Subject: Re: MN: Bifurcation

From: "Graeme Jefferis" <jefferis@i...>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 21:36:51 +0100

> > Piece Bifurcation (which I shall term Duplication from here 
> > on) is a way for the Player to gain another Piece on the board. The new 
> > Piece would spring into existence at the point at which the Duplication 
> > took place and would henceforth be independent. 
> 
> I'm not sure about this bit. After all, it's easier to gain Tokens 
> than to lose them, and allowing one Player to Bifurcate without other 
> Players doing so strikes me as getting an unfair advantage. 
> Especially if the Bifurcated Player had control of the Drone as well 
> - three pieces going around collecting Tokens. This is IMHO a bit 
> much. Bringing in bifurcation is a good idea, though, and I like this 
> bit about Game Bifurcation better...

I definitely don't like single-piece bifurcation - not even on York,
where it generally seems careless. As you remark, single-piece bifurcations
make token-acquisition far too easy.
> 
> *snip* 
> Great idea. I'd vote for that if I was going to be around to do so, 
> which I'm not... I'd also suggest that all strands of a Bifurcation 
> must take place within the single hour that a Player has to make eir 
> Move (or two hours, if a Blue Token is paid, etc.) Strand A and 
> Strand B, therefore, can only take up one hour between them...

Hhm... Buying more time could become expensive -- though who ever said
Bifurcations were cheap? Still, it could lead to a blue token drought as
they're not hugely easy to come by.

> My suggestion is this: 
> Any Player may unify the Bifurcation with the Action [Unifying 
> Threads <X> and <Y>] (with no cost) by playing a Move which brings 
> both eir Pieces together at the same Station, on the same Line, with 
> the same Line Velocity and Line Direction.

It's not going to happen very quickly. Who is going to want to go to 
all the hassle of setting such a situation up?

> If the Game is or was Bifurcated, and another Active Player's 
> last move included [Unifying Threads <X> and <Y>] (where X and Y are 
> threads of a Bifurcation, Trifurcation or greater number of split 
> threads), then the Player whose Turn it is to Move must move eir 
> Pieces from both relevant Threads to the same location and Line on 
> that Move: if both Threads cannot achieve the same LV, then the lower 
> value is used for that Player's next Turn.

Untidy, and confusing. As you can guess, I don't really like these ideas.
Something a little simpler is required I feel. 

> I'd still suggest that a Bifurcated Player may not move to MC unless 
> all threads can do so on a single Turn, each separately paying the 
> Token cost of entering MC. 

Yes, that closest mirrors what I feel occurs on York.

> Duplication I'm not keen on. I had some trouble in one of the 
> challenge matches with an opponent who thought he could stay 
> bifurcated while I was in a single thread... It's too unbalancing 
> IMHO.

Agreed. And duplicating under bifurcations is going to become unpleasant.

> Treat the two threads as separate Players (i.e. change the "Dunx" 
> Player line to "A-Dunx" and a separate line underneath for "B-Dunx" - 
> the Token totals being kept only in the A-Dunx line, but being 
> altered for any relevant move by any of the Dunxes, or any Shunt of 
> any Dunx by another Player. Then both halves can have independent 
> LVs, but share Tokens and a Home. And both have to move within the 
> hour allowed for one Player Move...

Um, maybe. Although I dislike the idea of messing with the Token Table
too much. 

I can only suggest:
+------------+--------------------+----+-----------------------------+ 
| Player | Home Station | LV | Tokens | 
| | | | | 
| | | | Bk Bu Br Go Re Si | 
+------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 
| Rushton | Ongar | 3 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 
|B-Rushton | | | | | | | | |
| Cryer | Knightsbridge | 5 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 
|B-Cryer | | | | | | | | |
| BrookeT | Chalfont & Latimer | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 
|B-BrookeT | | | | | | | | |
| Garden | Harrow-on-the-Hill | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 
|B-Garden | | | | | | | | |
| *Drone | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|*B-Drone | | | | | | | | |
+------------+--------------------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 

and that raises the problems of Drone ownership (Could Rushton claim Drone,
Cryer Bifurcate, then B-Cryer claim B-Drone? If so, who has what when things
unify?).
Even with all this in mind, I feel Bifurcations would be well worth 
including in the ruleset; after all, we are playing the game to test the rules,
so it may be worth bringing in rules which require hard testing... :) ...)

Miaow,
-Graeme.