Skip to Content

Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

65 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Finally tried it...

hpox wrote:
The latest rules are available at http://neutralbox.com/micropul/rules/micropul-Rules-1.1.pdf .

I'll take a look and give it an edit.

Quote:
Seth, thank you for the feedbacks. Great, great great! You seem to have picked up on it real quick. On your second game, you're already beating my scores. Do you think it takes a certain kind of person to play and enjoy this game?

Yeah, I think so. Some people like abstract/puzzles and some do not. I happen to like puzzle things so maybe that's why I was able to pick up on it.

A grammer note for the record (as I understand it, non-english speakers like to be corrected, so no offense intended or anything), the plural of 'feedback' is 'feedback.' Or perhaps more accurately, I don't think there's such a thing as a plural of feedback... no matter how much feedback you get it's still 'feedback'.

Quote:
You can also play it sparsely since it's often so tactical.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'play it sparsely'. I thimnk "sparsely" is not the word you want, but I cannot figure out what would be.

Quote:
The big groups strategy seem to work nicely. What happened to the third group? No 3, 4 micropul's group to take?
I may have missed a small group in the first couple of games, but there might have just not been one. It seems like most of the time when I have big groups going on, there aren't any small groups left over.

Quote:
It changed names quite a lot of times... nanopul (confusing to someone that's learning the game)...I'm open to all suggestions!

I suggest you go back to Nanopul. I don't think it'll be confusing. Then at the beginning of the rules you can define the terms and write the flaver text for the game:

"A Micropul is a piece of matter (black circle) or anti-matter (white circle). A Nanopul (small dot) is a catalyst that helps split the Micropuls in two. A Chronopul (or whatever) (plus sign) is a by-product that is released when a Micropul is split."

Quote:
...only 9 blocks left in hand shows that you had to use some corners to close your groups at the end (I think). Do you remember if your groups were very open during the game and you closed them at the end or were you "controlling" their growth from the begnning?

I closed them out at the end. In fact, I would have had two more face down tiles, but I noticed one group wasn't closed so I drew a couple in order to close it.

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: Finally tried it...

hpox wrote:
The latest rules are available at http://neutralbox.com/micropul/rules/micropul-Rules-1.1.pdf . Just edited the first post to reflect this update (stupid of me not to have done it earlier) One suggestion though, if you have the time try one or two games solitaire. That way you'll have an easy time explaining the system.

Quote:
By the way, I'm not sure Fission is a noun, you might need a different name for it. Then again, Micropul isn't real either ;) It's just that Fission is a real word and it sounds odd... to me at least.

It changed names quite a lot of times. First it was dot then point (dot in french; Points as in score is also points in french so it was utterly confusing having point and points), nanopul (confusing to someone that's learning the game), fissure, crack and finally fission. Fission is a noun in french. I'm open to all suggestions!

Thanks for the new rules. I will try it solitaire before I try it two player and let you know how it goes. BTW, Fission is indeed a noun in english as well, it means "The act or process of splitting into parts" . Perhaps Seth hasn't heard it used as a noun, but it can be both a noun and a verb.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Finally tried it...

Darkehorse wrote:

BTW, Fission is indeed a noun in english as well, it means "The act or process of splitting into parts" . Perhaps Seth hasn't heard it used as a noun, but it can be both a noun and a verb.

Ok, I see why I thought it sounded odd... even as a noun it is 'fission', not 'a fission.' The act or process of splitting into parts' is 'fission', but multiple acts of splitting things aren't 'fissions.'

- Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Just played 2-player

As expected, the dynamics were MUCH different. I won both games by a landslide by finishing a large group- I think my friend hadn't grasped the game enough to figure out when to claim groups and whatnot). The second one was closer (50-35 I think) because he got a group too.

The only problem I forsee is that the large Micropul with the + in the center might be a bit degenerate. A player could set up a little bit and play it (taking another turn), play something by it (getting a tile and another turn), play something else next to it (getting a tile and another turn), then place a stone. That turn basically scored that player 12+ points.

The other +'s were fine. In fact I like how you can use the + to set up for a good play, either to close off a group or to draw several tiles, or maybe to make a group and claim it. Note, I don't think this contradicts what I said about the big 'pul+...

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Seth, by sparsely, I meant lightly. Getting corrected is nothing to be ashamed of. Thanks for taking the time.

Didn't think anyone else would like the term "nanopul", my friends were confused when I tried to explain it using that term. Chronopul is a sweet name and it fit with the effect!

Since we're talking about names. What does "micropul" sound like? I got some weird reactions from people hearing the name for the first time when they asked me what I was playing. I usually answer, "it's kind of like dominoes, it's called micropul". They usually go "Huh?" Does it sound geeky?

Your definition of the terms is spot on! Matter and Anti-matter, that's brillant. I used something similar in the first version but it had less "punch": Filled and empty, Full and void.

For explaining the rules, I think this sort of flavor and cool terms will slow comprehension though. I'd really like to hear opinions on this. Maybe I'm underestimating "rules readers" because of all the bad rules experience I had with several games.

Darke, thanks for playtesting micropul and the clarification. I see Seth's point though. The act is a noun but what I'm trying to define are the elements of that act with the name of the act.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

How do you like this?

Scientists have recently discovered a new catalyst called Micropul which can be used to split bits of Matter and Anti-Matter off of atoms.

So the dots are called Micropul (plural of Micropul = Micropul), the + are called Chronopul (another form of the catayst). The tiles are Atoms (or maybe the 'community stacks' are an atom). Each time a Micropul is activated another chunk of the Atom splits off (from the community stacks to your personal stack). The game ends when the entire atom has been broken down into Matter and Anti-Matter by these Micropul.

Alternatively, the tiles could be the Micropuls, and each time a Catalyst (dot) is activated another Micropul splits off from the atom and will (may, like if you play it) become matter and Anti-Matter.

Just some thoughts. Did you have any comments about the tile with the large Micropul and the + on it? Are my concerns justified? Or is that intended to be part of the game?

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Just played 2-player

sedjtroll wrote:
As expected, the dynamics were MUCH different. I won both games by a landslide by finishing a large group- I think my friend hadn't grasped the game enough to figure out when to claim groups and whatnot). The second one was closer (50-35 I think) because he got a group too.

Cool! Thanks for playtesting 2p games. It's fair to say that your experience playing solo helped quite a bit here, right? Do you think we could facilitate the learning curve? Was your friend still having some problems during the second game? I didn't think large groups would be possible... Interesting.

Quote:
The only problem I forsee is that the large Micropul with the + in the center might be a bit degenerate. A player could set up a little bit and play it (taking another turn), play something by it (getting a tile and another turn), play something else next to it (getting a tile and another turn), then place a stone. That turn basically scored that player 12+ points.

Ah! This is something unexpected! This is the nature of the big puls, very easy to activate fissions. You do have to set up for it though. But indeed, if you can form a group with your + big pul play, I see how it could become unbalanced. I hope it's not too much of a problem *crosses fingers*. The game have a fair share of luck, so a "problem" like that is not as magnified as it would be if it was chess.

Quote:
The other +'s were fine. In fact I like how you can use the + to set up for a good play, either to close off a group or to draw several tiles, or maybe to make a group and claim it. Note, I don't think this contradicts what I said about the big 'pul+...

Nice. Were you playing that, for example, if you activate 2 + on the same turn you could play again 2 times or 1? Officially it's 1.

Can't thank you enough for the feedback 8)

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Just played 2-player

hpox wrote:

Cool! Thanks for playtesting 2p games. It's fair to say that your experience playing solo helped quite a bit here, right?

I think so, yes.

Quote:
Do you think we could facilitate the learning curve? Was your friend still having some problems during the second game?

He did much batter the second game. I don't know that there's anything to do to facilitate the learning curve. Maybe some strategy tips in the rules?

Quote:
This is the nature of the big puls, very easy to activate fissions... I see how it could become unbalanced. I hope it's not too much of a problem *crosses fingers*. The game have a fair share of luck, so a "problem" like that is not as magnified as it would be if it was chess.

On the contrary, I think this is WAY TOO GOOD, and if anything puts a damper on this game, it'll be an opponent doing that to you. my friend's concern was that if you claim a group, you basically win... I don't think I buy that though. Perhaps a new player vs a 'veteran' will lose because the veteran will get a group and they won't. But I think 2 skilled players will understand and fight for the groups.

It's possible that in 2 player the game is over too fast. Might need more tiles total. The number seems great for 1 player, but maybe too few for 2p.

Quote:
Nice. Were you playing that, for example, if you activate 2 + on the same turn you could play again 2 times or 1? Officially it's 1.

No, we played it right. There was some question though weather you could chain the "Chornopuls." That is activtate a + during your 'bonus' turn. We decided there was no reason why not. If there WERE a reason why not then the problem with the big Chronopul goes away... but that's not nearly as elegant. "If you activate the + then you get a free turn.. unless it's your free turn in which case you DON'T get a free turn for activating a +..." <-- fiddeley rule.

Quote:
Can't thank you enough for the feedback 8)

No problem.

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Just played 2-player

sedjtroll wrote:
Maybe some strategy tips in the rules?

Yes!

Quote:
On the contrary, I think this is WAY TOO GOOD, and if anything puts a damper on this game, it'll be an opponent doing that to you.

I understand it's a block that can be played in a too powerful way. But you do have to have the blocks (same color) ready. Did the situation happen in one of your 2p games? I see the potential problem, it is not

I could transform that big micropul into another big micropul with an intristic single nanopul, or a double. A big micropul with no intristic fission could work too but then it'd be exactly like a XXXX or OOOO.

Quote:
my friend's concern was that if you claim a group, you basically win...

Well, you do have to work a little bit to close your groups. But certainly, it seems that groups are integral to win.

Quote:
I don't think I buy that though. Perhaps a new player vs a 'veteran' will lose because the veteran will get a group and they won't. But I think 2 skilled players will understand and fight for the groups.

That's how I see it too. We'll see.

We didn't have this too short game problem but I generally like my games short. I did remark that the playing area during a 2p game was on the small side. How long were your games? I guess you could easily mix two sets or one set and a half customized to your liking. I'll try the two sets mix myself. Having more than 48 blocks is not out of the equation either, just a question of money and time to design the new blocks.

About the chaining of +. You ruled right, that's exactly what was intended.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Just played 2-player

hpox wrote:

I understand it's a block that can be played in a too powerful way. But you do have to have the blocks (same color) ready. Did the situation happen in one of your 2p games?

It came up in a small way, but as soon as it did I saw the potential for problems. If it's too good, which it is, then I suggest you tone it down somehow. If it were me I'd just change it to a second 'Big Piece With Intrinsic Dot'., or else just cut it alltogether.
Quote:
I could transform that big micropul into another big micropul with an intristic single nanopul, or a double. A big micropul with no intristic fission could work too but then it'd be exactly like a XXXX or OOOO.

2 intrinsic dots might be ok, since both players can take advantage of it. I dislike the idea of making it the same as the XXXX tile.

Also, I think it should only score 4 points instead of 5. It's already an extrememly good tile, why make it even better?

Finally, in the rules where you have the description of he intrinsic fission... I think you should fix the picture so it's [final tile]=[XXXX]+[tile with a dot in each corner] (rather than the dot in the center).

- Seth

P.S. What turned out to be difficult in explaining in previous versions?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

So what kinds of scores are you guys getting on this game? C'mon, I know other people have tried it!

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Just played 2-player

sedjtroll wrote:
If it's too good, which it is, then I suggest you tone it down somehow. If it were me I'd just change it to a second 'Big Piece With Intrinsic Dot'., or else just cut it alltogether.

Ok, let say it's too good. I don't mind having some blocks being marginally better than others. You encountered it in a small way. That means the overpowered situation won't necessary come up as soon as you draw that block, the player need the good blocks too. From what I understood, the situation you described is basically "playing the big + pul and playing all 3 remaining sides of it while activating dots to draw and finally put a stone on it." I can see it happen at the beginning of the game or at least pretty early, if the player wants to close the group that is. Because that's the real problem right? It seems it won't happen all too often. The opponent should actively try to stop you from closing that group afterward too.

I might seem a bit defensive but your input is important and really appreciated. I think this point is important and would like to fix it if there's a chance it will depreciate the quality of the game. I have not faced that situation so I don't know, but I'll take your word for it and continue looking into it.

I really like the look of the big micropul with a + inside and would rather not remove it or change it to a single dot or double dot (too many draw).

Quote:

Also, I think it should only score 4 points instead of 5. It's already an extrememly good tile, why make it even better?

Why not go even further since it's such an extremely good tile? It's one micropul (or matter), 1 point.

By the way I like the term matter and anti-matter very much. It also works mechanically. A circle could be seen as a "piece of matter" or "piece of anti-matter". Micropul for a whole block is a bit more touchy because block or tile is already such a nice word that everone understand. If I go referring all blocks as micropul wouldn't it be confusing? Thematically, I can very easily see a micropul being a chunk of the core. Hey, the community stacks, another word I could replace but this would confuse the hell out of the readers. Thoses chunks, the micropul contain matter, anti-matter and catalysts. I like catalysts too and knew what it meant but does everyone know that word?

All in all, my concern is with explaining the rules efficiently. I've got 3 pages now for a semi-complex game. 4 or 5 might be going overboard.

Quote:
I think you should fix the picture so it's [final tile]=[XXXX]+[tile with a dot in each corner] (rather than the dot in the center).

That would suggest a big micropul has 4 dots (1 in each corner) and thus having a block with two adjacent micropul on it would activate 2 fissions.

Quote:
PS

The confusion of names was a big deal. The action for playing a tile was huge.

old rules.doc wrote:

micropul block : A 1 ¼ inch square piece of wood. Referred simply as “block” to avoid confusion.
pool : The big pile where all the blocks are at the beginning.
reserved block : A block put face down (hidden to all) put in a pile by the player.
reseved block pile : A pile by the player which contains the reserved blocks.
open block : A micropul block put face up (visible to player) in the holder.
holder : A rack which can contain up to 7 open blocks.
element : Something that is on a micropul block.
micropul : Element ; A circle. It can be either colored or black.
light micropul : Element ; A pastel-colored micropul.
dark micropul : Element ; A black micropul.
dot : Element ; A small
single dot : Element ; A small dot
double dot : Element ; Two small dots.
reacto : Element ; A 4 star. Let you play again.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Just played 2-player

hpox wrote:

It seems it won't happen all too often. The opponent should actively try to stop you from closing that group afterward too.

Maybe you're right, maybe wait until it really proves to be a problem before worrying about it. But I'd keep an eye on it.

Quote:
I really like the look of the big micropul with a + inside

Comepletely understandable.

Quote:

Why not go even further since it's such an extremely good tile? It's one micropul (or matter), 1 point.

I like this idea for a 2 player game a lot. For a 1-player game I guess it works too... making a good score less luck-reliant (how many big pieces did I draw this time?)

Quote:
Micropul for a whole block is a bit more touchy because block or tile is already such a nice word that everone understand. If I go referring all blocks as micropul wouldn't it be confusing?

You have a good point. Tile is a good name for the tiles. In that case I am leaning back towards calling the dots the Micropul. The action of spliting pieces (Tiles) off of the community stacks (Core) could be named after the catalyst that does it (Micropul) and that's where the game could get it's name.

Quote:
Thematically, I can very easily see a micropul being a chunk of the core. Hey, the community stacks, another word I could replace but this would confuse the hell out of the readers.

I don't think "Core" for the community stacks is confusing at all, I think it's a good name for it.

Quote:
All in all, my concern is with explaining the rules efficiently. I've got 3 pages now for a semi-complex game. 4 or 5 might be going overboard.

I think it'll be ok, I don't think you'll need 5 pages. Maybe 4, with one of them being all examples.

Quote:
sedjtroll wrote:
I think you should fix the picture so it's [final tile]=[XXXX]+[tile with a dot in each corner] (rather than the dot in the center).

That would suggest a big micropul has 4 dots (1 in each corner) and thus having a block with two adjacent micropul on it would activate 2 fissions.

Uh oh... you mean to say that's not the case? I misunderstood that rule then and have been playing it wrong. I wonder what that'll do to my score.

old rules.doc wrote:

micropul block : A 1 ¼ inch square piece of wood. Referred simply as “block” to avoid confusion.
pool : The big pile where all the blocks are at the beginning.
reserved block : A block put face down (hidden to all) put in a pile by the player.
reseved block pile : A pile by the player which contains the reserved blocks.
open block : A micropul block put face up (visible to player) in the holder.
holder : A rack which can contain up to 7 open blocks.
element : Something that is on a micropul block.
micropul : Element ; A circle. It can be either colored or black.
light micropul : Element ; A pastel-colored micropul.
dark micropul : Element ; A black micropul.
dot : Element ; A small
single dot : Element ; A small dot
double dot : Element ; Two small dots.
reacto : Element ; A 4 star. Let you play again.

Wow, I can see how that could be confusing. There are more than one entry to some of these!

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Just played 2-player

sedjtroll wrote:
But I'd keep an eye on it.

Certainly.
Quote:
You have a good point. Tile is a good name for the tiles. In that case I am leaning back towards calling the dots the Micropul. The action of spliting pieces (Tiles) off of the community stacks (Core) could be named after the catalyst that does it (Micropul) and that's where the game could get it's name.

Getting dizzy. You're not recommending having two names for each element, right? Instead of block, tile. I buy that. Instead of community stacks, core. I think it would be fine. Instead of fissions or catalysts, micropul... Hmm, for some reason micropul for the dots doesn't sound right. Quick idea "micropul" could be the codename for the project the scientists are working on. I like catalyst more for the dots, if it's a well-understood word.

Good point about needing more examples. The fact that the big micropul were misunderstood clearly shows there's a problem in my rules.

Quote:

old rules.doc wrote:

snip
Wow, I can see how that could be confusing. There are more than one entry to some of these!

Yeah, it was pretty bad. Thanks for the comments!

Lots of good stuff so far. I find tweaking a fun part of the process.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Just played 2-player

hpox wrote:

Quote:
You have a good point. Tile is a good name for the tiles. In that case I am leaning back towards calling the dots the Micropul. The action of spliting pieces (Tiles) off of the community stacks (Core) could be named after the catalyst that does it (Micropul) and that's where the game could get it's name.

Getting dizzy. You're not recommending having two names for each element, right?

No, the capitalized things in parenthises were the names, as you surmised.

- Seth

daem0n_faust
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Quote:
What in the rules made you think you could reuse fissions? I would like to see where's the mistake that confuse people about that. You're not the first to have thought that fissions were not reusable.

Uh, based on some conversations on previous posts? I wanna test it on four players. If you CANNOT use same fissions every turn while they are still available, that's good. I'll check your new rules for clarifications. Hope you have addressed stuff from these conversations.

Tralala. Your game name sounds good enough for me. It is easy to remember for my other friends. It already has that "Chess" name effect (when you say Micropul, they already know what we were referring to) as opposed to any other words that are cliched.

Adieu.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

hpox wrote:
What in the rules made you think you could reuse fissions? I would like to see where's the mistake that confuse people about that. You're not the first to have thought that fissions were not reusable.

This is confusing...
As I understand it, a Fission that had been activated in the past, if still open, could activate again by a circle being placed next to it. Is that not correct? It doesn't make much sense to have to remember which fissions were activated and which were not. Actually, that might not be too tough (is there already a circle there or not?) but it's silly anyway.

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

sedjtroll wrote:
hpox wrote:
What in the rules made you think you could reuse fissions? I would like to see where's the mistake that confuse people about that. You're not the first to have thought that fissions were not reusable.

This is confusing...
As I understand it, a Fission that had been activated in the past, if still open, could activate again by a circle being placed next to it. Is that not correct?

Yes it is correct. You can use the circles again on subsequent turns.

My bad:

hpox wrote:
What in the rules made you think you could not reuse fissions? I would like to see where's the mistake that confuse people about that. You're not the first to have thought that fissions were not reusable.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Quote:
Uh, based on some conversations on previous posts?

Yeah, my mistake. See post above ^.

Quote:
I wanna test it on four players.

Cool, thanks. I guess with 2 set, it will work fine. I'd love to hear about that game.

Quote:
If you CANNOT use same fissions every turn while they are still available, that's good.

I have not tested it and if you say that it work... Great, I believe you! As I mentionned earlier, it should be harder and could be considered an hardcore variant. But officially, the circles are not 'used up' when they activate.

I think the confusion comes from this :

micropul-Rules-1.1.pdf wrote:
Any fission is only counted “activated” once even if it's adjacent to 2 micropuls.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Currently rewriting the rules to fit the new terms in. I'm wondering if I should just forget the scientific theme and go with "circle" and "dots"?

dots = catalyst(s)
micropul = matter(?)

What's the plural of matter? matters? Sounds weird.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

hpox wrote:
...forget the scientific theme and go with "circle" and "dots"?

I wouldn't. I like the terms, and they're easy enough to define.
Quote:
what's the plural of matter? matters? Sounds weird.

The plural is not 'matters'. You could have some matter, or a whole lot of matter. You don't really have just 1 matter. You might have 1 unit of matter, but matter is just matter- no matter how much of it there is.

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

sedjtroll wrote:
The plural is not 'matters'. You could have some matter, or a whole lot of matter. You don't really have just 1 matter. You might have 1 unit of matter, but matter is just matter- no matter how much of it there is.

Alright, that's why I thought. So how to define the circles? piece of matter? circle of matter?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

hpox wrote:
Alright, that's why I thought. So how to define the circles? piece of matter? circle of matter?

"bits", "chunks", something like that. Probably "bits of matter"

daem0n_faust
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Quote:
hpox wrote:
Alright, that's why I thought. So how to define the circles? piece of matter? circle of matter?

"bits", "chunks", something like that. Probably "bits of matter"

Mass of atoms. Haha. Why become utterly, utterly scientific? These things you were using are good enough, because it will always prove to be as much abstract a game as possible. Unless you really make those itsy bitsy details to make it look scietifically a "matter", it wouldn't be much different. But that's just me.

As for the "dying" fission, or that which doesn't get reused after the turn it was used, don't take my word for it. Have others play it in that variant. To people who want to try it, here is the gig to prevent confusion: used up fissions are always adjacent to one or more micropuls. Unused ones are free in the open (can be attached once with a micropul from your hand), unless it is closed by empty tiles. If this doesn't work, you can always make an electronic version of Micropul to make the fissions blink if used already! :lol:

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Of course, I'll try it.

I have received more feedback by email on the "big micropul +" problem Seth pointed out earlier. It was decided that a big micropul will be worth 1 point in a group at the end instead of 5. That should help.

New rules: http://www.neutralbox.com/micropul/rules/micropul-Rules-1.2.1.pdf

I kept the term micropul for the circle but catalyst is the new fission. It makes much more sense. Cheesed up the introduction a little bit. Tell me if you like.

daem0n_faust
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Yeah, I think catalyst suits it better. The flavor text (*if you will) on the rules seems as "techy" like the first, but it makes it all the more ... humm... should we say, "Justified"? However, some people might tend to believe it...

Hehehe.

Why is the starting tile the same with another tile in the stack? You didn't print one, so I guess I have to print an additional tile of that copy?

Just for the record: a guy I played with greedily wanted a sort of "unsummon" tile to remove the micropul already in play!!! Nothing, just to say more.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

daem0n_faust wrote:
Why is the starting tile the same with another tile in the stack? You didn't print one, so I guess I have to print an additional tile of that copy?

Just use one of the two in the set. For an alternate starting configuration, use the XOXO tile instead of the XXOO tile. Heck, for another alternate you could start with a random tile, but I would always use the XXOO or XOXO for Solitaire if I were you. Post your scores so we can see how you do! For Solitaire, count the big+ and big-dot as 5 points so your score will be comperable to hpox' and mine so far... but of course for 2 player the big guys should only count for 1 as it says in the rules.

- Seth

My top score so far = 97

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

I see what you mean by "justified". Should it be more general to keep the mystery of a micropul? As long as it gives an idea of the game...

You don't need an additional starting tile, use the one already in the set. In fact, there's two of them!

Here's the list of tiles that could be used as a starting tile. o = white micropul x = black micropul b = nothing,blank 1 = single catalyst 2 = double catalyst s = special catalyst (+)

    o1x1 obx1
    oox2
    ooxx
    ox1b
    oxbs
    x1o1
    xbo1
    xo1b
    xobs
    xxo2
    xxoo

About the unsummon. It's a good idea but kind of fiddly and would need new tiles!! Even harder to explain it without having to add clarifications during other steps. What if a player use it on the first turn and remove the starting tile? Can he remove a tile surrounded by 4 tiles? What if it breaks a group in two? What if that tile have a stone on it? Of course, this can easily be specified but that's a lot to cover and I'm sure I missed some stuff.

I had an idea similar to that. It was to "prime" the tile. You could lay a tile facedown in play and put a stone on it. The tile didn't have to respect rules #1 and #2. On subsequent turns, you could freely flip up your primed tiles and play them but without costing you an action. So you could make "combo" or chain to close groups without your opponent screwing your plan. The twist was that your opponent could flip up your primed tile as an action but if it didn't match according to rules #1 and #2, he'd have to take that tile back in his hand and lose his turn.

Well of course, I removed it because it was way too fiddly. This unsummon doesn't sound as bad but what I'm looking for is a strong base game. If I ever make expansions/add-on or advanced variants, I'll certainly consider it. Thanks

[/]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

hpox wrote:
About the unsummon. It's a good idea but kind of fiddly and would need new tiles!! Even harder to explain it without having to add clarifications during other steps. What if a player use it on the first turn and remove the starting tile? Can he remove a tile surrounded by 4 tiles? What if it breaks a group in two?

Hmm... well breaking a group up would be neat, and fair. The Unsummon could be something like lining up 2 +'s or something. Or it could be a new symbol that when it activates you pick back up the tile you just put down (that's dumb) or maybe pick up the tile with the unsummon symbol- then any tiles that are 'disconnected' are removed from the game. That solves both the 'surrounded by 4 tiles' and 'starting tile' problems.

Quote:
What if that tile have a stone on it?
Well, the stones go on a GROUP, right, not a TILE... so no problem there. Unless the group consisted of only 1 tile, in which case give the stone back.

Quote:
what I'm looking for is a strong base game. If I ever make expansions/add-on or advanced variants, I'll certainly consider it. Thanks
I agree that this is the way to go. An Unsummon tile might be neat in an expansion.

- Seth

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rambling + Rules for micropul, finally!

Totally agree it's a cool concept and every issue can be solved. I wonder if a kind of "unsummon" effect could be given to the + catalyst in solitaire since + is still useless in that mode. It could work like an undo to correct mistake or re-arrange the tiles in a better way...

I just received the "flat marbles" ordered last week! There was supposed to be 650 stones in each but I counted and there's at least 900! Somewhat make up for the outrageous customs taxes...

Which color combo look the best?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut