[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is it legal to push a piece from an ichorous square to another ichorous square?
'Mobile pieces within the range of an allied Ghast are not compelled to move, but when they do move they must flee.' Wait...does the Go Away's scream count as a movement? If a Go Away is on a square in the range of a friendly Ghast, is it permitted to scream? I assume that the answer is 'yes,' since the example game includes a portion in which an Alabaster Go Away screams while adjacent to an Alabaster Ghast. (I'm interested in clarifying all these rules, since I'm trying to code this game in time for Halloween.)
Instead of 'Multiple Occupancy', why not use 'Crowdness' to indicate the status of multiple pieces on the same square? That sounds better and easier. Also I think, if one wants to rewrite the rule for readability, what he needs is to modify the order to introduce the pieces and statuses. For example: 1. Humans, starting at the normal pawn squares, moves 1 square without capture in 5 directions, namely 1 forward one, 2 diagonally forward ones, and 2 sideways ones. Upon arriving at the 8th rank promotes to Zombies, which are very strong. Just remember the name for now. 2. Go Aways, starting at the normal bishop squares, jumps 2 rookwise or moves 1 diagonally. Instead of moving, may scream, which push adjacent things away. Pushing things onto non-empty squares results in crowded ones. Living things that find themselves in a crowd are compelled to move out. Compulsions: the status in which ... Just like that. I don't have time to write a full version, just want anyone else to do it.
While re-visiting the comments for this game, I realized that I had not given it a rating. So now I correct that oversight. I've finally accepted that this game will be extremely difficult to code. So for the sake of my own sanity I have given up such an attempt. But it has been fun trying. Like hitting myself with a hammer. :) This is not to say that it will not eventually be coded. I just realize that it will probably need its own dedicated program to accomplish this. And such a project will be merely a labor of love(or obsession) because there will probably never be sufficient monetary reward to cover this effort. If anyone decides to make such an attempt, they have my sympathy. ;-)
Raplh Betza posted this game after I stopped haunting the Chess Variant Pages around 2000, and so I didn't become aware of it until recently. And having become aware of it, I am (like some of the previous posters) intrigued by the extreme challenge (apparently yet unmet) of writing a ZRF for it. In response to Robert Price's post of 2004-01-17, it seems to me that the nonsimultaneous shout of the Go Away is actually a more interesting problem than multiple occupancy. As far as I know, Mr. Price's proposal to treat this as a 3-dimensional game with visually overlapping cells is, although a pain to code, the appropriate solution for Zillions. However, I believe it is infeasible to code a Go Away shout as a single Zillions move. As Mr. Price implies, using add-partial to code a shout as a series of all legal submoves is likely to result in a very weak computer opponent, because Zillions will be able to look ahead only a very short distance when a complicated shout is available. Nonetheless, I think you have to do just that. The reason why the shout is so troublesome is that in the worst case, a Go Away can be surrounded by a large number of pieces, including both Basilisks. As I understand it, the order in which a Go Away pushes pieces does not matter unless it pushes Basilisks; but if does push Basilisks, then it matters which pieces are pushed before and which after each Basilisk. That means that when a Go Away is surrounding by n non-Basilisk pieces subject to petrification (that is, n pieces that are not Basilisks, and not statues or otherwise immune to the Basilisk's glare), the number of distinct moves a Go Away can make is equal to the number of ways to partition a set into b + 1 parts, where b is the number of Basilisks among the n pieces. For a large n (say, 8 or so, but multiple occupancy can result in an even larger n than 8), this is a big enough number for one Basilisk (256 for n = 8), and an even bigger one for two (6561 for n = 8). Certainly the number could be big enough that the menu of move choices Zillions would display for a single-move Go Away shout would be substantially larger than the average computer screen. I know such menus are broken into multiple columns when longer than the height of the screen, but a big shout could easily fill the entire width of the screen with such columns, and still not be done. What happens then? I've never seen a program display such a long list of choices, but my experience with Microsoft products leads to me fear that Windows does not handle the situation gracefully. However, I think there is a solution involving add-partial that is near optimal. Code it as follows: first move all the non-Basilisk petrification-immune pieces simultaneously, and then move each of the remaining pieces in a partial move. I think the result in terms of lookahead difficulty is the same for Zillions as for a single-move shout, but the menus should be manageable for a human player. If someone who understands the implications of the rules of Nemoroth better than I do figures out that there is actually a tight enough constraint on the number of nonpetrifiable pieces that can be adjacent to a Go Away that the unitary Go Away move actually is feasible, I'd welcome the news. In any case, Nemoroth is an extremely deep game, much more so than any other pure strategy game I know of, and computers are likely to play it very badly for the foreseeable future. An alternative to implementing the full rules might be to nerf the Go Away, and code its shout as simultaneous (move all the pieces first, and only then calculate the Basilisks' effects). This would not really be Nemoroth, of course; it would be a less deep variant (you might call it Nemoroth Lite), but computers might play it better. As an aside, I'm grateful for John Lawson's comment of 2008-10-30, where he says it's difficult to play Nemoroth legally. When I first read the rules, I thought, there's no way I'd be able to figure out what was a legal move in this game without a computer to help me. I'm glad it's not just my own thickheadedness.
Nemoroth is very difficult to play legally. I think every game Ben and I played, there were illegal moves that had to be taken back, usually involving the effects of the Ghast. You may also note that no one ever posted a Nemoroth variant. I toyed with one based on bodily functions, but it was untested, and I am as far from Ralph Betza as can be. I never posted it, as a 'humor' piece, because it would have violated the CVP's G rating. (For those not familiar with the US movie ratings, a G rated film has no sex, no violence, and is considered suitable for very young children.)
The other half of Nemeroth, and the more complete Rules-set, for Halloween. John Lawson and Ben Good played number of recorded games, but there is no Preset for Nemeroth's (over)-complicated rules.
Nemeroth is about the most complicated Chess game made. What others are as complex in Rules, or Mutators? We have several specifically in mind to mention in follow-up by February. Nemeroth redeems itself in fascinating theme and Betza's legendary style. To play Nemeroth, as has actually been done by John Lawson and Ben Good (See sample games' articles), overseen by Betza himself, is another story. Playing Nemeroth requires activation of as many as 40 Mutators at once, in first approximation. So many Mutators activated have bearing on our '91.5 x 10^12...' Comments, where we develop CV Rules-sets mounting in number towards equality with number of atoms in Earth, the Solar System, eventually the Universe. Anyone can make up a CV in few minutes, as Pritchard points out in 'ECV', but some are far better than others. Few individuals have knack of Betza; the worst of the others mostly just rearrange known quantities, then often relying on self-promotion or outspokenness. Best CVs of all may be one-time inspirations of creative persons not bent on proliferation or willful designs for their own sake. Even Betza's very best may have been Chess-Unequal-Armies early on(1980). One exception in a great one is Rococo that they seemed just to work on for long time until getting it right. I invented and finished(as it turned out) Falcon Chess in an hour talking to friend Vera Cole, but now 15 years after December 1992, still fine-tune priority of choices for the most desirable starting arrays. Can complicated CVs actually be played strategically? We restrict Mutators activated and interacting to 32 in number in the cumulative tallies at '91.5 Trillion...' Necessary follow-up Comments for both articles, Nemeroth and 'Falcon 91.5 Trillion...', will show this great Nemeroth itself more complex than any of ours counted there. In fact, no one has analyzed fine Nemeroth fully by piece-types, power density, and its triple win conditions, as we intend full Game Design Analysis. Also, questions (Comments) by Ingrid Lael on the compulsion to flee 'Ghasts', and the other Commenter's only this month are yet unanswered.
A question? Can a go away push pieces off the board? If not what would happen if a go away on g8 used it's special move on a piece on h8?
:((((((((( Oh...how terrible, really.... Well, I guess I'll just read the rules more carefully or 'fill in the holes' myself in order to play it. Terrible, terrible news.... Thanks for your time. Bye... ...Ingrid
The 2002-06-30 Comment by 'gnohmon' is the last time Ralph Betza visited this page. Sad to say, there are hundreds of forgotten games on this web site. But if any game can 'come back from the dead', it would be Nemoroth!
Hi, me again... I've got just one more question (for the moment at least), it regards Ghasts and the compulsion to flee them. Let me see if I got it right. Consider this 'diagram': +---+---+---+---+---+ | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | +---+---+---+---+---+ | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | +---+---+---+---+---+ | 3 | 1 | G | 1 | 3 | +---+---+---+---+---+ | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | +---+---+---+---+---+ | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | +---+---+---+---+---+ Whilst fleeing the Ghast, a piece in any of the numbered squares can only move to a higher-numbered one, right? Now, suppose this particular piece is a rider (a Wounded Fiend actually, since Zombies fear not the hideous Ghast), can it approach the Ghast (by riding through a lower-numbered square) if it ends its move past the Ghast's influence? or should it ride in the direction indicated by higher-numbered squares only? (for example: can a Wounded Fiend in a '2' square ride horizontally through the '1' square ending its move past the '4' square, or must he flee in the opposite direction?) Thanks in advance for your time. Cheers... ...Ingrid. PS: I hope this 'thread'/game/whatever (I dunno how to call a series of follow-ups on comments) is not dead but just a bit dated, I'd really love to play this game!!
Hi there!, first off, GREAT game, tremendous depth...
Anyway, just a couple of questions that came to my mind while reading the rules for the 10th time (I probably know them by hard now, I just love reading them =P):
1) Suppose we've got a mummy and a statue in the same square (possible, thanks to the marbelous deeds of a Go Away/Banshee/Dread), now if pushed once more, they'll travel toghether, right? (i guess the same would happen with any combinations of contents being pushed as a matter of fact).
2) Well, that was pretty silly, but how about this one: suppose there's a Leaf Pile engulfing them (or whatever else you care for it to engulf) and a Go Away/Banshee/Dread pushes, will the engulfed piece be pushed as well? or is it just the Leaf Pile that gets pushed leaving behind the engulfed pieces unharmed?
3) Now that I'm at it, about engulfing, by it you mean that the 'engulfed' pieces cannot move, right? It's kind of logical since they are 'removed' from the board and only the Leaf Pile remains.
4) Any ideas as to how many different statues could there be? I mean, a petrified Go Away/Banshee/Dread is pretty much like a petrified Human for that matter (I think I read a comment addressing the same issue).
5) Any ideas as for how many pieces (maximun amount) can there be in a single position? Something like an Upper bound...?
OK, that's pretty much it, great game!
cheers!
This actully has more comments than the offical FIDE rules of chess
Robert, Roberto and I have been in e-mail discussion about the implementation of this game. He has volunteered for the graphics. I have worked up a number of ideas on the handling of the code. There being several ways to approach each of the various conditions in this game. We should establish a discussion group specific for individuals interested in participating in this project. It would need to be a location which allows the posting of data files, so participants can easily exchange the lengthy examples of coding which will become part of this implementation.
I would love to help in coding Nemoroth in Zillions, just as soon as I can
convince myself that it's possible at all.
<p>
As I understand it, piece <i>attributes</i> can not change the
<i>appearance</i> of a piece, so a petrified Basilisk, for example, must
be implemented as a different piece-<i>type</i> from an ordinary Basilisk
(if you want them to look different), even though their non-voluntary
behaviors are identical.
<p>
A far greater concern is multiple-occupancy. The usual approach is to
declare a piece-type for every <i>combination</i> of pieces that may
coexist on a space. Add to that the need to distinguish between petrified
and fleshy, friendly and enemy (because such strange bedfellows may indeed
come to share a space). And realize that pile-ups of more than two may
easily arise... All of a sudden, Octi's library of 256 piece-types (<a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/octi.html'>http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/octi.html</a>) is looking downright trivial by
comparison.
<p>
From the game-logic standpoint, I intend to investigate the possibility
of treating each of the 64 spaces similarly to a <i>prison</i> in the ZRF
for Shogi. From the graphical standpoint, we can't afford simply to
divide each square into a 3x3 grid of positions as I did for <a
href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/edgechess.html'>Edge
Chess</a>, or people will need a magnifying glass to see the great
graphics someone's going to make for the pieces. Instead, the cells of my
prison will overlap, and with a well-defined order of precedence. I
learned from <a
href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/platformchess.html'>Platform
Chess</a> that the later-defined space will have its contents drawn before
a sooner-defined space. This works perfectly. The front cell of the
prison will dominate most of each space, with four more behind it kind of
peeking in from the corners. Clicking-and-dragging a piece from the
prison works as expected; if you grab a pixel that belongs to two spaces,
Zillions assumes you mean the one it drew out in front. So if you want to
move your Human that someone's gone and pushed a Basilisk statue onto, you
can click on the visible portion of his puny form and command him, exactly
as if two pieces really were present on the same space at the same time.
<P>
<b>Anyway,</b> multiple occupancy is what struck me as the big difficulty.
Besides that, the non-simultaneous nature of the Go Away shout may not be
pretty. One solution is to present a big pop-up menu consisting of all
possible orders in which to push the victims (or only those which are
substantially different due to the presence of basilisks). I would hate
to have to use one move per push, because that's the sort of thing that
weakens the computer opponent.
<p>
The evaporation of ichor is something that will just have to be managed by
a ?Moderator who is programmed to scan the board and decrement all the
ichor-plies by one. This raises another point... in order for ichor to be
visible, it has to be a piece-type. I could do that by making a position
behind each prison, where the ichor would sit. If the graphics designer
wants to make ten different pictures of ichor, that's great, because each
ply of ichor is going to be a different piece-type, and when the board is
covered in broad sweeps of the stuff, the players are entitled to know
which ichor is ickier.
<p>
Compulsion is tough to describe - it's slightly more complicated than the
move-priority construct which in Checkers requires you to jump if able.
But it is definitely doable. A piece is never compelled to make any
<i>particular</i> move, only to make a <i>legal</i> one, provided the
'legal' constraint handles the details like preventing a piece within 2 of
a Ghast from moving-without-fleeing. (note the beauty in Nemoroth on this
point: The same *legality* constraint appies whether the Ghast is friendly
or enemy; the only difference is that a piece within range of an <i>enemy</i>
Ghast is compelled during its move generation.) Imposing move-priority and
also (somehow) verifying that either a compelled piece was moved, or no
compelled piece remains (after the immediate effects of the move have
happened) comes very close to fitting the bill.
<p>
This sounds like an extraordinary game, and it certainly was presented in a marvelous way.
Larry, what is the state of the code for Nemoroth?. May I help?. I can try the graphics, but if so, I need know some details of the programming. I´m not sure the best way to manage the graphics of multiple-ocuppied squares, but I have some ideas about. One question: Why don´t become a member of TCVP?. You are part of the Chess Variants fans community, and of the kind of people that we ever need here. WELCOME!.
I can't code, but I have actually played some games of Nemoroth, would be glad to help playtest when the time comes.
You seem to be a very good programmer using Zillions, and I think you are clearly better than me in this kind of work, so my help to you in coding may be close to inutile. But I can offer high-quality (?. Subjective opinion) graphics for pieces and boards, and certainly, a lot of work play-testing this great and unconventional game!
Yay! I loved this game when I read about it! (thought I've never had played it). Sadly, I can't code to save my own life, so there's not much help I can offer
A while back I started working on a ZRF for this game. But quickly got bogged down in all the conditionals. So I shelved it until my brain stopped hurting. I am now considering picking up where I left off. And I would welcome any assistance that the enthusiasts of this game can offer. Contributions can be not only in coding but also graphics and sounds. This one will definitely need play-testers, so there's work for all.
Yes I like the name 'Dread', and it has a unique initial for notation purposes - there is no other piece whose name begins with D. So the Wail of the Banshee shall be heard no more in the land.
Paul wrote that he wanted a name for the 'Go Away' which fitted this theme. May I suggest 'Dread'. This refers to a creature which causes intense fear in its victim. If you've ever felt fear without cause, there might have been a 'Dread' nearby. As it approachs, it will cause the victim to flee. Its scream would do the same. There have been many descriptions of this creature, but no-one is actually supposed to have seen it. Since all that do have perished.
From the rules: 'The Go Away can be petrified, and a petrified Go Away is mute.' So a petrified Go Away is just another piece of impedimenta on the board, and its scream is a resource that is no longer avalable. As for petrified Humans promoting to Zombies anyway, that might be interesting to try out. In my limited (four games) experience, even petrified Humans got nowhere near the far rank. One's tempi were better used elsewhere, specifically in maneuvering the Basilisk, Ghast, and Go Away.
We *must* have a petrified Human transmogrified into a Zombie on being pushed to the far side. Otherwise there is no use for a petrified Human, he may as well be a Mummy. (What power/function/influence does a petrified Go-Away have?)
Compared to THE GAME OF NEMOROTH, my game EXISTENTIALIST CHESS is very easy to understand!!
Don't like the name 'Go Away' since it seems out of character with the ghoulish names of the other pieces. I set me down to think, and came up with the alternative name 'Banshee' with, of course, its special 'move' redesignated a 'wail'.
Roberto, I have the scores of two medium-decent games played by Ben Good and me. If you'd like to see them, drop me a private email. The major notational problem is ichor.
Insane?. May be, but as my first impression, I think that this game is playable. It is a good candidate to be in the PBM system, and it is possible that there are candidates to play a well-thought test game of Nemoroth. Perhaps, I am one of them.
Moussambani wrote on Mon, Aug 11, 2003 01:03 AM UTC:My interpretation is for rules simplicity. The rules state: a) A piece on an ichorous square IS compelled to move. b) Ichor evaporation counts as a saving move. So I'd say that, even if you have more compelled pieces, any legal move can be done.
Chuck wrote on Fri, Aug 8, 2003 07:28 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★One question about ichorous squares. In the discussion of ichorous squares, it states: 'If pushed onto an ichorous square, a mobile piece other than Zombie is compelled to move off. Exception: if the ichor will evaporate after you make your move but before your opponent moves, you can ignore it.' Does this mean: a) a piece on a ichorous square, where the last bit of ichor will evaporate immediately following the player's move, is not compelled to move? OR b) a piece on a ichorous square, where the last bit of ichor will evaporate immediately following the player's move, is compelled to move, but the evaporation of the last bit of ichor constitutes a saving move? It makes a difference if the player has another piece is compelled for some other reason. If (a) is the case, he must move the other piece, or make a saving move for the compulsion on that other piece, since that is his only compulsion. If (b), he can make any legal move, since the evaporation of the ichor is a saving move for an existing compulsion.
Moussambani wrote on Thu, Oct 3, 2002 08:20 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Well, I wanted to relive this game! let's see if I can manage to do it. Has anyone tested it and can give the results? I'd also like to repeat some early analysis I made but I made a typo on it, rendering it invalid. *Case 1. Alabaster Human d3; Obsidian Ghast e4. d3 is compelled to move. Out of his usually available five moves, only two of them actually flee the Ghast. They are Hc3 or Hc4. This human is still compelled to flee to the b file on the next move. *Case 2. Alabaster Human d3, Ghast b3, Go Away e2; Obsidian Ghast e4. now the human moves to the c files are illegal, since he would be approaching his own Ghast. But there's a saving move: Ae2 [reminder: on my notation, a Go Away scream is recorded as moving to his own square]. The scream pushes the Human to c4. The Human is still compelled, but now Hb5 (fleeing both Ghasts) is legal. *Case 3. Alabaster Go Away a2, Human a3; Obsidian Ghast d4; Ichor on a3 and a4. Now it gets tricky. Is screaming legal? [My thought: It was compelled to move off of an ichorous square, and he did so. He is now compelled to move off of a *different* Ichorous square.] Well, Is it valid? *Case 4. Alabaster Go Away a2, Human a3; Obsidian Ghast d4; Mummy a3. Well, This is even trickier. Now the Human can go to a4 on his own, but is screaming valid? [Rationale: I think it should be to be consistent with case 3, ie this is another multiple occupancy square.] And now for something completely different. My thoughts on the pieces. Basilisk: This is powerful, but using his ability also reduces his mobility. So it needs to be careful to not to petrify many pieces at once or it can get in trouble. Grade: B Ghast: The compelling thing is great, This piece can be deadly if placed correctly. There is a nice balancing act, though. This piece is thrice-colorbound. But it seems hard to stop nonetheless. Grade: B+ Go Away: This is a killer. Albeit colorbound, this piece can create lots of trouble. If you push your opponent's Go Away orthogonally, he has now both Go Aways on the same color. Severe Balancing Act: It's the only piece that stops working when petrified. A petrified Go Away could as well be a petrified Human. Still... Grade: A Leaf Pile: Simple and Deadly. But it's slow. Still, be careful of where your opponent places his Leaf Piles. Grade: A- Wounded Fiend: Being a rider is such a disadvantage in this game. No, he can't run through a Ghast range to the other side, he can't cross a basilisk gaze... But he can block squares for a limited time... (If we put the poor Alabaster Human of the cases before on d3, and the Obsidian Ghast at e4, but now we add an Obsidian Wounded Fiend at b5, after 1. Hc3(4) 1... Wb2++ wins by stalemating the Human, trapped in between ichor and a Ghast.) Grade: C+ Human: No wonder there are so many, otherwise you blink and you miss them: This poor guys have no power and suffer all sort of troubles. You can make Zombies out of them, but that's so hard... Grade: D Zombie: Now this guy has power! If he can keep away from Ichor, they are quite a force to reckon with. Grade: A+ Statues: Several kind of statues, and (almost) all of them still useful in a way or another. Still they are immobile... Grade: no way I can give a single grade, they're so different. Mummy: OK, an immobile piece with no power whatsoever, and if you want to use them to block it will need lots of strategy. This is a no-brainer. Grade: F Disclaimer: I haven't played Nemoroth, so all this is out of thinking, not actual experience. Finally, I'd like to ask who of you asked for the wrong furniture... -- Moussambani, who never has been in Mine's End and never completed Sokoban. The Quest? Maybe some year in the 2030s...
Based on my slight playing experience with Nemoroth, and considering how many Humans were left unpetrified and unmummified at the end of the game (3 out of 16), I suspect that it matters not which side is winning, the Humans are toast either way.
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2002 03:30 AM UTC:Alabaster cities gleam in the light of the sun; but in the ancient age when the world was still under construction, there were alabaster cities, construction towns, that existed before there was a Sun; and later, when the Sun was periodically turned off for maintenance, no gleam. Without the sun, Alabaster cities merely glimmer with a lambent ambient light. Obsidian cities tend to glisten. In fact, obsidian is nothing but glass, artificially produced, and though one often thinks of it as being colored black, it can be light green or transparent, or many other colors. If obsidian is merely glass, are not all modern cities obsidian? And does this not tell you which side is winning?
Moussambani wrote on Sat, Jun 29, 2002 03:05 PM UTC:Do Alabaster cities gleam?
OK, the pages have been combined and uploaded. Please send all complaints to [email protected].
OK, I've gotten ahold of the original page, and will attempt to merge them this weekend. John Lawson has also promised me the e-mail notation when he has time from making his house unnaturally clean.
There's a mistake here -- Ralph didn't want the previous page
<strong>replaced</strong> by the rules page, he wanted it to reference it
or be merged with it! I have a copy of the old page at work and will fix
it on Monday, unless one of the other editors has a pre-modification copy.
<p>
Sorry Ralph!
gnohmon wrote on Sat, May 11, 2002 01:26 AM UTC:1. Please transfer the official rules page to chessvariants.com. 2. If a Go Away screams in the middle of a desert and nobody hears it, has it screamed at all? The answer, in the Game of Nemoroth, is 'No!'. 3. I lost the email with the clever Nemoroth notation, and the clever diagrams that can give all the info. Why isn't it a page yet? 4. I have uploaded a file with a sample game that I saw in a dream of Nemoroth. I have editied it less than I should for the same reason that I have been out of touch for awhile -- I foolishly reinstalled Alpha Centauri on my computer. 5. An extensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of moving the Ghast to f3 or f6 needs to be written. For a few hours I feared that the manouevre provided an instawin.... but now I once again think it's not a good idea.
Moussambani wrote on Thu, May 9, 2002 06:55 AM UTC:There's a well-known old philosophical problem that states: 'If a Go Away screams on the middle of a board, and there's no one near to hear it, does it count as a valid move?' Well, The question here is if one could 'pass' by making an isolated Go Away scream. On first thought, I said that this was not legal because it would be a repetition, but it's not true because now the other player is on move. Additionally, if some ichor is on the board it evaporates if only partially, so even the board changes, not only the player on move. This of course doesn't save anybody, so it's legal only if you have no compelled pieces (unless you use evaporation as a saving move). But should it be allowed? Why would someone do that is beyond my range, but maybe some day a situation will arise in that this is desirable. So, is it legal?
Moussambani wrote on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 09:26 AM UTC:OK, who of you asked for the wrong furniture? PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, then it's not you.
This is the other Saint-Saens piece I was thinking of. It is Carnival of the Animals, Fossils. The link takes you directly to the midi file. http://www.geocities.com/lavendermist_lmg/midis/Classical/fossili.mid
Actually, it's here. http://fathom.org/opalcat/midi.html
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 25, 2002 01:26 AM UTC:> Do you mean 'Danse Macabre' ... Perhaps. It's the one that goes da DAAA da Daaaa da daaa da daaa da dadadadadadadun dun dun, right?
Do you mean 'Danse Macabre', by Saint-Saens? There's also something like that I can't quite remember in his 'Carnival of the Animals'.
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 03:27 PM UTC:Speaking of disneyfied images moving on a screen, 'Pennies from Heaven', Columbia Pictures 1936, ''A romantic comedy starring Bing Crosby which features Louis Armstrong and his Orchestra in a nightclub sequence performing 'Skeleton in the Closet'... (www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/jazz/o-r.html) You never heard such unearthly laughter, such hilarious moans, when the skeleton in the closet rattled his bones (from memory) When the skeleton in the closet started to dance makes a far less appropriate song for Nemoroth than the gosts' high noon. There is always that violin valse macabre that the classical radio stations play on Halloween...
Gnohmon, 'When the Night Winds Howl' wasn't a rational selection to match
Nemoroth, but rather an association made somewhere in the depths of my
subconscious. And the instrumental component would work well enough.
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 03:12 AM UTC:Nemoroth in its prime was not truly a place of Lovecraftian horror, although life there could be cruel. It was an innocent unthinking cruelty, as of children, not the deeply evil cruelty of the unspeakably ancient Powers that the few survivors of Nemoroth eventually became. 'We spectres are a jollier crew than you perhaps suppose' is, however, a much too disneyfied interpretation of what the place was like. At least, that's how I see it; of course, pronouncing the place name correctly just might draw the attention of one of its survivors, and therefore is not advisable. In the Lovecraftian ethos, evil and ancientness are often paired, and so my picture of the young city of Nemoroth, innocently cruel, wielding great powers beyond our understanding, but not yet grown to full and mature evil, seems to me to be consistent with Lovecraft. In our days, faceless and intangible incorporeal Corporations use invisible forces to manipulate 'electrons' that form images and symbols on television screens, images and symbols which cast a spell compelling their viewers to buy! buy! buy!; and therefore we have modern referents that make the Powers of ancient times seem to us to be not so strange after all. In defense of Ruddigore, I will say that any excuse to have its excellent words and music repeating in one's mind is quite good enough. And, after all, if a man can't listen to Ruddigore in his own head, whose head can he...
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 02:53 AM UTC:Moussambani makes some details and then points out a dreadful error in Azgoroth's Simple Puzzle. Does this change the result of the puzzle? I begin to wonder about the Curse of Nemoroth. I carefully count on my barely adequate digits. No, is is still stalemate. I thank Moussambani for the other detailed corrections and also for the small (what a relief!) correction to the minor typo in the simple puzzle. There are no records of Azgoroth's games. He had them published on scrolls made of the cheapest grade of something-skin so that they would soon deteriorate and replacement copies be purchased.
Moussambani wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 07:54 PM UTC:<p>Just some more nit-picky (sp?) details...
<p>'no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord to a Ghast Square' Should be 'no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord to a Ghast Square, <i>Except when fleeing that Ghast</i>'. That is, flight inside the Ghast range is allowed. This is well understood, it's just a matter of wording.
<p>And when you say 'When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something, it leaves behind a single Mummy', does pushing a Leaf Pile cut its digestion? Example: A Leaf Pile engulfs something, then it's pushed thrice by some Go Aways strategically situated. Finally, the Leaf Pile moves voluntarily. Do we have a new Mummy?
<p>There's a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the Go Away section. 'this is only important whan a Basilisk is involved' should be 'this is only important <i>when</i> a Basilisk is involved'.
<p>In Azgoroth's puzzle, you forget to mention square h1. which makes the squares you mention afterwards wrong. It should be rewritten, but maybe it's easier to say that the Fiend starts at a8 and his first move is a8-h8.
<p>(BTW, aren't any records of games played by Azgoroth? What happened to them?)
<p>That's all the things I found. I had fun proof-reading the rules.
Good memory, John! 'The Hounds of Tindalos' (which was by Frank Belknap
Long, one of the Lovecraft circle) was exactly what I was referencing.
<p>
I've been listening to Ruddigore in my car of late (my interest in it being
stirred up again by recent conversations here), and I now somehow
associate The Game of Nemoroth with
<a href='http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/night_wind_howls.html'>'When
the Night Wind Howls'</a>.
Moussambani wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 01:10 PM UTC:Oh, my bad. The obsidian Ghast was supposed to be at e4 in my previous analysis.
I haven't read a Lovecraft story in 35 years, but that stirs my memory. Could it be the Hounds of Tindalos?
You <strong><em>don't</em></strong> want to pronounce Nemoroth correctly.
You really don't. But if you must, <i>do not pronounce that dread name in
a room with any corners!</i> But I'm probably worrying about nothing.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Heh.
How is 'Nemoroth' pronounced? Normal (American) English pronunciation patterns would lead to a stressed first syllable with a long vowel, secondary stress on the third syllable, and a schwa for the middle vowel, but there are other, equally valid, alternatives.
gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 02:30 AM UTC:Dear Moussambani, 1. Human d3 Ghast d4, moving d3-c4 does not increase the distance and is not satisfy the obligation to flee. Moving to c3 is okay and is still compelled to flee further next move, as you say. 2. Obsidian Ghast d4, Alabaster Ghast b3 and human d3 and Go Away e2; Go Away cannot scream, no distances are increased by pushing d3 to c4. Best move maybe Ae2-g2, and then the Gd4 should be compelled to run away from the one at b3. The concept is that moving human from d3 to c3 increases distance and therefore satisfies the compulsion even though additional flight will be required, via b3 or b4 to a3 or a4 or a5. 3. Human moves to Basilisk square on last rank. Oh, that's a good one! I didn't think of that, you have tricked me with my own rules! A petrified Human, if pushed to the 8th rank, does not promote to a petrified Zombie; this is an exception to the general case of pushing petrified pieces. There is no such thing as a petrified Zombie in the rules as they are now. What if pushing a petrified Human to 8th rank promoted it to unpetrifiable (and therefore unpetrified and undead) Zombie? This would keep the rules more consistent and render your question moot (whether promote firet or petrify first, you get an unpetrified Zombie) and I think it would almost never happen so it would not unbalance the play of the game. I'll have to think about this before doing anything as radical as that. 4. Human pushed to ichorous 8th rank square; promoted, destroyed. Life is often cruel in Nemoroth.
In response to Moussambani's earlier post, I agree that the situations you desribe in the first paragraph regarding the Go Away are legal, but your examples are flawed in that you don't have the pieces compelled to go away move one square directly away from the Go Away. The rule definately says this: Instead of moving, [the Go Away] can scream GO AWAY! and all adjacent pieces, whether friend or foe, whether mobile or immobile, are pushed one square directly away from it. Regarding the interpretation of Human promotion in the second paragraph, gnohmon will have to say for sure, but it seems to me that a Human that arrives on the last rank is promoted to Zombie immediately, and then what ever the resulting interactions are take place, be they immunity to petrification or destruction by ichor. This is similar in concept to a Leaf Pile engulfing an adjacent Ghast as a saving move.
Regarding notation, I had developed a scheme to use when playing via email. I have pasted the essence of it below. I like the way Moussambani records moves, but check out my scheme for tracking ichor on an ASCII diagram. Nemoroth notation and ASCII diagrams ver.1.0 Mobile piece symbols- Alabaster B - Basilisk G - Ghast L - Leaf Pile A - Go Away W - Wounded Fiend H - Human Z - Zombie Obsidian b - Basilisk g - Ghast l - Leaf Pile a - Go Away w - Wounded Fiend h - Human z - Zombie Immobile piece symbols- M - Mummy Alabaster pB - Petrified Basilisk pG - Petrified Ghast pL - Petrified Leaf Pile pA - Petrified Go Away pW - Petrified Wounded Fiend pH - Petrified Human Obsidian pb - Petrified Basilisk pg - Petrified Ghast pl - Petrified Leaf Pile pa - Petrified Go Away pw - Petrified Wounded Fiend ph - Petrified Human Square types- Empty squares - empty squares, no special notation needed Ghastly squares - determined relative to Ghast, no special notation needed Basilisk squares - determined relative to Basilisk, no special notation needed Multiple occupancy squares - occupants are listed on the first two lines of square. There is room for six in each square of the diagram. Ichorous squares - are denoted by an 'I' in the lower left corner, followed by the number of plies remaining until ichor evaporates. In play, when a Wounded Fiend moves, the player moving puts 'I 10' in the appropriate squares. Each turn, the player on move decrements the numBer by 1 until it reaches 0 and the ichor has evaporated. Example - +------+ | M wpb| |pH | | I 6 | +------+ This square contains: Mummy Obsidian Wounded Fiend Petrified Obsidian Basilisk Petrified Alabaster Human Ichor that will evaporate in six plies (three turns) Notating moves - This is done the normal way, except indicate petrification by Basilisk, engulfment by Leaf Pile, or destruction by Zombie like captures. When a Go Away pushes pieces, just list the moves as if the pieces had moved voluntarily. Also indicate any petrification, engulfment, or destruction as a result of the push.
Moussambani wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 09:40 AM UTC:I also thought of a notation. I put it on a new comment because it's a totally different subject and the previous comment was getting long. This system will be easy to learn because it's algebraic notation. (Go Away's initial is A, since G is taken by the Ghast). a prefixed p means 'petrified'. pB is a petrified Basilisk and so on. A move that causes compulsion is marked +, and a stalemating move is ++; some explanation can come after that A move that causes some changes to a piece is explained after an =, and x means 'engulfs' (note that only Lx is legal). For a Zombie destroying something I'd use *, for example Z*d7. (This is the only new symbol). A Go Away that screams is recorded as moving to its own square (and possibly an = preceding the effects). The fool's mate you show in the document would be scored this way. 1. Bd3=pHc2,pHe2 ; Gb6 2. Be5=pHd7,pHf7? ; Gd4=pGd4++d2! 0-1 Note I used a semi-colon to separate Alabaster and Obsidian moves, because I think commas will be common in this game and it adds clarity. Any thoughts?
Moussambani wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 09:21 AM UTC:OK, I haven't yet played the game but I have some more questions about compulsion (Hey, I like to bend the rules to see if they broke, a good thing to do before final publication). The question revolves around pieces that are compelled to move, and after moving they are still compelled, this is legal (vg Alabaster Human on d3, Obsidian Ghast on d4. d3 is compelled, but can flee to c3 or c4 and it's still compelled. Then to the b-file to save itself. This is legal and I have no question about that). So the rule I derive here is that a compelled move does not need to remove compulsion. OK, Now add an Alabaster Ghast on b3 to the previous board (which stalemates the Human) and an Alabaster Go Away on e2 (compelled by the Obsidian Ghast). Alabaster can make his human go to c3 by screaming GO AWAY! this is recorded as a saving move because it goes further away of the Obsidian Ghast. It's not moving of it's own accord so it's legal that it approaches his own Ghast. the Human can now move to b5 fleeing both Ghasts and compulsion would be removed, and the Go Away has several flight squares (this term is hugely adequate here). I see this new scenario is also legal and reinforces the rule that a compelled move (or a saving move) does not need to remove compulsion. OK, with this in mind I present this new situation. Alabaster Go Away on b2 (this is a new board, the Ghasts are gone). Alabaster has a compelled piece on b3 which is Ichorous. b4 is also Ichorous. Screaming is a saving move? My logic says yes. Now remove the Ichor on the board, and make b3 a multiple-ocupation square. Screaming now sends both pieces on b3 to b4 which becomes multiple-ocupation. Is this a saving move? I know it sounds weird, but looking at the previous examples it should be! And now some lighter comments: I first found a little weird that the Go Away was the only piece who lost its Ability when petrified, but now I find it a nice balancing act, as the Go Away is the richest piece, you don't want it petrified. I don't know wether this was thought to happen or just turned out that way. Granted, Human loses his Ability to promote, but I consider this is not an innate Ability, just one that the Powers that Be grant brave humans who reach the end zone. Now it makes me wonder what happens if a Human moves to a Basilisk square in the last rank. Do the Powers that Be reward his journey and make him a Zombie or would They be very disapointed by this fumble entering the end zone and leave him a statue? (to keep this football analogy I've now noticed I started, it's only necessary that the ball [ie the Human] breaks the goal line plane [ie the line separating 7th and 8th rank] when in possession [ie alive, not petrified] for a touchdown [ie a Zombie] to be scored.) So football rules, say that it's a Zombie, but this is not football. Zombie or Statue? and if a Human is pushed onto an ichorous square in the last rank, is it an Alive Zombie (Book of Oxymorons, #427) or a Self-Destruction?
gnohmon wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 02:19 AM UTC:I have attempted to incorporate everybody's comments into http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html and I believe that it is now correct and can be regarded as the final version. Pay attention! there is a 'Credits' section at the end. If your name should be there but is not, please correct me so that I can apologize in private before final publication.
gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 03:04 PM UTC:Excellent feedback. 'No problem with ichor rules' -- then I won't change. '1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains at least one mummy or statue, period.' This was the original rule and I think it may be better to revert to it. '2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one other mobile piece to engulf.' This is what I really wanted to change it to, but I hurried and messed it up. However, I think it makes for a faster and more exciting game if the mummy/statue confers temporary immunity (but very double-edged because the mobile piece is compelled to move off). Leaf piles have no heads, so you can't get into its head. However, you have comprehended its primordial nature.
Two topics remain:
<p>Ichor -
There is no problem with your ichor rules. The problem resided in my head. You should leave them as they are. (I was starting the ply count the half-turn after the Wounded Fiend moved.)
<p>Leaf Piles -
If you get into the head of a Leaf Pile, as described, there are only two different rules that make sense:
<p>1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains at least one mummy or statue, period.
<p>2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one other mobile piece to engulf.
<p>I haven't played the game yet, so I don't know which to recommend.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:47 AM UTC:I had thought that evaporation of ichor could be treated as a saving move, but if it takes that much explanantion and clarification, it's not worth allowing it. Change not made yet pending your opinions.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:44 AM UTC:Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can be on the same square by pushing one onto another) Yes, it means that. I'm not sure if it was right. As I think of it, it seems to me that this rule was generated in a momentary panic when I myself misread the rules and pearef that a leaf pile could not recapture (it can recapture because when a Leaf Pile engulfs things, there is nothing on the square but the Leaf Pile itself; the Mummy is not generated until the Leaf Pile moves on. Now that I think of it, it seems to me that this adds too many rules and clarifications for too little benefit. If the presence of a Mummy or a statue makes a crowded square safe from voluntary engulfment, doesn't this actually add to the interest of the game? Pending your responses, I believe I will change this back to the original, where, as you may recall, it was stated that the only way to mummify a petrified Basilisk was tu push a Leaf Pile onto it.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:24 AM UTC:'compelled move of its own accord' -- yes, because the owner chooses which compelled piece is to be moved, and if the piece has more than one legal move the owner gets to choose its destination.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:17 AM UTC:To flee means that the piece must end its move geometrically further away from the Ghast than it was when it started its move; for example, if your Ghast is on b3, you can move your Human from b2 to c2 because the geometrical distance between the two pieces has increased. Clarification has been made.
Moussambani wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 04:38 PM UTC:What's a bit surprising is that compelled moves are also 'of its own accord'
David Howe wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 03:59 PM UTC:More comments may be found in the
<a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=YellowJournalism'>YellowJournalism</a> discussion.
Moussambani wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 08:07 AM UTC:Quoth the Betza: 'The Leaf Pile cannot move of its own accord onto an ichorous square, nor onto a square containing a statue, nor onto a square containing a single mummy but no other pieces. It can move onto a non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains a mummy and at least one other piece.' Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can be on the same square by pushing one onto another)
Note that the moving Wounded Fiend in the prior comment could belong to either player if it was forced to flee by a Go Away.
OK, now I'm going to try to clarify ichor:
Alabaster Obsidian
Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1 Ichor deposited Ichor ply 2
Ichor ply 1
Move 2 Ichor ply 3 Ichor ply 4
Move 3 Ichor ply 5 Ichor ply 6
Move 4 Ichor ply 7 Ichor ply 8
Move 5 Ichor ply 9 Ichor ply 10
Obsidian pieces need not
move off ichorated square
OR
Alabaster Obsidian
Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1 Ichor deposited
Ichor ply 1
Move 2 Ichor ply 2 Ichor ply 3
Move 3 Ichor ply 4 Ichor ply 5
Move 4 Ichor ply 6 Ichor ply 7
Move 5 Ichor ply 8 Ichor ply 9
Move 6 Ichor ply 10
Alabaster pieces need not
move off ichorated square
Does this look right?Anonymous wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 07:56 PM UTC:Lovecraftian/Chess related story: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/misc/pirc01.htm
Wait, there's more. Statements: A Leaf Pile is subject to the effects of a Basilisk, and a petrified Leaf Pile cannot engulf anything. A petrified Leaf Pile can still engulf things that are pushed onto it, and it can still engulf things it is pushed onto. Conclusion: Second statement is true, and more fun. Corollary: A Go Away pushing a petrified Leaf Pile around can vacuum up all sorts of impedimenta. Statement: Any mobile piece except a Zombie within two squares of a Ghast must flee the Ghast, and no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord to a Ghast Square; the squares within the Ghast's range are called Ghast Squares. Clarification requested: If several pieces are under compulsion to flee a Ghast, but the Ghast moves off before the compulsions can all be satisfied, the compulsions no longer exist if the compelled pieces are no longer on Ghast squares. Additional statements: When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece, you lose. The Human moves one square sideways, or one square straight forward, or one square diagonally forward, but only to an empty non-ichorous square. Hypothetical situation: Alabaster Human on f5, Obsidian Ghast moves to f6, creating compulsion for human to flee. Assume there is no other Alabaster piece under compulsion this move, and no saving move is possible. The Human can only move to e5, e6, g5, or g6. These squares are still adjacent to the Obsidian Ghast. Is this a win for Obsidian due to stalemate by compulsion?
gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 01:34 PM UTC:1. Yes, the mummy has been engulfed. 2. 'ichor actually lasts nine plies' ---- hmmm. This relates to the specific case where a piece is compelled to move off. The ichor certainly lasts ten plies, so in this situation the ichor must have been created during your opponent's move. My thought was that since it will finish its evaporation at the end of your move, you can effectively satisfy the compulsion to move off by simply staying where you are; and at the end of your move the result is that you are no longer standing on icky ichor.
I am reviewing the document http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html and I need to know if I have interpreted it correctly. Statements: [A Leaf Pile] can move onto a non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains a Mummy and at least one other piece. When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something, it leaves behind a single Mummy; notice that this means no Mummy is left behind when a Leaf Pile that is digesting something is pushed. Conclusion: If a Leaf Pile engulfs a multiple occupancy square including a Mummy, and then is pushed, there is no Mummy remaining on that square. Statement: If the ichor will evaporate after you make your move but before your opponent moves, you can ignore it. Conclusion: That ichor actually lasts nine plies, not five moves. There will be more questions.
''values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible.' --- I was just joking here. I actually can't imagine how one could assign values, considering all the interactions. In regular chess, the only interaction is capture. 'Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically.' --- True, but it is possible to imagine other interactions that might be interesting. Several spring to mind (nature abhors a vacuum) but they could be as simple as ichor with different effects. One could even handicap by allowing the ichor of each player to dissipate at different rates. 'The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push, just for one example.' --- A trivially true statement. Ceteris paribus, a Knight that can capture a Queen is worth more than one that can capture a Bishop. I consider values to be a statistical guide, not a received truth, fun as they may be to study and play with. (Of course, I stink as a chess player, so what's my opinion worth?) It is likely that I may soon be playing Nemoroth against another human via email. We will be sure to post our observations. As a sidebar, there is really no assurance that any entity with which one communicates via email alone is actually human. We could all be alien anthropologists, who, thinking we are studying humans, are studying each other. The resulting theses would be feces.
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 14, 2002 03:50 AM UTC:'rarely seen as much chatter' -- it's a combination of two things, I think; first the story is pretty good. You must understand that after I wrote it, I also read it, and even I was affected by it. The idea of the ancient Lovecraftian city that existed before the world was finished being built kinda grabs me. And the details that make it real (by the way, the reason that Nemoroth was destroyed when Luna was floated up into the sky after being built in its harbor was that the project was given to the lowest bidder) -- well,when I wrote it, in the heat of the moment I thought it was merely corroborative detail intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, but when I read it, it sounded so suspension-of-disbeliefable and I could picture the city and the harbor and the Moon and the little boats carrying pieces of craters to the work site, and golly gee gosh how amazing. The second thing is that the game itself is pretty interesting. Although I was so caught up in the story that I really did a bad job of describing the game, it's non-trivial and it's very different (in terms of how it feels to play it) than most chesslike or ultimalike games. This *will* cause chatter, even in the most silent of times. Since The Game of Nemoroth came out shortly after I had said strongly that there wasn't enough chatter, well, what would you expect. :-) 'values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible. Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically. The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push, just for one example. In practice, I think the Zombie is most valuable, and the second tier contains the Go Away, the Basilisk, and the Leaf Pile. The Leaf Pile is so easy to use; an advanced Basilisk, even if it gets petrified (but you gotta calculate if the foe can push a Leaf Pile onto it!) can be crippling, and the Go Away transforms positions completely. But even the humble Human is strong. Leaving one's Basilisk at home invites the Humand to advance and petrify themselves in blocking positions. The Ghast is so powerful that it is outside the range of values. However, I have not yet played a game against myself where I captured a Ghast, so in effect the Ghast is always neutralized by the enemy Ghast. Pushing a statue to d4 or d5 neutralizes the enemy Ghast and allows you to reposition from b6 to f6; this happened once and was very strong. All in all, I like the way the game works.
I have rarely seen so much chatter as for this game. (N.B. there is significant commentary on Nemoroth in the Yellow Journalism thread.) A couple of points: Is Nemoroth a chess variant? If gnohmon says it is, who am I to gainsay him? I am an 'inclusionist' when it comes to chess variants, anyway. It actually seems more like an Amazons variant, and there are other more chess-like games that make use of the 'shrinking board' mechanism, but what the heck. (Bob Abbott, who invented Ultima, did not think it was chess, because it did not use replacement captures. He was an 'exclusionist'.) When Nemoroth is refined, and the rules settle down, may we expect pages on 'The Value of the Nemoroth Pieces' and 'Nemoroth with Different Armies'? Should we reserve the name www.nemorothvariants.com? If interest remains high, how about the CVP sponsor a contest in Nemoroth problem composition?
The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:21 PM UTC:Thy bidding done once more, Oh Gnohmon.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:11 PM UTC:Under 'compelled Moves', there should be a final notice that 'Sometimes it is possible to make a saving move with some other piece than the compelled one. For example, suppose that your Basilisk has been pushed onto an occupied square, and so is compelled to move off, but has no legal move; if you can engulf your own Basilisk with a leaf pile, you have removed the condition causing the compulsion, and therefore you have saved the game.' And, under 'Interactions', 'If a Go Away which is compelled to flee an enemy Ghast is next to the Ghast, it can scream GO AWAY! instead of moving. It ends its turn one move further away than it started and so it has met the compulsion to flee. A Leaf Pile which is next to a Ghast can engulf the Ghast; as it then no longer needs to flee, its compulsion has been satisfied.'
The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:05 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Addition to Interactions made as requested. Did you also mean to add a
diagonal step move to the Go Away?
<p>
<br>
<i>(Fnord)</i>
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:51 PM UTC:Oops. It seeme I misremembered what the Spirit told me in my dream, for when I tried to play the game it was too easy to end up in an impasse with no good way to break it; and the reason was clearly that the Go Aways were not performing their intended role. Then I tried a few games in which the Go Away moved by leaping two squares Rookwise or by moving one square diagonally, and things seemed to work much better -- in fact, just about exactly right, in conformance to the original vision of the game. It is funny how the Wounded Fiend seems to be such an unimportant piece, when it was the original inspiration for the game. Under 'Interactions', it should be added that 'Leaping pieces can cross unharmed a square seen by a Basilisk, for their talons never touch the ground and therefore the Basilisk does not see them.' The interactions are so complicated! I need to make a chart to see if I left anything else out.
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:08 PM UTC:A Wounded Fiend (not 'friend' unless you are a truly scary creature) is impeded by mummies, as indeed a Rook would be. Notice also that it cannot retrace its steps because of its own ichor, and therefore, as Azgoroth once said, 'carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. (The endgame where each side has one Wounded Fiend and nothing else can be quite interesting.) This game is tough to get used to. For a while I thought I had made a major rules error, but in fact when a Leaf Pile engulfs, the mummy does not appear until it moves on, and so the Leaf Pile is vulnerable to being engulfed by an enemy Leaf Pile. If it were not so, the first player would attack with Leaf Pile (engulfing his own Human for greater speed) and win by force.
ben wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 07:15 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Question: can a wounded friend move over (but obviously not stop on) a square occupied by a mummy? i am not sure. if anybody wants to try this game with me by email, send to [email protected]
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 04:30 AM UTC:It recently occurred to me that I might have named the Zombie an Iron Golem so that its dissolution by ichor would be a nethack reference. But perhaps that would have been inappropriate after all. Lovecraft never played a game of Nethack in his life.
Wow!! Who said theme doesn't count in abstract games? I want to play this, but I think I'm going to be disapointed when the pieces remain silent. I want to see a ZRF, but not too soon. Whoever does it needs to do a good job on the graphics, not to mention audio, to do the game justice. 'What eldritch noise did I hear?' Perhaps the screech of the El.
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!
David Howe wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 03:45 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I've heard vague rumours that this game, or a game very much like it, is still played at Miskatonic University... The excellent rating applies to presentation and originality. I have not playtested this game (yet). Truth be told, I'm not sure I *want* to! :)
90 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.