[Icehouse] Re: Trehouse set v. single stash

[Frank F. Smith]

David Artman wrote:
<snippage>
> My initial (minor, anecdotal, example for a larger issue) points about
> the game not working "properly" were mainly a handling issue, which
> others have conceded exists. If one must inspect under a stack, the
> game is slowed down. Not broken, no. Not unplayable, no. But slowed. Is
> it trivial to peek? Sure. Is a game working "perfectly" if you have to
> touch pieces to check on the game state? No.
>   
That was our thought as well, I think.
>> FRANK:
>> we noticed the problem with opaques and played a simple variant
>> based on the principle "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist"
>> in which a nest is considered indistinguishable from a
>> single pyramid of the outermost size. Seemed to work, anyway.
>>     
>
> Hmmm... so one could strategically nest over a small with a large
> opaque--making the small not only not count and also "not exist"--then
> tree it with another small later--because if the nested small doesn't
> exist then it's not a nest and can be treed?
>   
Exactly so. I do not recall if we used the "does not exist" variant 
_only_ when covering with an opaque piece; I think I was keeping a black 
stash in the car at the time, so the question did not arise.

The variant likely affects game strategy, but I never analyzed it enough 
to decide how much (or even if it "breaks" the game).
> Definitely a variation worth documenting on the wiki. IF there was a
> rule doing either what you and your daughter do OR an advisement
> similar to the one in my last post, then TTD could be a SS-trans OR
> SS-Tree... hmmm, or even a SS-Rand... "Tic Tac What?" - dump 5 TH
> stashes into an opaque bag, and reach into it to choose pieces to play;
> so you can choose size but not color/opacity. Play ends when there are
> no more legal moves or someone gets 3 of same size in a row.
>   
_That_ sounds amusing!

Frank
> David
>