Game: Ploy

Image

djcack — 2008-10-16T01:51:21+00:00

Components and rules

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

donkst — 2008-10-11T16:06:21+00:00

Thibault definitely designed it, as revealed by an extremely interesting 1969 letter from Thibault to Sackson located here http://www.rosenbaum-games.de/3m/p1/p0075.htm

The letter is posted on an absolutely fantastic website by BGG user Baron Muenchhausen (Guenther Rosenbaum). I've always wondered why he hasn't linked the page in a variety of spots here on the geek, especially since it contains a wealth of information about 3M, Sackson, and several other designers. Nevertheless, because the website is out there and open to everyone, I figured it was about time someone posted something about it here (unless I've overlooked the link elsewhere here on BGG).

Enjoy his website--it's absolutely great for 3M fans and should be relished by all.

Edit = Typos

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

tool — 2008-10-11T15:15:19+00:00

I don't know why Schmidt did any of that, but in any case it's all wrong (well, they're entitled to rename the game). Thibault designed the game, Sackson had nothing to do with it.

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

graydo — 2008-10-11T09:44:31+00:00

That's why Sid's nickname was "Anglo"...

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

Sphere — 2008-10-11T07:10:06+00:00

And renaming it IMPERIUM wasn't the best idea, either. Very odd.

Thread: Sid SAXON?

wmshub — 2008-10-11T06:58:33+00:00

BGG has this game listed as designed by Frank Thibault. But this image, from the Schmidt edition, claims it is by "Sid Saxon":
]]>
Which is correct? And why would Schmidt misspell Sid Sackson's name? It's not like he's a nobody in the gaming business. Schmidt even published other games of his!

Thread: Ploy makes good play for people new to strategy abstracts

wargamer55 — 2007-12-29T23:53:40+00:00

The old 3M line included some old classics such as chess, go and backgammon and some updated versions of classic games such as Oh-Wah-Ree (mancala) and Breakthru (tablut) but much of the line were original designs such as Acquire and Stocks & Bonds. Among the latter was ploy, an abstract strategy game that affected a modernistic look and style of play.
In ploy the moves of the pieces are indicated by the shape of the plastic pieces themselves. Each piece has one or more ridges which graphically depict not only the direction the piece can go but how many points. The lances, for example, can move three points because they have three ridges, and have a choice of three directions. The shields, which have just one ridge, can move just one space in one direction.
The game board is a 9x9 criss-cross grid of points that are connected by horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines, resulting in 8 potential directions of movement. The object of the game is to capture the enemy's "commander," who can move just a single point (in an exception to the usual movement scheme), but has the most options of any other pieces with four possible move directions.
The cleverness of the design is that pieces come in several varieties. While every lance can move three points, they also come in three different varieties as far as directions.
Each army deploys in three rows, with the fastest and most flexible pieces closest to the player. The back row comprises the commander flanked to either side by a total of six lances in three different varieties. The second row has five "probes" (move 2 spaces) also in three varieties and the front row has three shields (one-space move).
During a player's turn he can conduct either a "motion" move which allows a piece to move up to the number points shown by its ridges in a direction indicated by the ridges or a "direction" move, which allows a piece to rotate so it's ridges line up in new directions. A shield, only, is allowed to make a motion move followed by a direction move. (So a shield can move in the direction it started facing, but then change its facing, but it cannot change facing and then move.
Compared to chess and similar abstracts Ploy features a more wide-open style of play. There's one fewer piece on each side maneuvering on a board with 17 more spaces and double the potential move directions. Unlike chess, no pieces can sweep from one end of the board to the other. The signature feature of Ploy is that no piece can really defend itself. The most mobile pieces are still helpless in 5 out of 8 directions.
Ploy is a little easier to teach than many similar abstracts because the moves are right on the pieces, so it's a good choice for younger players. Being far less popular and analyzed than chess, it provides a more level playing field for beginners while still being a good introduction to the kind of strategic and tactical thinking needed for chess.
It's never been reissued since 3M days but it's not hard to find on eBay in good condition, so it's still a good choice to seek out.
The game includes 4-player and partnership options with a slightly different setup and mix of pieces, but otherwise the same rules.

For other game comment check out my blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

twixter — 2007-11-19T14:18:06+00:00

I should add that checkmate is possible if the kings are closer to the corner.

With black to move, this would still be a draw, but white to move can be checkmated. After white rotates in place, black moves and rotates as follows:

Now the only way for white to avoid immediate checkmate is to retreat. If white retreats and rotates, black pursues orthogonally and rotates:

Checkmate is inevitable. If from the previous position white retreats without rotating, black moves down without rotating, with mate next move. But if the kings were any further from the corner than this, checkmate could not be forced. Three piece and higher Rotary endgames are a completely different story, of course.

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

twixter — 2007-11-14T02:37:05+00:00

My reasoning was flawed! In general, a bare king will not be able to force checkmate in Rotary. Consider the following position with black to move:

I called this a loss for whomever was to move. But suppose black rotates in place:

White has essentially two choices here. In my previous analysis, I recommended that white also rotate in place. Call this variation A. But if white does this, black can move and rotate, producing the following position:

If white also moves up and rotates, again we have an X X pattern, and white is not making progress. Black can again rotate in place, resulting in the same pattern as before. Black can shuttle back and forth this way.

The second choice for white (from the second diagram) is to approach diagonally and rotate, variation B. But then black moves back and rotates, and we have the same pattern again.

White cannot make progress.

So, in general, the bare kings endgame is indeed a draw due to insufficient material. Sorry about all this todo about nothing!

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

twixter — 2007-11-11T18:27:58+00:00

Here is my solution, posted for posterity, before I forget it again. I do not prove this, but it would probably not be too difficult to do so, using some form of finite induction, where the verdict for larger distances between the two kings is based on results from shorter distances.

First, it helps to "checker" the board in two colors. Here are some patterns that are useful to know.

I claim this is a zugzwang position. Zugzwang means the obligation to move is disadvantageous, for whichever side has the move. Even though the white king appears trapped in the corner, if it is black's move, then white can force checkmate, although it might take dozens of moves to do so on a 9x9 grid. For example, if black retreats without rotating, white pursues in the same direction without rotating, and the + + kings are again diagonally adjacent, which is zugzwang regardless of where they are on the board. If you can produce a zugzwang position with your opponent to move, you have a win.

Another choice for black from the starting position is to rotate in place without moving. Since rotation must result in pointing in a new direction, there is only one way a king can ever rotate, which is to switch from a + orientation to X or vice versa. White can respond to this move by moving without rotating, which delivers check to the black king and forces it to retreat. The resulting pattern is dealt with in the next branch.

If instead from the starting position black retreats and rotates, white moves in the orthogonal direction and rotates, producing another important zugzwang position:

Now if black rotates without moving, white does the same, which is again zugzwang. It might seem that white is not making progress, but if black again rotates in position, white can move and deliver check:

Now black has to retreat. If black does not rotate after retreating, then white pursues by moving and rotating to produce the X X zugzwang pattern shown above, but with the black king pushed back. If instead black retreats and rotates, white pursues to produce diagonally adjacent + + kings. If white continues to pursue in this described manner, eventually black will be pushed to an edge and checkmated.

That's all very well if the kings are close to each other, but how does one determine which side wins if the kings are far apart? There are essentially six cases to deal with. First, the concept of opposition needs to be explained. The two kings are at opposition if and only if:

* they are on the same rank or file and are on the same color squares, OR

* they are at opposite corners of a rectangle which has the same color squares in all four corners.

If the kings are both +, then if they are on the same color squares, it's zugzwang. Whoever has the move loses. Otherwise, the player to move wins.

If one king is + and the other is X, then if they are on the same color squares, whoever has the move wins. Otherwise, the + side wins regardless of who is to move.

If both kings are X, if they are in opposition to each other, it's zugzwang. Otherwise, the player to move wins.

That's it!

Thread: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

twixter — 2007-11-10T22:19:51+00:00

If you have an extra set of Ploy pieces, you can add the game "Rotary" to your Ploy box. I used a Dremel tool to grind down the direction pointers for nine pieces of green and nine of coral. These became "pawns." A circular disc was added to the back side of each pawn, to indicate the promoted state, which is a "queen." Besides the nine pawns, an extra "scythe" is needed for each color, which is a piece pointing in two directions at 180 degrees from each other. An image of the cobbled set is available in the images section. The rules are also available at http://www.mindsports.net/CompleteGames/Checkmate/Rotary.htm...

Here is what the initial setup looks like.

The player with the darker pieces (green if you're using Ploy pieces) moves first. Players alternate taking turns. Each turn consists of either rotating, or moving, or moving and then rotating one piece, subject to the following constraints:

* A piece rotates some multiple of 45 degrees so that it points in at least one new direction on the board. Pawns do not rotate.

* A piece moves in one of its indicated directions. Pawns move and capture as in Western chess, although there is no initial double move. The king (referred to as a commander in Ploy) may move only one space at a time. All the other pieces (which, from the edges inward, are called the rook, the scythe, the axe, and the trident) may move as many unblocked spaces as desired. All captures are by replacement. Pawns may promote upon reaching the 7th and 8th ranks, and must promote upon reaching the 9th rank. A pawn promotes only to a queen, which is a rook with all four directions, shown on the reverse side. It may be oriented either way upon promotion.

* If any piece other than a pawn is moved one space, it may be rotated at the end of the move/capture. The scythe is the only piece which may rotate at the end of a move/capture of any length.

You may not pass on your turn. You may not rotate and then move a piece in the same turn. The object is to checkmate the opposing king.

This variant is arguably closer to chess. Pawns are once again "the soul of the game," as they define the shape of the battlefield for most of the middlegame. Strategical planning replaces the wild tactical melee of Ploy. Draws are rare; for example, if only the two kings remain on the board, then one of them will always be able to checkmate the other! It's an interesting puzzle to solve this two-piece endgame completely. This is different from Ploy; for one thing, the commander in Ploy is weaker, since it may not rotate after moving. Also, Ploy has an alternate victory condition of capturing all opposing pieces besides the commander. This implies there are no Ploy endgames with less than four pieces. If there is interest, I will post my solution to the "two kings Rotary endgame" in my blog.

Image

twixter — 2007-11-10T21:15:01+00:00

Christian Freeling's "Rotary" variant, cobbled from two sets. The pawns were ground down with a dremel. One of the pawns is flipped to reveal a "queen." See the links section for the rules.

Thread: Re: Rules Question, reference Shield units

twixter — 2007-11-09T17:46:31+00:00

The rules say that Shields are allowed to rotate after movement, which does not imply that they are required to move before rotating. The rules also say that you may either move or rotate one piece. Shields are pieces, therefore you are allowed to rotate a shield of yours without moving it.

Thread: Re: Rotating

twixter — 2007-10-19T17:47:53+00:00

Rotate as far as you wish. The important issue is that the piece must point in at least one new direction on the board. For example the commander may not be rotated 90 degrees because that would not change where it points. If a piece is on the edge of the board, if you rotate it, it must end up pointing in at least one new direction on the board. Of course you are restricted to multiples of 45 degrees.

Thread: Re: Slight rule change

Chump — 2007-10-19T03:30:11+00:00

"Common sense" -- hmph, that's a tall order around here ...

Thread: Re: Rotating

Gamegrunt — 2007-10-18T18:06:23+00:00

Up to 270 degrees in either direction.

Gg

Thread: Rotating

Talisinbear — 2007-10-18T17:41:38+00:00

When choosing to rotate a piece, how far can it be rotated on a turn? It doesn't say in rules so assume as far as desired?

Help please

thanks Talisinbear

Image

Haffner — 2007-09-21T06:26:51+00:00

german edition

Image

Haffner — 2007-09-15T14:49:22+00:00

Ploy (3M) and Ovni (Dujardin)

Image

Gamegrunt — 2007-07-18T02:07:24+00:00

The Four Colors & Units of Ploy - Red Shield, Green Probe, Blue Lances, Yellow Commander

Thread: Re: Rules Question, reference Shield units

Gamegrunt — 2007-06-11T11:32:45+00:00

I would think so; it would certainly be in the spirit of the rules for this to be allowed. Shields may only execute a directional change after a motion move. The other pieces can execute a direction move in lieu of a motion move. It is seemly that a shield could be turned in its place dispensing with the motion move that would normally come first.

Gg

Thread: Rules Question, reference Shield units

Chump — 2007-06-10T22:58:39+00:00

Can a shield unit forsake the motion part of its move (or move 0 spaces), and just do a direction move?

Image

ZiggyZambo — 2007-05-19T23:08:43+00:00

Image

sroney — 2007-01-14T00:27:15+00:00

Back of 3M box

Image

Purple — 2007-01-12T14:16:05+00:00

Rulebook cover

Image

Purple — 2007-01-12T13:55:45+00:00

Back of the box (Schmidt Spiele edition)

Image

Purple — 2007-01-12T13:23:56+00:00

Box cover of the renamed, multi-lingual version by Schmidt International

Thread: Another slight modification

garkjr — 2005-10-14T02:11:48+00:00

Being an accountant, I love symmetry. In Ploy, each piece can move a number of spaces equal to the number of "fins" it has - except the Commander, who has 4 fins, but can only move 1 space.

Try this sometime: let the Commander move 4 spaces. This makes him the strongest and most vulnerable piece on the board at the same time: he has the longest range, yet to expose him to the risk of capture can cost the game! Leads to some interesting situations.

Thread: Re: User Review

Shanahan — 2005-08-22T20:17:30+00:00

I realize it's been a while since anyone wrote about Ploy, but as I was rolling through my collection, I stopped to read this review. Having played four-player Ploy, I wanted to comment on it.

The original reviewer's comments about the game as a whole are spot-on. There's depth here; Ploy can be played very slowly and strategically, or it can be a give-and-take bloodbath. In fact, games tend to be a bit of both. Plus, the varied arrangements of the prongs on each piece (see a photo) give a deeper added dimension to setting up the Commander for Ploy's version of "checkmate." While Ploy frequently ends when one player captures everything BUT the Commander, a well-played strategic game force capitulation.

There are two basic ways to play four-person Ploy: teams or a free-for-all. I prefer the free-for-all, since it forces each player to play carefully on three fronts, assessing offensive and defensive requirements. Each "team" is reduced from 11 pieces to 9 at the start, and the initial gap between forces is somewhat smaller. Attacks come very early into the game in this version, but often defensive play rises to the forefront after some initial forays. With team play, if one team's forces are eliminated, the other is pretty much dead meat.

Two other four-player options, centered around conquered opponents, enhance the free-for-all version. The players choose whether the remaining pieces of a vanquished army are removed from play or absorbed into the conquering army's numbers. Again, I prefer this second option--to the victor go the spoils, right? This also ups the ante on foregoing a war of attrition and instead trying to take out the Commander.

Weak armies in four-player Ploy will likely be ganged up on and slaughtered; on the other hand, this version lends itself to a "let's get the leader" mindset.

All in all, the number of play options make four-person Ploy well worth trying.

Thread: User Review

citizen k — 2004-09-02T23:13:25+00:00

In summary

Ploy is a fine abstract strategy game from the venerable 3M bookshelf line. Its kitsch artwork, color choices, and overall 70's feel giving the player a sense of being in the not to distant future. On a 1-10 scale I'd give it a 6, a nice diversion that I'd be willing to play with abstract game fans. But I wouldn't expect it to come off the shelf more then a half dozen times a year.

Background / Theme

The thrift store. We've all been there. Staring at a wall of beat up games, thinking "are there diamonds in this here rough". It was just such a question that brought 3M's "Ploy" to my bookshelf.

Produced in 1970, Ploy describes itself as a "strategic game of maneuver and capture" whose object is "to eliminate the opponent's commander or all of his forces." The box art with its descriptions of "spatial playing pieces, futuristic playing board and instructions" only reinforce the feeling that the reader is holding a time capsule.

I mean, you've got to wonder - what are "futuristic instructions"?

It sets a mood though. A kitsch mood, yes, but a mood. Nothing made today could scream "the 70s" as well as Ploy's box does.

The Bits and Pieces

Inside the box are glossy, high quality components made of space age polymers. The board consists of two heavy halves that fold open using, what mechanical engineers like myself call, living hinges - thin walled portions of the board structure that are able to bend. Believe me this is a sharp design, even by today's standards.

The playing pieces come in four sets, two with 15 pieces and two with 9. Again these pieces are glossy, thick walled plastic with a high quality feel to them.

Heck this box contains more plastic then a modern automobile.

The only complaint I have about the internals is that the tray used to hold the playing pieces separate doesn't come up flush with the internal face of the box. Thus when the box is stored on end, on a bookshelf as intended, the pieces tend to find themselves in other compartments. But this is picking at its nittiest.

The Mechanics

As is the case with the best abstract games, the rules for Ploy are short and sweet. The board consists of a grid of 81 positions linked by rectilinear and diagonal lines. Pieces are arranged at the start of play in a formation illustrated in the rules.

There are four types of pieces based upon the number of fins, or "direction indicators", protruding from the top of each piece. On their turn, a player can either (1) move one piece across the lines of the board in a direction indicated by its direction indicator fins, or (2) rotate a piece in place to realign its direction indicators in a different way on the board.

Pieces with one direction indicator may only move one position in their turn. Pieces with 2 direction indicators may move one or two positions, those with three may move 1, 2, or 3 positions. All movement is in a straight line, along a line of positions pointed to by a direction indicator.

Think of chess, only in Ploy's case pieces move like both rooks and/or bishops depending on how those all important direction indicators are lined up.

The fourth piece has four direction indicators, and is called "the commander". This commander can only move one position per turn. Picture the king in Chess.

A final note, those pieces with only one direction indicator, have a special ability. After they have moved, they can then rotate in place. They are the only pieces able to rotate in the same turn in which they moved.

If a player's piece lands on a position occupied by an opponent's piece, the opponent's piece is removed from play. If a player eliminates their opponent's commander, or all of their forces excepting the commander, that player wins.

Of course, the game is elegant enough to explain all this in less words than it's taken me.

Game Play

While playing Ploy, I find myself thrown back to the days when I could be convinced to play Chess. Pieces move forward, and it is a good idea for them to "cover" each other so that a loss to one side results in a lose to the other.

There are differences with Chess however, and they lead to a less scripted situation. Whereas Chess has a few powerful pieces, Ploy has many. Gone is the omnipotent queen, in two player Ploy, each player has 11 pieces capable of moving in a rook/bishop fashion. The pieces differ in how far a piece can move, their individual direction indicator's potential, and the effect of their current orientation.

In some ways it's as though the system simulates 3D on a 2D board.

The other major difference is that all pieces can move forward and backward on the board. But most must spend a turn to rotate before they can do so. As the game intensifies, turns wasted rotating can swing the balance.

The directional indicator / rotating mechanic is the trickiest part of Ploy to teach. Remember it's not checkers, Ploy is all about piece orientations. Reminiscent of the wargaming concept of "unit facings".

Finally, the game can be played 2 on 2, with forces starting in each corner of the board. Try that with Chess. I've not experienced the four player version, but the ability to play with four only adds to the base game's value.

There's depth to Ploy and, like any successful abstract strategy game, it will make you think. Yet I haven't found it to be a brain burner, but wouldn't be surprised if others might.

Conclusion

I picked up my copy of Ploy on a lark. The presentation intrigued me and the kitsch value alone made it worth the price. It's enjoyable, well made, and plays smoothly but is nothing stellar. Still, if you find a copy languishing on a dusty thrift store shelf, pick it up. Give it a new life in this century and you won't be sorry.

Thread: Slight rule change

twixter — 2003-05-22T19:23:27+00:00

There are a great many chess variants, which is what I would call Ploy. The concept of rotating pieces is original, and play can be very deep and rewarding. One common failing of many chess variants is, the rules may allow frequent draws by repetition of position. I find it particularly annoying if my opponent achieves perpetual check in an inferior position. The rules that come with Ploy don't even mention the possibility of a drawn game. Draws by repetition are not inherently bad, but the rules should mention how to deal with them. I personally prefer that draws should be as rare as possible, while still maintaining a fair game. So here are my proposed additions to the rules of two-sided Ploy:

*You may not make a move which threatens the enemy commander, if doing so results in a position which has already occurred twice before in the game. By 'position' is meant the arrangement of all the pieces on the board, and whose turn it is.

*If the same position occurs three times in the same game, while still adhering to the above rule, then the game may be declared a draw.

These rules may not be enough in the final analysis; for example, in chess there is a 50-move rule for dealing with games where neither side can make progress. But in such a situation, most Ploy players would have agreed to a draw long since. There are no Ploy tournaments or Ploy games for money AFAIK, so use your common sense and have fun!

Game: Ploy

Image

Thread: Re: Sid *SAXON*?

Thread: Re: Sid *SAXON*?

Thread: Re: Sid *SAXON*?

Thread: Re: Sid *SAXON*?

Thread: Sid *SAXON*?

Thread: Ploy makes good play for people new to strategy abstracts

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

Thread: Re: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

Thread: Christian Freeling's "Rotary"

Image

Thread: Re: Rules Question, reference Shield units

Thread: Re: Rotating

Thread: Re: Slight rule change

Thread: Re: Rotating

Thread: Rotating

Image

Image

Image

Thread: Re: Rules Question, reference Shield units

Thread: Rules Question, reference Shield units

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Thread: Another slight modification

Thread: Re: User Review

Thread: User Review

Thread: Slight rule change

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

Thread: Re: Sid SAXON?

Thread: Sid SAXON?