RE: [haggis] Haggis board 86

["Reed, Jim" <jim_reed@mentorg.com>]

I thought the card and rule count were OK (I'm willing to try more), but
then again the summary said it all:

> Game Over.  yoyodyne won

Seriously though, one tweak to the multiplier rule to minimize the imbalance
it can cause would be to use the same number for the number of card required
and the multiplier.  That would make the rule: "Each set of N red cards
multiplies the value of one green card by N".  Bigger multipliers would be
harder to earn.  With that change we wouldn't have rules like "Each set of 2
orange cards multiples the value of one white card by 3" which made a big
difference in the game because a big multiplier is just as easy to get as a
small one.

Another type of rule you could add would be:

	Each red,green pair is worth +/- N points.

That's similar to the multiplier rule in that it relates two different
colors.  You could specify sets of 3 or more cards, but then it begins to
look like a "small straight" rule.

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-haggis-users@gamerz.net [mailto:owner-haggis-users@gamerz.net]
On Behalf Of mballinger@fibres.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:50 AM
To: haggis-users@gamerz.net
Subject: Re: [haggis] Haggis board 86

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:50:30AM -0400, Reed, Jim wrote:
> 
> The code should be modified to ensure that each rule is owned by at 
> least one person though.

Crap!  Yes.  This morning, before I turned on the computer I realized, "uh
oh, I mis-distributed the rules!"

So, fix on the way.  In general, though, did we like the number of cards in
this game?  And three rules per person?


To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
	unsubscribe haggis-users@gamerz.net
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.