UPDATE JULY 5, 2012 - At this point, the original file attachment is obsolete as the initial board game had a flaw, for which I thank everyone for pointing it out to me. The original instructions have been taken down and I'll rework it.

I have no idea where to place this topic. It looks like playtest requests now go here and so this is where I'll place it. The moderators can move it if there is a better forum for this.

This is one of my board games. The complete rules are in the attached PDF but here is the overview - It is a two-player, abstract strategy board game. Players sit between a 3-space hexagon (3 spaces on each of it's 6 sides for 19 spaces overall), taking turns placing pieces (for instruction sake, red and blue pieces) down onto empty spaces of the grid. The object is to make the last legal move or, in other words, you win by not losing. For the red side, you must avoid making the corners of an equilateral triangle with your pieces. For the blue side, you must avoid placing three of your pieces in any given row (horizontal, forward diagonal or backward diagonal). Gameplay example and play variants are in the attached PDF.

NOTE - I'm working on a more complex variant of this game; The PDF isn't complete yet but for those who want to see the incomplete PDF, private message me.

Thank you in advance and I look forward to everyone's feedback.

First, thank you for your responses so far.

@ TLEBerle -

Concerning a tie - During my testing, I never encountered a tie. If anything, including 9 pieces for both sides is more for completeness than necessity as my test games usually ended before either side needed a ninth piece.

Concerning your winning strategy - I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "holding serve." Please elaborate.

@ suf -

Concerning your views - Yes, I concur that triangles are initially harder to spot, especially the "crooked" triangle. In my defense, I found that with successive testing, they became easier to spot to the point where the added difficulty was negligible. If this continues to not be the case, that is a cause for concern.

Concerning a "fourth" 3-in-a-row case - If I understand you correctly, you may mean a case where the pieces are not touching each other. In a typical hexagon grid, this would translate to individual spaces touching only at points and not at edges which would not constitute the row as specified. I will have to make more observations about that.

Concerning lack of strategy - As stated, this is a simple strategy game. I am working on a more complex variant of the game and will hopefully reveal those rules soon. thank you for your interest.

@ akanucho -

Thank you for your analysis. Unfortunately, my mathematical notes for this game are not available to me right now. When I performed my own analysis, I remember both sides being equal with 60 possibilities each. In an effort to field a response, though, I've recreated some of that analysis.

For the 3-in-a-rows, our numbers concur at 60 although you performed different operations to arrive at your conclusions. I will admit that I merely performed a brute force method of counting out all of the possibilities for one set of rows and then multiplying them by 3 (3 different sets of rows).

For the triangles, I also performed a brute force method to obtain all possible triangles and then doubled the result (some triangles are flipped horizontally, others vertically and one diagonally). That number also turned out to be 60 although you came up with 66. Broken down further, the individual triangle types had 24, 14, 12, 6, 2 & 2 possibilities (from smallest triangle to largest) which summed to 60. Do you see more then six triangle types?