Hive Stakes rules:
All other hive rules apply with the following modifications:
Hostage Taking: If you surround an enemy tile you may remove it from the board as a hostage. Hostages are removed from the "board" and are held by the the player who surrounded the tile. You may surround using the same techniques in the core game. Beetles on top of a captured unit is not captured. The beetle will move to the closest tile of the player who placed the beetle’s choosing.
Hostage Negotiation: Hostage negotiation may occur in place of a move or placement. You must trade 1 hostage for another.
You have captured 1 beetle and ant.
Opponent has captured 1 hopper and 1 spider.
You opt to negotiate for a hostage this will take your turn. You ask for the hopper and the opposing player asks for the ant. You swap tiles and you may play those tiles the next turn.
Ranking Officer: If the queen is captured you may assign another tile to take ranking officer if they are touching the queen at the time of capture. This means this tile must move like the queen until captured. You may keep track of this tile by using a marker. If a beetle is on top of this tile please place the marker on top of the beetle.
Medivac: Once per game each player may move remove one tile from the game to be replayed as their turn. You cannot remove a tile that separates the hive. This cannot be used on the queen or ranking officer.
If the opposing team loses all tiles except for the queen or ranking officer then the game is forfeit.
Any feedback would be appreciated!
I updated with an example under the hostage negotiation.
- Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:35 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:17 pm
Have you tried this out? My first thought is that rarely are non-queens completely surrounded. But then, there usually isn't much incentive to do so, so maybe that would change. My second thought is that if capturing does take place, then it seems like there is a very high potential for stalemates, especially if using the "ranking officer" variant as well.
Anyway, as a more-radical-than-usual variant, I'm intrigued. I'll probably give at least the hostage idea a few solo whirls. I'll report back if I do.
Not completely. This is more of a rough draft.
I guess what I want to accomplish from this variant is to get people thinking about winning without just one object in mind.
Now in regards to your concern of the hostages. My thought is that if you can recover a piece without much effort, IE the negotiation, then the balance shouldn't be off by much. BTW if the other player has a hostage in exchange there is no choice as to how it goes down. So in theory if only one player has a hostage then there is no negotiation.
I also really like the name!