A newsletter for Icehouse players

An Introduction by Dr Cool

Hey Icers -

Hope you enjoy this issue -- it's chock full of controversial informative weird stuff. There's a no doubt controversial article with musings brought on by daring-do's at the last tournament. That's followed by an informative draft of rules for the next tournament. Feedback on both of these is encouraged (needed) and will be greatly appreciated. As for weird, check out the Xicehouse review. I've played the game, it's strange and wonderful.

There are rules for two new Icehouse variations in this issue, both submitted by readers of Hypothermia. The variations have, sadly, not been playtested so have fun trying them out. If you have the required number of players (16) to playtest Competition Icehouse, I applaud you.

Donovan Chase, who wrote the Competition Variation, also sent us a database hardcopy of past tournament players, listed in order of Donovan's own peculiar rating system. Unfortunately, there was not enough room in this issue, not patience in the typists, to include all of the parameters of the calculations.

Observant marketing analysts may have noticed that our "Origami" Icehouse sets have increased in price from $5.00 to $7.00. This is to make that item more appealing to the consumer. Just kidding. We had to raise the price to stay afloat. Icehouse Games has sold a lot of those sets, but the manufacturing costs are high, so we're gritting our teeth and jacking the price. Of course, the Xyloid sets will not change in price; they already have an (ahem) "appealing" price which allows us to consistently cover creation costs. Do you like my alliteration? It's free.

Another free thing we're starting up: a Telephone Directory of Icers. If you would like to be included in the database, drop us a note with your phone number or give us a call. We'll send a Directory to anyone who wants one. No salesmen will call and if they do, don't blame me.

Well, enough of this silliness. It's late and I'm a bit punchy. I'd like to close by telling you about my bro Frank (he's been in a few tourneys; perhaps you've met him). He just completed a bunch of solo flights and is well on his way to getting a pilot's license. I'm real proud of him, and real embarrassed too, because the other day he came over to my place and iced my royal butt in a couple of games. Next time, Frank!

Thanks for your time and enjoy the rest of the rag...

-- doc

TOURNAMENT TROUBLES AND TEAMS

By Dr Cool

Due to an overwhelming and chilly response from many tournament players and readers of the last issue, I would like to announce a change of position for the next Annual international Icehouse Tournament. At the same time, I will admit that I may have been wrong about a couple things. If there are any Dr Cool fans out there, keep the faith; it's certainly OK to be wrong once in a while.

Getting to the meat of the issue, then: as you may recall, after this year's tournament we put out a Hypothermia explaining the goings-on of the tournament. In particular we focused on the strategy that the Bates Discordians used to win as a team (i.e., they played as a team). In that issue I upheld my judgment that the "team" approach used by these four guys was something to be reckoned with, and that they were to be applauded by successfully using this ultimate act of diplomacy. The issue of whether to think of team play as Cool or Uncool was not really raised. We announced that while teams would be allowed to participate in the next tournament, the tournament rules would probably be changed to make it more difficult for teams to win.

We are changing our stance. Team play will be outlawed, and the rules will definitely be changed to discourage alliances that outlive single games. (An alliance that lasts for a whole game is, of course, fine..) "Olympic" style teams with players that practice together and have team identity but strive for individual victory, are welcome and encouraged to compete. We cannot keep players from forming secret tournament-spanning alliances; there's no real way to enforce it. But stating the NO TEAMING UP rule, splitting shared victory points, and increasing the number of different players that must be played against in the ice-offs will go a long way toward discouraging this tactic.

The reason that we are changing our position is due to feedback. Icers have come out of the woodwork to tell us that they don't care what Dr Cool has proclaimed; it was downright unsettling to show up at the major Icehouse event of the year only to have four guys work together to "throw the match". A couple players even felt swindled, and said that it was no better than attending a fixed tournament. Most of the outspoken icers thought that playing as a team in the tournament should heretofore be considered Uncool, if not completely unfair. Since we like to run our tournaments in a loose "restaurant style', I'll put it this way: A new dish was tried at the last tournament. Most of those served didn't like its taste, so we're striking it from the menu.

Because of the intensity of icer reactions, I was forced to examine my original notions of "Cool" "Uncool", and "Mystique". In reviewing my previous writings, three quotes found their way to the front of my mind.

Quote #1 is what I deem the fundamental explanation of Cool: "Playing in a Cool way mostly means to keep the game going; limit arguments and strategies that make the game less enjoyable." Obviously, what is enjoyable for one player might not be for another. So each icer has personal Icehouse morals (beyond what the Handbook lists as Cool or Uncool). When a number of icers gather together, their ideas of what is enjoyable will naturally differ in some areas and agree in others. Now, I must confess that over the years, after having so many icers come up to me and say "Is blah blah blab Cool?", I eventually forgot Quote #1, and started telling them "Yeah, that's Cool" (if I thought it was). Instead I should have said, "If its not in the Handbook, and you think it's entertaining, then add it to your own list."

The "teaming up" strategy used at the last tournament was enjoyable for some, not for others. 1, for one, got pretty excited when I realized some guys had gotten together and pulled out the big guns. They were certainly acting within the current tourney rules, and exploiting as many loopholes as possible. I was intrigued, because the Discordians were stressing the system -- my system -- and winning. I like that kind of rule-bending attitude. So the games were fun for me to watch. I thought that what the Bates team did was Cool (because it was A so tricky and new and evil). But I was not a player, and therefore whether or not I had a good time is irrelevant in determining coolness. If the majority of the players in the tournament were entertained by the Discordians' scheme, then it would have been be a Cool one. This wasn't the case. Some players were genuinely perturbed by the Discordians' tactics, and the general entertainment factor of those involved in the tournament wasn't raised by the show of force displayed. Contrary to my own initial conclusions, team tactics at the last tournament cannot be considered Cool.

Which brings me to Quote #2: "A tactic that is not Cool is not necessarily Uncool." This is important to consider. The primary reason that I came up with that statement is that I didn't want the List of Uncool Things to grow. The whole purpose of the Cool/Uncool idea was to help people play Icehouse with a system of etiquette in mind that would infuse fun into each game. Worrying about taboos is not fun. For me, deeming a new tactic Uncool is a last resort, and one should think carefully before appending it to his Or her personal List of Uncool Things. This is why I am still very much against the "Cheeseballing is Uncool" view. It may not be Cool, but it's an effective tactic that's easy to employ, and icers are going to see it around for a long time. Calling cheeseballers Uncool isn't going to get rid of them, and it's not going to make games more fun when a player has been forced to cheeseball and must feel guilty about it. (Personally, I like to humiliate cheeseballers strategically. I enjoy an occasional cheeseballing; it keeps me alert and increases my attack speed.)

Uncool tactics are the real rotten tactics that most reasonable gamers wouldn't want to do anyway, like quitting a game, or having long arguments, or crashing intentionally. No icer should have to worry about The List of Uncool Things before he experiments with a tactic he has been developing. Experimenting and coming up with new strategies is an important part of the evolution and mystique of Icehouse, even more important than The List of Uncool Things. Inhibiting new ideas from getting into Icehouse culture by building a wall of taboos was not what I intended when I started The List. For this reason, I still don't think that the Bates Discordians should be looked down upon for thinking of a loophole, then practicing, planning, and implementing their diplomacy-made-of-concrete strategy to win the tournament. Unless they were planning to purposefully ruin everyone's good time (which I doubt; they were attempting one thing: to win), then what they did was not Uncool in my mind. They conducted a successful experiment that unfortunately happened to irritate other players. However, there should have been no reason for them to agonize beforehand over whether their idea might upset somebody.

Finally, Quote #3: "The Mystique of Icehouse is still evolving and growing, It is dynamic, and is shaped by you, the people who play the game." Beyond the directions that are contained in the Handbook, it is the collective Icehouse public that determines etiquette and strategies. So even after my cautious advice to not add to the Uncool list, if the majority of tournament players think that "teaming up" is Uncool, so be it. The same goes for cheeseballing. (As far as I can see it, most players don't think cheeseballs are Uncool. Unsavory, maybe, but not Uncool. I could be wrong. But I digress.) Does this mean we should take a poll every time somebody asks if something is Uncool? No. But I think it means we should listen more to the general feelings of groups of icers, and be ready to adapt to those attitudes. At the same time individual icers should make their opinions heard and considered (and critiqued), as I am doing here. The Cool/Uncool lists, aside from what already exist in the Handbook, are subjective categories that will undoubtedly change from time to time and place to place, depending on the combined attitudes of the players involved.

In terms of next year's tournament, the overall feeling we have received is that teaming up throughout the whole match should be outlawed, unless a separate team division is run in conjunction with the normal one. So we are listening to the players, and adjusting accordingly. You will find details of next year s tournament! rules inside. If you have any comments, questions, or gripes, write me! As always, Hypothermia should be a forum of icers. We need your comments.

RULES FOR THE 5TH ICEHOUSE TOURNAMENT (DRAFT)

Summary Of Rules Changes (For Returning Players)

Tournament veterans will notice the following differences in the rules:

• Team play is officially discouraged.
• The qualifying round will no longer be considered part of the tournament, but instead will be used to determine who enters the tournament.
• Number of wins needed to qualify will be raised from 2 to 3.
• Players pay the registration fee only after they qualify.
• Buttons will be given only to players who qualify for the tournament itself. Numbers will be given out in the order in which players qualify. A low number will therefore indicate that the player qualified very quickly.
• Tie game bonuses will be split between the winning players, rather than giving each player credit for a win.
• The number of different opponents required in the 3 Icee-off games will be raised from six to seven.

Tournament Rules

1. The standard rules of Icehouse, along with the additional rules of Timer Icehouse, will be in force for all games. Referees will oversee all games and make official rulings whenever they are required. The timer duration will be 20 minutes, and the referees will run the timers. The results of all official games will be recorded in a logbook by the Referees. Also, keep in mind that the wall rides are not part of the standard ruleset.
2. Participants are not required to be in the playing area at all times, but may come and go as they please. Players are responsible for scheduling their own matches, and for meeting the different requirements for advancing through the different levels of the competition. Players will schedule their games by finding three other players, grabbing a table, and asking a referee to officiate. The referees can also provide assistance in grouping players together for games.
3. Team play is strongly discouraged. The purpose of the tournament is to determine who is the best single player of Icehouse. Small groups of players that work together from one match to the next undermine this purpose. Alliances that endure for a single game are perfectly acceptable. Alliances that endure from one game to another are frowned upon.
4. In the event of ties, winning bonuses will be shared by all players involved. In a two way tie, each player will be credited with 1/2 of a win. In a three way tie, each player will receive 1/3 of a win. Four way wins will be scratched and replayed.

Schedule - Pre-tournament Events

Practice Session: Friday 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM: The tournament room will be open for all players wishing to practice or learn the game.

Qualifying Session: Saturday 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM: To enter the tournament, each player must demonstrate skill in playing the game. This is done by winning a minimum of 3 games during the qualifying session.

No fee is charged for entering the qualifying rounds. Everyone is encouraged games during this phase. The referees will only record the winners' names at this time. The refs reserve the right to declare any game a practice -ante if some players are highly inexperienced.

Once players have qualified, they may then register for the tournament. At this point they must pay the entrance fee, and will each be assigned a player number, and a button bearing that number. The numbers will be used for recording who played which games, and will also help players locate and identify other players. During the tournament, the players should wear their buttons prominently. The numbers will be assigned in the order in which players qualify for the tournament. Lower numbers may therefore give some indication of the player's skill at the game.

Schedule - Tournament Events

Ice-offs: Sunday 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM: The competitors will have 7 hours during which they must each play 5 games. Of these 5 games, their 3 best games will be picked, provided these 3 games are played against a total of 7 or more other players. A rating based on the scores from these games [scoresum * (#wins+ 1)] will be given to each player. The top four players will advance to the final match.

Finals: Sunday 8:00 PM until conclusion: The four finalists will square off in a grueling five game match. The winner of the tournament will be the player with the highest rating.

A REVIEW OF XICEHOUSE

By Andrew Looney

Well, it's happened.

Over the past few years, I've had several encounters with people whove seen Icehouse and said "Man, you should put this on a computer!" To this, I have universally said "It would be pretty hard to do." Often this has provoked an enthusiastic declaration that they would do the programming, to which I've always said "I'll believe it when I see it."

Well, I'm a believer. I've seen it, and I've played it, and it really does work.

The guys who've made computerized Icehouse a reality are Dan Efran and Andrew Plotkin.

Xicehouse is a network-based game. Each player sits at a Unix-based workstation (ideally with a color monitor), and they each have their own view of the playing area and can perform maneuvers independent of the other 3 players, thus creating a proper no- turns environment. The 4 computers communicate with each other via a local network, and through a 5th computer which acts as a record keeper. The 5th computer (called the server) keeps track of each move a player does and tells the other 3 computers about it.

Each player has their own view of the action, over which they have complete control. The), can zoom in for a close look at several pieces, or they can zoom way out for a look at the big picture.

As for moving their pieces, this is done with a mouse. The mouse attached to a Unix-based workstation typically has 3 buttons - you use one button to pick up (or set down) a piece, the second to change a piece from attack to defense (and back again) and the third to rotate the piece in place. If you are "holding" a piece, you move the piece just by moving the mouse.

The software is also sophisticated enough to keep track of what pieces are iced, and over-iced, to keep you from moving pieces that can't be moved, and to total up the scores at the end. It really is amazing. It still needs some work, mostly with the user interface, but it runs amazingly well. It's currently in beta testing, and we've sent a list of suggestions to Dan and Andrew. But the thing about our comments is that they are ideas for making it better, not complaints about things that don't work. Like I said, I'm a believer. It really does work!

Since Xicehouse runs only on high-end Unix workstations, finding a place to play it ain't easy. We've been playing it at work, after hours, on Suns. How can you play it? Good question. If you don't have access to networked machines running Unix, I guess you're out of luck. If you do, you can send email to Andrew (ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu) or Dan (de0t+@andrew.cmu.edu) and ask them to let you playtest it. Xicehouse is available only as source code, so you'll have to compile it on your machines yourself. It runs under the X window system, so that must be installed on your machines as well.

Hey Everyone,

Enclosed here are a few items. Number one is the Database of the Best All-Time Players (newly revised for the Fourth Tourney). The database only looks at people who have made it to the Ice-Offs in the last three tournaments. I took the rating each player earned in the last tournament, added it to their rating in the finals (Second Tournament data is adjusted accordingly [Editor's Note: for those who don't recall, we used a flat total instead of the rating system for the finals in the Second Tournament]) for each tournament. Add twenty points for each tournament of the last three they have competed in. Add all the numbers together and divide by the number of tournaments that they have entered, giving them their all time rating. The results can be seen.

However, I faced a dilemma for the Bates Discordians. If I allowed their finals data to be allowed, it would give them too large a bonus. Thus, for the Bates Discordians, each of them received 76.5 points, their normal finals data divided by four for the team work, plus the tie breaker points.

Also included is a variation I wrote up called Competition Icehouse, specially designed for teams. Let me know what you think.

I have one tiny suggestion. How about an issue where you can put in a free plug for your Icehouse club? This way, people who play Icehouse but don't know anyone in their area who does can get together. Currently I'm trying to get a club going. I hope to see you at the Fifth Tournament.

'Til Dr Cool Cheeseballs,
Donovan Chase

THE TOP 25 ICEHOUSE PLAYERS*
(According to Donovan Chase's Calculations)

Note: This list does not include Leo Prahinski, since he has never competed in a tournament.

A Thanks for your fun-packed letter, Donovan. The kind of club advertising that you have suggested is exactly one of the reasons Hypothermia exists. Send it in, and we'll try to print it in the next issue. In fact, usually we'll print any submissions at all that have to do with Icehouse. So send in stuff! I crave mail!

Speaking of clubs, everybody, now's your chance to join a free club. No dues, no officers, no quotas, and no stupid meetings! I'm talking about the Icehouse Phone List. Well, OK, it's not a club It's just a list But it is free --free to join and free to receive. Alright, so it's not exactly free either. Just send us a note or give a call saying you would like to be added to the phone list, along with your name, maybe a nickname, and of course your phone number. If you want to get a copy of the list (even if you're not on it) send us a S.A.S.E. and we'll send the list to you. The list probably won't be very extensive for a while, so you might want to wait a bit before requesting one.

-- dr cool

ESPIONAGE ICEHOUSE

By Greg Crowe

WARNING: This is not playtested at all. It just came to me at the tournament. Before the beginning of a qualifying game the four of us were goofing around pointing our pieces threateningly at each other's pads, making "Bansai!"-like noises, and one of us put a one-pointer on his neighbor's pad and said "Look, a spy!" I immediately started ranting about a new variation. The three of them, and the ref, looked at me like I was crazy. You decide.

First you need a way to designate the spies and the controlling player. I think those little round colored stickers you get at office supply stores should do nicely.

Now, how to assign spies? Well, I see two ways right off. One, after the pieces are set up, each player, without anyone else looking, affixes a sticker to the bottom of another player's piece, making it his/her spy. Two, stickers could be pre-affixed and colors assigned randomly.

Okay, play begins as normal. However, everyone looks at the bottoms of their pieces as they play them. If it's a spy, he must give it to the appropriate player. This player gets to use it as a prisoner, however he must use it immediately, for the advantage of a spy is lost if put aside.

One variation of this variation occurs to me. The spy is not exposed when placed defensively. This might speed things up.

Please play this and send your comments and suggestions to Hypothermia. I hope this works.

COMPETITION ICEHOUSE

By Donovan Chase

With the advent of teams in the Tournament, a couple of friends and I decided it would be really cool if there was a new variation of Icehouse designed just for teams. Well, we couldn't find one in the Handbook, so we decided to write an easy to implement version. We call it Competition Icehouse.

A few definitions. A team is a group of eight Icehouse players united for their cause. This team is broken down into four squads, groups of two players. Each squad is determined by the team before the big game begins.

At the Icehouse game, two teams face off. Put each squad Dame into two different hats, separated by learn affiliation. Pull the name of one squad out of one of each of the hats. These two squads will then play a game against each other. Keep drawing names out of the hat until you have four games going. Each game will have a squad from each of the teams.

For example, Let's say Miskatonic University and Wossamotta U. have had a long standing rivalry. So each University gets a team or Icehouse players to play against the other team. Within the team the players would already be grouped into four squads.

For simplicity, Miskatonic's' squads had a letter designation and Wossamotta's squads had a number designation. Each team puts their squad names in a hat, and then pair up. After each play a game, the referee scores for the Squad total, not each individual. At the end of this round, use tournament scoring for each of the squads. After this is done, the squad names are put back in the hat for a second time, redrawn, played, and then scored, for a total of eight games. Total up the ratings for each round, and the team with the highest rating wins. Here is an example of how it might go.

Round 1: Squad B (34 pis.) vs. Squad 4 (30 pts.) Miskatonic wins
         Squad D (33 pts.) vs. Squad 1 (43 pts.) Wossamotta wins
         Squad A (52 pts.) vs. Squad 3 (23 pts.) Miskatonic wins
         Squad C (40 pts.) vs. Squad 2 (43 pts.) Wossamotta wins

At the end Of round 1, Miskatonic has a rating of 477, and Wossamotta has a rating of 417. Then, the teams pair up for round 2. Here is how that looked.

Round 2: Squad D (45 pts.) vs. Squad 2 (44 pts.) Miskatonic wins
         Squad C (37 pts.) vs. Squad 4 (27 pts.) Miskatonic wins
         Squad A (10 pts.) vs. Squad 1 (53 pts.) Wossamotta wins
         Squad B (32 pts.) vs. Squad 3 (45 pts.) Wossamotta wins

Miskatonic took a rating of 372 in that round, adding the two round rating together you get a total rating of 849. Wossamotta had a Round 2 rating of 507, a total rating of 924. Thus, in this clash of titans, Wossamotta, takes the victory.

By the way, we suggest using a ten minute timer for each game, so the event is kept Moving. We also suggest a calculator.

For an event with four teams, each squad has only one person. All eight games are played simultaneously, and use tournament scoring as above, playing only one round. The system above could bring about many changes, Soon, colleges and high schools might form Icehouse teams. A group to sanction these events and approve referees might arise called the Collegiate Icehouse Association (CIA). CIA agents would then hold a "Final Four" tournament rivaling the Super Bowl. Enough money could be generated that plastic Icehouse sets might reappear. Could it be ... ?