At first glance, I'm not sure what this adds to Hex" posits that I was trying to make a variant of Hex. No, I wasn't. I was trying to make a connection game with Amazons. Hex is more of a mechanic than a game anyway. I'm sorry but are Havannah, Trilithon, Atoll, Unlur and indeed any game played on a hex board with a connection goal Hex variants? You can call canvas just as much a variant of Amazons as it is a variant of Hex. Besides this, in terms of gameplay the similarities between Canvas and Hex are slim, you can easily cut through your opponent's bridges and the restrictions on where you can place stones involves positioning your painters properly just as much as it involves knowing where place your stones. Please, at least play the game before comparing its gameplay to Hex, you will find they are nothing alike.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
CoreyClark wrote:

Your first mistake again is comparing the game to Hex.


A mistake? A game played on a hexagonal tesselation where the goal is to connect opposite goal areas, and it's a mistake to compare it to Hex? Nonsense -- the comparison is obvious and natural. And what do you mean by "again"?

CoreyClark wrote:
I was trying to make a connection game with Amazons...You can call canvas just as much of a variant of Amazons as it is a variant of Hex.


Okay, fine, it's a variant of both. I don't see how this is much different from what I said originally.

CoreyClark wrote:
I'm sorry but are Havannah, Trilithon, Atoll, Unlur and indeed any game played on a hex board with a connection goal Hex variants?


Yes

Note: In my most recent post I wrote that the answer to the question "are the added rules worth it" might be "yes" although it's not immediately clear to me.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
mhowe wrote:
A mistake? A game played on a hexagonal tesselation where the goal is to connect opposite goal areas, and it's a mistake to compare it to Hex? Nonsense -- the comparison is obvious and natural.


It's a mistake because Hex is one mechanic, trivalency, not every connection game that takes advantage trivalency is a variant of Hex. The rules of Hex are not complex enough to consider these variants of hex.

mhowe wrote:
And what do you mean by "again"?


This is exactly like the other thread in which I was creating new boards to play Hex on.

mhowe wrote:
Okay, fine, it's a variant of both. I don't see how this is much different from what I said originally.


No, my point is, it's a variant of neither! It was certainly a hybrid from its conception but it has about as much in common with Hex as it has in common with Amazons, which is not very much at all. Only at the most superficial level could you consider it to be a variant of Amazons or Hex although its inspiration is clear.


mhowe wrote:
Yes


nope, trivalency is a mechanic not a game in itself, although Hex is the purest application of this mechanic.

mhowe wrote:
Note: In my most recent post I wrote that the answer to the question "are the added rules worth it" might be "yes" although it's not immediately clear to me. So please calm down, I am not trashing your idea.


You wrote "are the added rules worth it" because you were building your statements on the idea that every connection game to use the mechanic of trivalency is a variant of Hex even though it is simply the most convenient way to make a functional connection game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Oh for God's sake, Corey, I'm tired of arguing with that big chip on your shoulder. I admit you invented a great and interesting new game in Particle Bond, a wonderful and original idea. But you seem to want everyone to think every idea you have is the greatest new game since Go. But a game stands on its own merits or doesn't stand at all. I am not terribly impressed by Canvas at this point. Nor did I close the door on it. Now go argue with Mark Steere or someone, because I don't see the point of continuing this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
mhowe wrote:
Oh for God's sake, Corey, I'm tired of arguing with that big chip on your shoulder.


chip?... Where?

mhowe wrote:
But you seem to want everyone to think every idea you have is the greatest new game since Go.


lol, what? Do you have any evidence supporting such a ridiculous claim? In fact even a few more people leaving any sort of comments on games that aren't ridiculously overhyped whether they are my own or someone else's would be nice. I think in my original post I described Canvas as a fairly average game...

mhowe wrote:
But a game stands on its own merits or doesn't stand at all.


aha something that actually makes sense!

mhowe wrote:
I am not terribly impressed by Canvas at this point. Nor did I close the door on it. Now go argue with Mark Steere or someone, because I don't see the point of continuing this.


The point is that calling a game as drastically different from Hex as Canvas, a variant of Hex (a game that is not complex enough to really have variants in the first place) is absolutely absurd. You can go play Canvas and tell me it's a pile of shit. I'm perfectly fine with that. But I cannot tell you how annoying it is that you compare all these games to Hex.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
Yinsh is not Gomoku with an added layer of rules.
It's not? Connect 5, you win. Except now instead of placing one stone at a time free form, you have all these rules about leaving behind discs, flipping discs, and ring movement. I'd say it's exactly analogous. It adds an element of how to leave behind (and undo) the discs instead of simple placement.

Amazons and Penguins are area enclosure games like Go, but instead of simple placement they add an element/limitation on how the enclosure are left behind by amazons/penguins.

Canvas is Hex with another element/limitation on how the stones can be placed.

Mind you Hex is still my favorite game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
drunkenKOALA wrote:
Quote:
Yinsh is not Gomoku with an added layer of rules.
It's not? Connect 5, you win. Except now instead of placing one stone at a time free form, you have all these rules about leaving behind discs, flipping discs, and ring movement. I'd say it's exactly analogous. It adds an element of how to leave behind (and undo) the discs instead of simple placement.

Amazons and Penguins are area enclosure games like Go, but instead of simple placement they add an element/limitation on how the enclosure are left behind by amazons/penguins.


You might be right about Yinsh -- I'd have to read the rules again because it's been a while. Might have to downgrade my opinion of Yinsh, also, if what it comes down to is an obfuscation of Gomoku.

The Amazons/Go analogy still fails because Go features the ability to capture stones, not present in Amazons.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
No matter how hard you try you're not going to make this about me having a hissy fit because you didn't like my game. If you'd read all my damn posts you'd see that I don't care about that. This is about you making fallacious statements and being close-minded and autistically droning on and on about Hex when it's irrelevant. These are your words "but Hex.... already seems so simple and perfect". What is this "but" supposed to negate? The need for a new game? Sounds great, nobody should make another connection game on a hexagonal tiling because Hex already exists. If everyone thought like you absolutely nothing would get accomplished.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arty Sandler
Canada
Kanata
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, honestly, the hexagonal tessellation is not the key thing in Canvas. The key (as I see it) is in using mechanics from Amazons with the goal taken from the majority of Connection games. I think that the same combination will work for square grid as well (using one of possible resolutions for diagonal criss-cross connections).

In that matter the "hexagonal tessellation" in Canvas is a feature, not the key. And therefore it is not something that can really be used for comparison with Hex, IMHO. It's like taking square grid into account when comparing chess to checkers.

In contrast, the connection goal is the key of the game so it may be used in the comparision. But the same connection goal present in so many games, which can hardly be compared to Hex. Take Twixt or Akron as an example. Besides their goal, they don't have anything in common with Hex. Hex has such things as bridges, templates, ladders. They are the key of how Hex games work. If you take "Y" then you will get almost the same bridges, templates and ladders. Same for Havannah. Not the same for Twixt or Akron. Not the same for Canvas - all those mentioned things are totally different (in spite of being played on the same hexagonal tessellation).

Though, I can't call myself an experienced Canvas player, my opinion is based on 5-6 games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Howe
United States
Cromwell
Connecticut
flag msg tools
artyomch wrote:
Well, honestly, the hexagonal tessellation is not the key thing in Canvas. The key (as I see it) is in using mechanics from Amazons with the goal taken from the majority of Connection games. I think that the same combination will work for square grid as well (using one of possible resolutions for diagonal criss-cross connections).

In that matter the "hexagonal tessellation" in Canvas is a feature, not the key. And therefore it is not something that can really be used for comparison with Hex, IMHO. It's like taking square grid into account when comparing chess to checkers.

In contrast, the connection goal is the key of the game so it may be used in the comparision. But the same connection goal present in so many games, which can hardly be compared to Hex. Take Twixt or Akron as an example. Besides their goal, they don't have anything in common with Hex. Hex has such things as bridges, templates, ladders. They are the key of how Hex games work. If you take "Y" then you will get almost the same bridges, templates and ladders. Same for Havannah. Not the same for Twixt or Akron. Not the same for Canvas - all those mentioned things are totally different (in spite of being played on the same hexagonal tessellation).

Though, I can't call myself an experienced Canvas player, my opinion is based on 5-6 games.


Interesting. That's more like the kind of response in which I was interested in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you've got something intriguing here, Clark. I'm looking forward to seeing it in igGC. However, from my point of view, it would be more interesting if painters couldn't move over enemy stones. That way, players would have to place their own stones more cleverly in order to create escape routes for their own painters and trap the opponent's ones. One more rule would be necessary, though: when a chain of like-colored stones completely surrounds an area of the board with no painters in it, every empty cell in such area is filled with a stone of said chain's color. Otherwise, draws would occur due to the impossibility to fill areas of the board which are enclosed by two lines of stones, one of either color.

Moreover -but this is just my personal taste- I'd consider it more elegant to borrow the game's objective from Y instead of Hex. It fits better on a hex-hex board (just divide the edge into three segments delimited by non-adjacent corners) and makes for a somewhat longer game on an equal-sized board. Furthermore, you could establish three painters per side instead of four, and place them on the corner cells, with alternating colors. This is just optical elegance, but it somehow makes a difference, at least for me.

Arty said:

Quote:
In contrast, the connection goal is the key of the game so it may be used in the comparision. But the same connection goal present in so many games, which can hardly be compared to Hex.


That's right. Winning conditions distinguish games' families, not games' variants.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Chen
Taiwan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
However, from my point of view, it would be more interesting if painters couldn't move over enemy stones.
That's what I am thinking too. That's how it is in Amazons, Penguins, Tamsk, and Yinsh.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just curious: which game is Penguins? I can't find it in the database.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
luigi87 wrote:
Just curious: which game is Penguins? I can't find it in the database.

Hey, That's My Fish!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Shultz
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
luigi87 wrote:
I think you've got something intriguing here, Clark. I'm looking forward to seeing it in igGC. However, from my point of view, it would be more interesting if painters couldn't move over enemy stones. That way, players would have to place their own stones more cleverly in order to create escape routes for their own painters and trap the opponent's ones.


Like this brand new game?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
guitarsolointhewind wrote:


Hmm, could be. I hope the rules will be available soon. From the brief summary, though, it seems that:

a) the painters (or towers there) can shoot stones at any distance, as in Amazons. That seems to wild to me. I prefer strategy to take precedence over tactics.

b) the game has two winning conditions: connection and blocking. If painters can move at least over one player's stones -an issue the summary doesn't explain-, the rule I suggested above about filling areas without painters makes the blocking objective unnecessary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
luigi87 wrote:

the rule I suggested above about filling areas without painters makes the blocking objective unnecessary.



Not true Luis. In fact the main issue is that if the painters can become trapped the connection objective becomes irrelevant. As soon as a painter is surrounded by stones of the opposite color it is useless. I am already happy with the overall structure of the game, I am however considering the objective you proposed. Of course the problem is that a draw is possible with a Y connection goal on a Hex hex. I have been considering various changes to the objective and board though.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CoreyClark wrote:
In fact the main issue is that if the painters can become trapped the connection objective becomes irrelevant. As soon as a painter is surrounded by stones of the opposite color it is useless.

My point is that it is impossible that ALL the painters of both players are surrounded by stones of the opposite color. Imagine a Canvas game with only one painter per side. Black can surround White's painter, but then White can't surround Black's, because he is himself surrounded. Add to this an automatic filling of any inaccessible area, and you have a drawless game.

That said, my wording of the filling rule in my first post can be ambiguous. It would be better to say that every area which is inaccessible to one player is immediately filled with stones of the opposite color. The important thing here is that no area can ever become inaccessible to both players at the same time. So, in the end, for any cell, one of the following statements will be true: a) it is empty and accessible to at least one player, or b) it is occupied by a stone or painter.

CoreyClark wrote:
Of course the problem is that a draw is possible with a Y connection goal on a Hex hex.

Needless to say, Y played on a hex hex is still drawless. And I'd bet even Canvas is, whether played by the original rules or by the ones I suggested. I realize, though, that the analysis I have offered is far from an exhaustive, formal proof. I may have missed something. :(

I hope you don't take all this as interference in your design. Whatever you decide, it will be an interesting game. :)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
luigi87 wrote:

My point is that it is impossible that ALL the painters of both players are surrounded by stones of the opposite color. Imagine a Canvas game with only one painter per side. Black can surround White's painter, but then White can't surround Black's, because he is himself surrounded. Add to this an automatic filling of any inaccessible area, and you have a drawless game.


Well as someone demonstrated to me already, Canvas isn't (necessarily) theoretically drawless as it is. although the draw position he showed me, if even possible, would never come up in an actual game. I detest draws but a draw that would never be relevant is acceptable. It's like the draw position in square Oust.

luigi87 wrote:
That said, my wording of the filling rule in my first post can be ambiguous. It would be better to say that every area which is inaccessible to one player is immediately filled with stones of the opposite color. The important thing here is that no area can ever become inaccessible to both players at the same time. So, in the end, for any cell, one of the following statements will be true: a) it is empty and accessible to at least one player, or b) it is occupied by a stone or painter.


I don't see any immediate necessity to change the rules in such a fundamental way.


luigi87 wrote:
Needless to say, Y played on a hex hex is still drawless.


Not so. because a hex hex is essentially a Y board with the corners cut off, a chain connecting opposite sides of the board flanked by chains of the other color, produces a draw. The corners in Y prevent this by connecting two sides at a single point. Cameron Browne's game Cross illustrates this property nicely.

luigi87 wrote:
I hope you don't take all this as interference in your design. Whatever you decide, it will be an interesting game.


thank you and I'm happy to hear your ideas.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Bolaños Mures
Spain
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CoreyClark wrote:

luigi87 wrote:
Needless to say, Y played on a hex hex is still drawless.

Not so. because a hex hex is essentially a Y board with the corners cut off, a chain connecting opposite sides of the board flanked by chains of the other color, produces a draw. The corners in Y prevent this by connecting two sides at a single point. Cameron Browne's game Cross illustrates this property nicely.


I'm sorry, I think I haven't explained myself correctly. What I meant was a Y-like game, i.e. a game where the edge of the board is divided into 3 segments, the objective being to connect them all. On a triangular board, the segments match up with the sides. On a hex hex board, each segment is made up of two adjacent sides. (As always, each of the three delimiting corners are part of both adjoining segments.) The board would look like this:

. * b b b
. a . . . b
a . . . . b
a . . . . . *
a . . . . c
. a . . . c
. * c c c

where a, b, c are the segments each player has to connect and * are the delimiting corners. (If you paste the diagram into Notepad it will look right.)

In your example, the "flanking" player wins.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Clark
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
luigi87 wrote:
CoreyClark wrote:

luigi87 wrote:
Needless to say, Y played on a hex hex is still drawless.

Not so. because a hex hex is essentially a Y board with the corners cut off, a chain connecting opposite sides of the board flanked by chains of the other color, produces a draw. The corners in Y prevent this by connecting two sides at a single point. Cameron Browne's game Cross illustrates this property nicely.


I'm sorry, I think I haven't explained myself correctly. What I meant was a Y-like game, i.e. a game where the edge of the board is divided into 3 segments, the objective being to connect them all. On a triangular board, the segments match up with the sides. On a hex hex board, each segment is made up of two adjacent sides. (As always, each of the three delimiting corners are part of both adjoining segments.) The board would look like this:

. * b b b
. a . . . b
a . . . . b
a . . . . . *
a . . . . c
. a . . . c
. * c c c

where a, b, c are the segments each player has to connect and * are the delimiting corners. (If you paste the diagram into Notepad it will look right.)


Thanks this is really interesting. I'll give this a try.

luigi87 wrote:
In your example, the "flanking" player wins.


Well not if you say that the connection must be made with one group of stones. Then it's a draw.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.