Game #14b Brick Tac Toe

Super,

Thanks for posting this! I never got a chance to read "switch and tips" before it was pulled, but the word play of that name just got me. Cute!

This game is elegantly simple, and sounds like a nice and more interesting variation of Tic Tac Toe. I'm a bit concerned that since it is still Tac Tac Toe that a stalemate can be similarly "forced", but my guess is that since there are 5 "boards" rather than 1, and since these are built in a unique way, that the "solution" to the game is intractable.

I found it interesting that you add 2 cubes rather than 1. My guess is that this is to remove the anti-climatic "blocking" effect that makes Tic Tac Toe so boring. Is there an additional reason for that rule?

Unfortunately, it's hard to evaluate a perceived black-white imbalance without playing. Play balance issues are sometimes hard to evaluate from the rulebook alone, and I'm afraid this is such a case. I personally can believe that going first is a big advantage in a game of 2 "experts", but I like your "2nd player wins ties" rule that forces the first player to press his advantage. It also suggests, though, that the game should be played differently; the black player is going for the win, the white player, rather than trying to win outright, is just trying to keep the black player from exceeding him. I don't know whether this is good or bad or indifferent.

One thing that wasn't clear from your scoring example, F.8. You have 3 faces, which I'll call "top", "front", and "right". It seems that each row on the edges actually creates two lines. For example, on the "top right" edge, there is a set of 3 black cubes in a line. Doesn't this form 2 "rows", one on the top face and one on the right face? If not, the rules should be more clear about the definition of a "row".

Either way, cute game that sounds like it would be quick and fun to play as a filler. I'll be interested to hear suggestions from others about the white/black imbalance. Unfortunately, I don't have any at the moment.

Nice game!

-Jeff

Except I can't read it. :( It comes up like this in OpenOffice: [url=http://www.neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/BrickTacToe(MessedUp).pdf]Brick Tac Toc (Messed Up)[/url]

I'd suggest exporting your doc as PDF, that way everyone will have access to your document in its integral/original presentation and without the ability to modify it.

HTML works well also, and I think Microsoft Word saves to HTML natively. Give it a shot.

The game seems quick enough that you can implement your suggestion that players play two games, alternating colors in each game.

The nice thing about designing abstract games like this is that you can get a wide range of playtesters. Since your target audience is not limited to the "hardcore gamer," you can get lots of people to playtest it. Games probably take 10-15 minutes - a definite plus, for a game like this - and the pieces seem to have a nice tactile feel to them, at least conceptually.

That's all I can pick up from the rules. I'd have to actually play the game to provide any more feedback.

Are you familiar with Icehouse? Seems like you'd enjoy it, and I think you could come up with some cool games for the pyramids.

Good luck!

I thought that when you installed Acrobat Reader it added a plugins to export as PDF in Word. But alas, that's for Acrobat 5.0 which is quite expensive indeed.

You can convert up to 5 files for free at Adobe's site but this is not the best either. http://createpdf.adobe.com/?v=AHP

I think html does the trick well enough. Thanks for suggesting that IngredientX.

As for the game, wow so simple the rules could fit on a quart of a sheet. The figures were very useful and added a lot to the understanding.

I like them all except FIG 6. The rule that go with it doesn't ring good to me. Rule 6 is automatically understood upon seeing the end result (FIG 7). Could it say instead that all cubes must touch the brick even if it's only by their points?

The gameplay, well it seems much more fun than Tic Tac Toe but I fear the strategies are pretty thin like in Tic Tac Toe.

Ok, now for the obvious: some coordinates are "worth" more than others because they show on more faces. So you'll always try to prevent your opponent to get there easily. But then perhaps that situation is what create the game.

If only I had some legos, I could test it! So what has the playtests revealed?

I just had a thought looking at your worth of the various cube positions. In my mind an argument went as follows, if count the total worth of a player's cubes you could gauge how likely they are to win (or be winning). Thus the first player has a choice between playing a middle bottom cube or the top middle cube. THe top middle cube is 'worth' more, and also forces the other player to take the low-worth middle bottom cube.
Anyway there are 25 spots right? 27 for the full cube - 2 for the inner start piece. Which means the black player has one extra cube in the end (13 versus white's 12). The whole cube is worth (9*4)topcorners + (2*4)bottom middle + (16*4) all others = 108. That extra black cube is worth either 2 or 4 depending on the spot.
All of this may not even matter because you are looking for rows of three not actually points for positioning. The only real thought I have is to extend that start post to 3x1 tall, making the top square a wild of some sort.
I dunno, not really good at abstract games, but I liked the math that seemed to be involved.

ANdy

Woohoo.. i did good. ;)
Sort of an off the wall suggestion.. if you made the board a small piece of wood with rods on the outside and the little start piece in the middle, then each player's piece could have a hole in it that would fit on the rod. Then I could almost see it something that could sit on a desk and be as arty as it is fun. Maybe the size of a rubix cube or whatnot.

I thought part of the point was that cubes couldn't 'hover'. That you had to stack them from bottom to top?