WOK TRINITY - a new variant of Standard WOK

Post by **trewqh** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:38 pm

korexus wrote: Trinity could be 3 players with 1/2/3 spots each and the rest filled with robots.

That's exactly what I meant.

korexus wrote: Although maybe we shouldn't throw too many variants out at once...

Hence, "potential, future".

Post by **Hannibal** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:02 pm

OK, I really do give in. You can name the lighter-easier-2-spots-or-colours-each-to-start-with-version-of-Duel whatever you like, and I'll follow it. After all, maybe no-one will ever play it, and talking about its Victory Conditions is just theoretical fun. Duel-lite, anybody?

And I fully agree about restricting the number of versions - just Duel and, er, the other one.

But I'd really like Duel to be one name for one game, optimised rules, the best one-on-one challenge in WoK, really tough. Not the name for a series of possibilities, pls. It's my baby! Call the light version whatever you like.

Han

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:05 pm

Ok, so 3-spot Duel is the main game (and probably the version played most often.) People refering just to 'Duel' are likely to mean that as it came first. But we can still have variants so starting with 2 spots is a bit like running an X-Game Duel. The same engine is running it, so it's the same basic game, but the GM has changed some numbers. Just like when the GM changes the starting parameters of a Standard game.

Side note. As my role these days is more that of programmer than player, anything which runs using the same engine has the same name. Otherwise I develope schizophrenia very quickly. If you want to get a new game name you need to make a game which needs a recode. Then you need me to have time to code another engine. Sticking with 'Duel' will be a lot easier!

Chris.

Post by **trewqh** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:36 pm

I was just making a suggestion... (A suggestion that would protect Chris' fragile...) Anyway!

The bottom line for me is not calling the 3-spot-Duel (and I am using this name because I find it useful in this context) Trinity as, I believe, has been suggested at the very beginning of the thread...

Duel and Duel-lite work for me.

I can see it now:

Noob: Hey, how's Duel different from Duel-lite?

Vet: The former is a 3 colours per player Duel and the latter is a 2 colours per player Duel, with the rest colors...

And by the above example I mean that my suggestions were closer to 'self-explanatory'.

Post by **Hannibal** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:41 pm

I agree with trewqh. Forget the Trinity name. Gone.

I also agree with Korexus.

But more with trewqh.

Post by **korexus** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:51 pm

Hannibal wrote:I also agree with Korexus.

But more with trewqh.

Right! This is outright provocation! I Challenge you to a Duel!

Oh wait, we're already playing one. Never mind.

korexus.

Post by **Hannibal** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:43 pm

korexus wrote:
Hannibal wrote:I also agree with Korexus.

But more with trewqh.
Right! This is outright provocation! I Challenge you to a Duel!

Oh wait, we're already playing one.

Hey, that was SUPPOSED to widen the divide between you two (Kor and trewqh),

and set you against each other to argue out a point I could just watch .... But you turn on the person who .... merely pointed out that trewqh had a much more convincing argument than you? Don't you want to prove trewqh wrong in the arena?! Just kidding. I'm looking forward to our game of Duel, and don't seriously think anybody should play two at once!