[Icehouse] Icehouse Rules video

[Elliott C. Evans]

Joshua Kronengold wrote:
> I need to check in the book, but I do think that over-icing needs to
> be clarified as previously discussed.  "if you could remove a piece
> and have it still be iced" is too ambiguous.

Yes, that's ambiguous; yes, you need to check in the book.

PwP, p. 89:
 > If so many attackers are pointing at a defender that some of them are
 > extraneous, that defender is said to be “Over-Iced”.
 >
 > An attacking piece is extraneous if subtracting its value from the
 > total value of the attacking pieces leaves a number that still exceeds
 > the value of the defensive piece.

My apologies to class attendees if I was unclear when describing this
rule in the class. The hand-outs use the same text as the book. (I just
don't have it memorized verbatim. =^)

-- 
Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans
eeyore at ee0r.com