A newsletter for Icehouse players
| Issue #13 | November, 1996 |
An Introduction by Dr Cool
Well folks, in this issue we have a great new game by Dan Russett, results of the last tournament, and bad news. The news is that Icehouse Games Inc., is going out of business, mostly due to lack of capital. You'll find details of the decision enclosed, in a letter from Andy Looney. Here are some of my own thoughts:
Lately I've been going through my Icehouse paraphernalia, reflecting back on 8 years of my life that were more than slightly changed by this boardless board game. The beginning was the best... I remember the fire in my mind after reading Andy's short story. Then, the joy of discovery when I first lay a piece (Andy had lent me his set made of fishing weights) down on its side to attack a standing piece. I guess that makes me the first terrestrial icer. After making a few sets out of Sculpy and passing on the rules to some friends, I figured those few Icehouse memories were among the few I would keep.
But I was in store for much more. Thanks to a lot of zany friends who have huge stores of energy for keeping projects alive, my memories are now riddled with snapshots of "the 100,000 year-old game from Mars". Here are some of those pictures: Stealing into a lab at an unnamed government facility to use a vacuum chamber to get bubbles out of latex molding compound. Late nights awake choking in the smells of resin dripping from molds. Tweaking (hammering, actually) the rules to bits. The faltering first annual (International!) tournament. Sorting and packing and sorting and packing. Trying out all those wacky variations (try Impossible Icehouse, or Ice Station, for a good laugh). Giant stuffed pieces getting thrown around a hotel lobby.
The game has shown up in more places than I ever expected. Its pieces were feature props in at least two weddings I attended. It got into Games Magazine's best IN) games of 1993. And my name is on a patent! Dude! Totally unexpected results, I must say. Little pointy pieces still take up a good part of my brain (ask my girlfriend). I have a lot of ideas for other games cooking away, and often I've found myself saying, "Y'know, I think a pyramid scheme would work nicely for this game." And then I'm off in another world, shoving pyramids around a Go board or something.
So, after Icehouse has become so much a part of my life, it is hard to say goodbye. I hope the hard core fans out there aren't too disappointed; I have really appreciated your enthusiasm, and if we meet again, I would be glad to sit down for a game in the future. And as for the past - thanks for playing. It was fun.
-- dr cool
My Fellow Icers,
Whenever I show people my computer game Icebreaker, in which your goal is to destroy all of the Icehouse pieces on the playing field, people often ask, "Why pyramids?" The answer I usually give goes like this: When I first started creating it, it was just a programming exercise, and I needed some sort of artwork, so I used pyramids. because they're easy to draw. (If you care, a longer version of this story is available on my web page: www.wunderland.com/andy.)
But perhaps there's more to it than that. Perhaps, after struggling for years to make Icehouse pieces, I created Icebreaker as a sort of revenge. Perhaps some part of me has grown to hate those elongated pyramids, and a game in which I get to smash them and blast them was a form of catharsis for me.
The pyramids certainly have been a pain in our butts. They're just too damn hard to manufacture. Here's a tip for all you kids out there who hope someday to design or market games: Stay away from games that require custom-made pieces, particularly in large quantities. Unless of course you just happen to have an extra $50,000 lying around that you don't know what to do with.
Anyway, we've tried for 8 years to make Icehouse fly, and we now find ourselves at the end of the runway, still on the ground. And we don't even have an airplane. So, we're going to call it quits.
The problem, you see, is that we've run out of game sets again (not counting origamis). We've tried several different ways of getting pieces made over the years, and they were all highly labor-intensive and distressingly expensive. And what's worse is that we've never even managed to make any money on them. The idea was that we'd borrow money, make sets, sell the sets, pay back the loan, and use the profit to buy more sets. Unfortunately, we always seem to either break even or lose money on this deal.
And so, we find ourselves at a crossroads. We are faced with doing one of the following:
I know some of you hard-core Icehouse fans will be shocked and upset by this news, but if you try to put yourself into our position and consider these options, I think you'll agree that #3 is the only course of action that really makes sense at this point.
And after all, the end of Icehouse Games, Inc. is not the end of Icehouse itself. You all still have your game sets, you can keep on playing whether we exist as a company or not. And who knows? Perhaps in a few years, some other company will finally do what we've dreamed of all along - recognize the potential of Icehouse (and the other pyramid games), and reissue it under their own label, much the way Mayfair Games published Cosmic Encounter after Eon went out of business. Hey, it could happen!
In closing, let me just say that it has been a tremendous pleasure seeing you folks get into our game and watching it take on a life of its own. Nothing is more satisfying to an inventor than seeing people enjoy using your invention. I'm sad that we weren't able to make Icehouse a household name (which became a particularly challenging task after that beer came out) but I remain proud of the product we did create, and I'm happy that it brought joy, if not to the world, at least to a bunch of people.
Farewell,
Andrew Looney
Our Eighth tourney was a great success.
The competition was stiff as always in the Icehouse tournament, so tough in fact that previous champions Eeyore and Rob Bryan were unable to get into the finals. Part of the problem appears to have been the bold new strategies displayed by the winner, Jake Davenport. Jake refused to participate in the typical opening known as the snowball, either by playing his own pieces out in the open rather than clustered together in the center, or in many cases, simply by not playing any pieces at all during the first minute of the game. Then, during the game, he continually played his pieces in wide open areas of the board. His skill at quickly and devastatingly restructuring any attacks on those open pieces struck fear into the hearts of his opponents, even at times when he had no prisoners available with which to over-ice them. Fear of what he would do to any pieces that attacked his hordes of un-iced and un-fortressed defenders caused them to stay almost wholly un-iced throughout many a game. Jake's combination of ruthless skill at over-icing and refusal to play in the traditional way allowed him to frighten and confuse the other players long enough to achieve a decisive victory.
The Cooler Than Ice award went to Dave Wendland this year. The judges found this year's choice even more difficult than in previous years - it would appear as those years of practice have made everyone good at playing cool. The honorable mentions this year were Rob Bryan, Paul King, and Dan Efran. However, Dave Wendland stood out from the others due to his relentless good sportsmanship in the face of numerous defeats.
On Sunday, tournaments for Arcana and Martian Chess were held concurrently. Many people participated in both tournaments, but oddly enough, most people did well in one and poorly in the other, with the result that, despite it being a fairly small crowd, no one made it into the finals for both games. Both events were filled with tense and exciting moments, but the most noteworthy of these, came when Andrew Plotkin and Leah Spevak tied for going first in one of the Arcana finals. When they played their second cards, they tied a second time, each with a face card, and in the third try, one played the Sun and the other the Moon. Ouch!
In the end, Keith Baker (the odds-on favorite) won the Arcana tourney, and Rob Bryan won the Martian Chess event. The fact that all 3 winners are Bates College Alumni caused some to speculate if a new form of Bates conspiracy were afoot.
The three scoreboards are shown below. Congratulations to all the winners!
8th Icehouse Tourney Results
# Player's Name Ice-Off Scores Rating -- -------------------- ------------------------ ------- 01 Donovan Chase 19 22 03 John White 13 20 20 21 (23) 128 04 Rob Bryan 12 13 19 21 19 59 05 Greg Crowe (23) 1 (24) 17 (25) 288 06 Dave Wendland 1 21 10 16 08 Paul King 17 (20) 15 [23] 25 170 09 Dale Newfield 23 13 19 20 9 62 10 Eeyore 19 (24) 18 14 20 126 11 Dan Efran (23) 22 [23](26) 11 252 12 Jake Davenport 6 (28) 19 (23)[26] 269.5 # Finals 1 2 3 4 5 Rating -- ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ 12 Jake (26) 18 (23) (24) 1 364 05 Greg 1 (29) 21 17 (25) 276 11 Dan 17 27 20 20 19 103 08 Paul 24 14 22 17 15 92Arcana Tourney Results
# Player's Name Arc-Off Scores Rating Finals Rating -- ----------------- ------------------------ ------ -------------- ----- 01 Donovan Chase 6 (27) 6 (38) 19 252 1 24 18 43 02 Ellen Baker 21 19 (25) 130 04 Rob Bryan 19 23 42 05 Greg Crowe (31) 25 112 06 Dave Wendland 20 18 10 7 20 58 09 Dale Newfield 9 7 11 27 14 Andrew Plotkin 25 (26) 24 22 150 22 (32) 7 122 15 Keith Baker 23 (33)(33) 14 (34) 400 (38) 16 19 146 16 Leah Spevak 27 20 30 8 (28) 170 22 9 (29) 120Martian Chess Tourney Results
# Player's Name Mars-Off Scores Rating Finals Rating -- ----------------- ------------------------ ------ -------------- ----- ----====----====----==== 02 Ellen Baker (17) 14 13 88 14 14 10 38 04 Rob Bryan 14 (16) 12 (20) 150 (18) 15 16 98 05 Greg Crowe 14 14 09 Dale Newfield (22) 15 74 13 (18) 16 94 14 Andrew Plotkin 15 9 14 38 15 Keith Baker 14 13 27 17 Frank Kanach 10 8 15 (17) 10 84 13 8 (17) 76
Designed by Daniel Russett
Goal: The object of DNA is to possess the greatest value of pieces at the end of the game.
Materials: DNA requires a chess board (or any 8x8 square grid), a set of Icehouse pieces, and enough space to keep pieces off the board in two separate locations for each player: the gene pool and the archive. Each player gets one color and starts all of the pieces in the gene pool. DNA is designed for four players (see variations, below).
Starting the game: A single small piece of each color is placed in one of the center four squares of the board. Which color goes in which square does not matter. Some method should then be used to determine which player goes first. It will be important at the end of the game to remember the starting player.
Turn Sequence: There are three elements to a turn: placement, scoring, and mutation. Placement must happen first. The player then has the choice of mutating and then scoring, or vice-versa. After a player has placed, mutated, and scored, the turn moves to the next player.
Placement: A player may take any one piece from either his/her gene pool or archive and place it on any location on the board. Only one piece may be placed per turn. Pieces may not be moved once they are placed (although they can be exchanged for other pieces - see mutation).
Mutation: Mutation transforms one or more pieces adjacent to the piece that the player has just placed. Mutation does not transform the placed piece itself. If there are no pieces adjacent to the placed piece, no mutation can occur. The largest pieces possess three points of mutation value, mediums two, and smalls one. A player must use as much mutation value as possible when mutating adjacent pieces. Mutation can be used to either change the color or the size of an adjacent piece. The cost to change the size of a piece is one point per size increment. Changing a small piece to a medium would therefore cost one point, and shrinking a large to a small I would cost two points. The cost to change the color of a piece is dependent on its size. Smalls cost one, mediums two, and larges three.
Example: Bill places a large piece. It is adjacent to other pieces, so he must use as much mutation as he can (three point's worth, in this case). He changes an adjacent medium piece from red to green (two point cost) and then shrinks an adjacent large to a medium (one point cost). He has used all his mutation points and is done. If he has not scored yet, he now must do so (assuming he has scored at all).
Mutation cannot be used to make a small piece disappear. It is illegal to change the color of a target piece twice or to increase and then decrease (or vice versa) the size of a target piece. Mutation will require players to swap pieces on the board with those in the gene pools. Pieces in archives are off limits. If a player wants to make a certain mutation, but the piece they want to use is not available, tough.
Scoring: The basic unit of scoring is a strand. A strand is any three pieces in a row horizontal, vertical, or diagonal - that the player forms when placing a piece, as long as that piece is on one of the endpoints of the strand. One strand is worth one point. A player can score multiple points by forming multiple strands. A player also scores bonus points if a newly formed strand contains: three different colors, all the same color, three different sizes in succession (small on one end, medium in the middle, and large on the other end), or three pieces of the same size, A player scores one point for each condition satisfied per strand.
Example: Bill places a small green piece, and forms two strands. He scores two points - one for each strand. One strand is composed of two other small green pieces. He scores two bonus points - one for three pieces of the same color and one for three pieces of the same size. The other strand is composed of a medium yellow next to his and a large red on the opposite end. He again scores two bonus points - one for three different colors and one for a succession of sizes, in this case small to large. His total is six points.
Once a player has added up his/her score, he/she captures pieces from the other player. Pieces can he captured from any combination of players, in either their play or archive areas. A player must capture (if possible) as many points worth of pieces as he/she scored. When capturing from a gene pool, smalls cost one point, mediums two, and larges three. When capturing from an archive area, each piece is two points more expensive (smalls cost three points, mediums four, and larges five). There is no restriction on what pieces can he taken, as long as they add up to the total scored. Captured pieces are then placed in the capturing player's archive area.
Example: Bill has scored six points. He takes a small piece from a player's archive (three points cost) and a large piece from another player's archive (three points cost). He is now done. If he has not mutated, he now must do so.
The End of the Game: The game ends at the end of a turn in which no player has any pieces in a gene pool. Extra turns are played if the game does not end on the fourth player's turn to equalize the total number of turns per player. If gene pool pieces run out on the second player's turn, for example, the third and fourth players each get a final turn. The value of (he pieces (small = 1, medium = 2, large = 3) is totaled for each player's archive. The player with the highest total wins.
Variations: DNA can be played by two or three players. The recommended three player variation is for the fourth color to remain inaccessible to players except in the starting placement on the board and through mutation. The flavor can be varied by having the fourth color either count or not count as pieces in a gene pool for determining the end of the game. Two players can either play like three players except with two inaccessible colors, or each player can start off with two colors.
The starting setup is by no means meant to be set in stone. Feel free to experiment with different locations or even amounts for the initial pieces. Of course, try to keep the start position fair for each player.
Basic Strategy: Try to hold on to as many pieces as you can in your gene pool. It is much better to place from your gene pool than your archive. Mutate pieces of your color on the board to a different color so that. you get them back. If you don't need to mutate before you score, don't. You can mutate after you score in order to deprive your opponents of good opportunities. Try not to allow your opponents plays in which they can score with multiple strands. When you take your opponents' pieces for scoring, try to deprive them of a certain size. Take all of an opponent's one point pieces, for example.
| <Previous Issue | ^Table of Contents^ | Next Issue> |