Sumof2 Version 2

It feels like the first half of the game will be completely meaningless. Since, as pointed out, it doesn't matter where pieces are until the end it makes no difference what I "swap" until the last 5 or so rounds when the pieces become harder to match.

And James is correct in that this game is going to be very punishing to mistakes, which can ruin the enjoyment of a game.

Right now the location of the pieces is arbitrary. You could play the same game and instead of using a grid use two piles, one for each player, and get the exact same results. If this is going to be a board game make the locations of pieces matter more throughout the game, or have special pieces like "locking" or "doubling" that grant effects to pawns next to them. A locking piece makes it so you can't remove the piece or a doubling piece that makes each pawn next to it worth, well, double. Seems like this game needs that extra layer of something or after playing twice I would never pick it back up.

It really doesn't matter though since even if I don't as "player a" take the largest pawn, player b will. So by the middle of the game the players will still have removed on average the highest pawns, it doesn't matter who removes what in what order, the bigger pawns will still get removed first. Sure there will be some minor possition stuff early on, but it's not like I can protect a particular piece or in any real way deter my opponent from making a certain move (not to mention it largely doesn't matter what they do until the last few moves).

I love this idea but it just seems very, raw.

I was thinking about this game at work again (Shhh! Don't tell the boss!) and decided to take this direction with it:

2 or more players (preferably 2 for now).

6x6 grid filled randomly with tokens with values from -18 to +18 (no zero), face down so that no one can see which token is which value.

There are 11 different-colored tokens with prime numbers that can be either positive or negative from 1 to 29 (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29), also face down but off the board or in a bag.

A player reaches into the bag or otherwise picks a random prime-number token (Ex. 11). Both players must now find a combination on the board that sums to +/- 11. Because this is the first prime # token for each player, it must be a sum of two numbers (Ex. +18-7 = +11 or -13+2 = -11).

Each player, during their individual turns, flips over two tiles to find two tiles that would total the prime number token.

The first player who finds such a combination gets to keep the prime # token. Of the two numbers used to create the combination, the opponent gets to choose which of those two numbers stays on the board and where that number goes on the board while the player who made the combination keeps the other number.

With each successful combination that a player makes, the number of tiles needed to make a combination goes up by one. If a player has made three successful combinations and are now on their fourth prime number token, they'll need to make a five-tile combination (ex. +13+7-11-3+1 = +7). The opponent, though, does not need to follow this and follows their own schedule. So, for instance, one player may have "won" 3 prime-number tokens and, as a result, now needs to make a 5-tile combination to win the next token. The opponent has won only 1 token so they only need to make a 3-tile combination. Regardless of the # of tiles needed for a combination, only one will be put back onto the board each time by the opponent.

The winner is the first to reach six tokens. In the result of a tie or if the board is no longer capable of producing a winning combination of the current token (unlikely but possible if the two players are strategic in what they choose to put back on the board), all tiles kept by the players (excluding the prime # tokens) are added up as positive numbers and the higher number wins. If that is a tie (unlikely but conceivably possible), then the players duel with pistols or flamethrowers... preferably flamethrowers (although those wouldn't be included with the game, naturally).

Anyway, that was my thought concerning the game. Enjoy.

Well, I decided to add another wrinkle into my revision game, Two or More (tentative title).

Originally, I thought that the added difficulty of the leader would offset the amount that the challenger was behind. In other words, if the leader had 4 tokens and was working on the 5th, the leader would need a 6 tile combination to reach the next prime number selected while the challenger would need less (Ex. Player "A" has 4 tokens already & Player "B" has 2. Player B only needs a 4-tile combination to reach the current prime token [working on a 3rd token] selected while Player A would need a 6-tile combination [working on a 5th]).

I still want to keep that but I decided that I wanted to add an extra little challenge so that someone couldn't "run away" with the game and also add an additional strategic element to the game.

All throughout the game, the number zero (0) is present. When a player takes tiles off of the board to keep after finding the combination to a prime number first, they have a chance to combine their tile total, in relation to how many prime numbers they've captured, to zero. If they can, they win automatically regardless of how many prime numbers the other player already has.

Ex. Player "A" has 5 prime number tokens already. As a result, that player has 15 tiles from the board (-18 to +18). If player "A" can match any 5 of their tiles together to equal 0, that player wins automatically. If player "B" only has 2 prime number tokens, that player would only need 2 tiles from the board to equal 0 to win automatically.

Anyway, I thought it'd be a nice wrinkle to introduce to the game so that the "opponent gets to decide what gets put back onto the board and what doesn't" has a little more strategic meaning as well as giving someone who is trailing a bit more hope of winning the game.

Any thoughts about this are welcome.

When ichbin first posted the design, I was quick to suggest an alternative way of summing up numbers along a line in a board because I thought that it would add an additional strategic element to the game. In theory, it would give the position of numbers greater importance and allow players to hide their play options.

What I had in mind was a design that combined Sumof2 with Scrabble - the board is initially seeded with numbers, players have a secret hand of numbers and then they take turns claiming numbers in a row which can be replaced by an equal number of numbers in their hand with an equal total value. So, imagine, you have a 3, 4 and 5 in your hand and you use it to replace a 1, 2 and 9 along a vertical line on the board. You collect the 1, 2 and 9 and then you place the 3, 4 and 5 back in their place arranged however you want. Then, the other player goes. The game ends when all tiles are pulled and both players pass (because they cannot make a score). At that point, the player with the most tokens wins.

Theoretically, it is very intriguing because you can compete for larger lines of numbers and use the placement of objects to set up your next turn or foil your opponent.

But, I stopped making the design when I realized that it is hard for people to add two numbers together, let alone 5 numbers. In general, people don't store numbers in their head very well as they perform operations on them. Granted, some people have no problem seeing how to add 5, 3, 8, 7, 2. But, a lot of people do. And, imagine if you had to do that with every possible combination of tokens in your hand and tokens on the board. Talk about paralysis analysis!

It is a classic case of a game which can be completely sound and strategic, but not fun because it doesn't accommodate the cognitive limits and mental pleasantries of the people playing it. A computer would love it, but an (above) average human?