Subject: MN: Turns, Moves and Pieces

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 16 Jul 98 17:22:01 +0100

Following on from EP 25, I've been trawling through the ruleset for 
references to 'move' and any ambiguities surrounding its use. The primary 
focus has been an extension of the EP 25 principle, that of eliminating 
confusion between Piece Move and Player Move (as defined in Rule 1.5.8, 
and duplicated below), to the entire ruleset. 

However, I've uncovered some confusion between Player Turn and Player Move 
also (compare the meanings of Rules 1.3.0, 1.3.4 and 1.3.1 if in doubt) 
and it occurs to me that part of the reason behind this is that the 
terminology is a little unwieldy. That's my fault of course, which is one 
reason why I'm doing this massive trawl: a secular penance, if you will. 

What I'd like to put to the list is a refinement of the terms used. The 
aim here is to make the terminology more distinct and generally more 
compelling, to make any new terms broadly compatible with the existing 
forms, and to get agreement on it *before* I go and write the monstrous 
proposal that will inevitably result! 

Anyway, here are my suggestions. Opinions please. 

Player Turn 
definition - "consists of the total set of changes that a Player makes 
to the GSD when e takes eir Turn" 
alternative - Turn 

Player Move 
definition - "the section written against eir name at the bottom of the 
GSD which includes the Player's Piece's Move and any 
Actions played" 
alternative - Move 

Piece Move (also: Piece movement, normal Piece movement) 
definition - "[a Piece's] normal motion along LU lines, excluding all 
Action-related changes to position" 
alternative - Movement (a bit too similar to 'Move') 
- Motion (distinct but a bit flabby) 
- Lineation (distinct, precise because it introduces the 
concept of movement along lines, but a hideous 
neologism and too far from the current term. Also, 
although one usually travels along lines, one does 
not always eg Dollis Hill) 
- Actuation (distinct, and a real word this time. Still a 
long way from the curent term though) 
- Piece (distinct and obvious, but 'the phase of Piece'?) 

We could also do with a definition of the term Round (as in a Round of 
Turns) since the idea is used in several places but never defined. 

As you can see, I don't think there's much difficulty with definite 
replacements for Player Turn and Player Move: it's Piece Move where the 
difficulties come in and, to be fair, wher emost of the confusion has 
arisen from. Of those I suggest I think I prefer Piece since it's a 
simple word that's already in use, despite the unpleasantness of using 
a noun in this context. 

Does anyone have any other ideas? I would be prepared to go along with the 
status quo, but I don't think that's a good idea. 

-- 
Dunx 
IRL: Duncan Ellis, Senior Software Engineer, Business Modelers, Oracle 
<I work for Oracle, I don't speak for them>

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:30:42 +0100 (BST)

> to the GSD when e takes eir Turn" 

Rather a circular definition, there, but I'm at a loss for any finer
wording. "Player Turn" is obviously a partly superfluous moniker, since
only Players can have Turns; merely "Turn" seems fair enough, really.

> GSD which includes the Player's Piece's Move and any 

I'm not sure if this is best grouped with Turn, to a greater extent;
Players should really be buzzed for making an Illegal *Turn* rather
than an Illegal Move - the Turn encompasses all changes to the GSD,
the Player Move and the Piece Move. Unless I'm overlooking something,
we should be able to get by without ever referring explicitly to what
is deemed the "Player Move". (And the Buzzing Rule arguably needs
fixing - somehow it seems to have slipped from it's Turn-themed
genesis in Eprop 03.)

> - Motion [...]

I've always been rather uncomfortable with the fact that some rules
refer to Players actually being at Stations, and others refer to the
Players' Pieces being there. We really need to jump one way or the
other on this one; I'm still unsure which would be preferable.

>Turns) since the idea is used in several places but never defined. 

Indeed, yes.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"I play postal chess with a man who doesn't know me."
-- Half Man Half Biscuit, "4AD3DCD"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 17 Jul 98 15:12:08 +0100

>only Players can have Turns; merely "Turn" seems fair enough, really. 

Isn't it, though? The only remedy for this is to appeal to the common 
definition of turn and to draw a distinction between 'Turn' and 'turn'. 
This kind of case sensitivity tends to make everyone except C and Java 
programmers very nervous though. 

... or perhaps the definition could be made to read "has eir go" instead? 
Yuck. 

>the Player Move and the Piece Move. 

Agreed. 

>Unless I'm overlooking something, 
>is deemed the "Player Move". 

That would be a useful simplification, I must say. My only quibble 
with it is based on the reason why that distinction was drawn in the first 
place: the need to refer separately to the motion of the Piece caused by 
Line-based movement and the total motion of the Piece caused by the 
combination of that line-based movement and any Actions. Whether this is 
meaningful quibble depends on whether we still have that need. 

I'll certainly think about dropping the terms to two though: Move and Turn 
would then be sufficient, and would be quite nice as well! 

>(And the Buzzing Rule arguably needs 

I don't know about you, but I haven't been keeping an eye on this stuff 
lately. I think the Buzz rewording just slipped past. 

>other on this one; I'm still unsure which would be preferable. 

Good point - I've been so busy agonising over the Turn/Move/Piece Move 
thing that I hadn't got to the difficulties there! 

Personally, I would lean towards the Piece - the idea of the Player's 
Piece being moved around the board was introduced very early on, and 
I think it's the right way to think about the game. 

Also, I tend to think about what entities in the game own which 
information or have particular attributes - Players own tokens, Pieces 
have a position on the board and a line velocity. 

Again I'll think about this, but I may try and put off the Piece v 
Player position thing simply because otherwise the whole thing is going to 
be absolutely monstrous. 

Thanks for those comments, though.

---

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:07:32 +0100 (BST)

>programmers very nervous though. 

[nods grimly] True, yes. Using the word as both the period of time in
which a Turn can be submitted, and the article being submitted is a
little confusing...

>meaningful quibble depends on whether we still have that need. 

Flipping through the Ruleset, it just seems a matter of rewording
rather a lot of Rules. I can't see any Game aspects that can't be
sufficiently adjusted to suit a simple Turn/Move approach.

>have a position on the board and a line velocity. 

It depends which way the Game's going to go, I suppose. If things
like the mused Bifurcation go through, it'd be a lot easier to
give Pieces to Players. Hmm. Yes, probably best to go with Pieces;
better to give us possible scope than take it away - I can see
reasonable need for Rules that remove Pieces from the Map, and
things. It'll mean a lot of rewording of the existing Ruleset, but
then again, it always does...

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"So let us go soon, to the street shaped like the moon."
-- David Devant and his Spirit Wife, "Life on a Crescent"

---

From: "Dunx (Duncan Ellis)" <DELLIS@U...>
Date: 17 Jul 98 16:20:19 +0100

>>That would be a useful simplification [...] 

>sufficiently adjusted to suit a simple Turn/Move approach. 

Good. Obviously this is pending the patented Fine Toothed Comb... 

>give Pieces to Players. 
I thought of Bifurcation myself, I must say! 

>Hmm. Yes, probably best to go with Pieces; 
Pieces it is, then. 

>then again, it always does... 
Funny that. Comparisons between OO and procedural programming would mark 
me irrevocably as a softie, but then again there is my .sig...