Game: Octiles

Thread: Re: Octiles unauthorised copies - is this still happening?

bravucon — 2008-10-07T20:50:43+00:00

dale walton wrote:
Thanks for the comment. I have not been on the site for a while so I missed it.

It sounds like this is indeed still happenning, and the use of "octile" on the box is pretty overt.

Companies in the UK should know better.

I will look into it.

Today in Sevilla (Spain). I saw many copies under the name of Narrow. I felt impressed for two reasons:

1.Because I own the original Octiles purchased in Germany by my father.
2.Today it was in a toy shop for little children. I entered in the shop looking for more games, but there where no more. Only 3 or 4 copies of "Narrow". I think that they don't know nothing about the game because it's a abstract one not for 3 year old childs.

Image

trioker — 2008-06-21T21:18:19+00:00

homade board (folded)

Image

trioker — 2008-06-21T16:13:48+00:00

crossroads

Image

trioker — 2008-06-21T16:10:31+00:00

game in progress

Image

trioker — 2008-06-21T14:08:31+00:00

homade board (unfolded)

Image

trioker — 2008-06-21T14:05:13+00:00

homade board (folded)

Image

trioker — 2008-06-11T00:53:31+00:00

Thread: Re: Octiles unauthorised copies - is this still happening?

dale walton — 2008-06-04T05:43:28+00:00

Thanks for the comment. I have not been on the site for a while so I missed it.

It sounds like this is indeed still happenning, and the use of "octile" on the box is pretty overt.

Companies in the UK should know better.

I will look into it.

Thread: Octiles unauthorised copies - is this still happening?

Badgerman — 2007-11-27T23:36:58+00:00

Hi,

I just wondered if the unauthorised copying of Octiles had been resolved.

The reason I ask is that I picked up a copy today. The box has the name as "Octile", with "Narrow" printed on the board. The printing on the board is done with a similar logo to the original Octiles. Included is an A4 rulesheet, with the instructions detailing a different game using the same board design. The design of one of the tiles also differs from Octiles, having two forked paths on it.

The Game is manufactured by Yangxin Industrial Company Limited and distributed in the UK by Gazebo Games International Limited. Neither company appears to be linked to the original game. I can forward pictures and details of the instructions if wanted.

Image

Terraliptar — 2007-07-30T16:34:40+00:00

Detail shot

Image

KSensei — 2007-06-10T04:13:54+00:00

Octiles: Chinese Checkers meets Tsuro.....and maybe a Stop Sign...

Image

KSensei — 2007-06-10T04:13:07+00:00

Octiles Macro

Image

KSensei — 2007-06-10T04:12:40+00:00

If only that yellow pawn in the middle would move...

Thread: Review by SOS

sos1 — 2007-03-04T23:45:37+00:00

Octiles is an abstract game. The game set includes 18 beautiful wooden board pieces, a vinyl board they fit on, 16 lucite "stops" with felt padding, 20 wooden "runners", five each of four colors, four matching felt-padded "markers", one of each color, and a rules booklet which includes rules for there different games plus 28 puzzles.

Each of the three games can be played with two, three, or four players.

The wooden board pieces are octagonal shaped, giving the game its name. Each one has four "paths" on it, running from one of the edges to a different edge. Each tile is unique - there are exactly 18 ways you can create four paths on an octagon.

The roll-up vinyl mat has 20 starting/finish circles printed on it, plus a few line segments that match up with the paths on the octagons.

The basic game included in the rules is simply called Octiles. It resembles Chinese Checkers slightly in that you start with your five runners on adjacent starting circles on one side of the board, and have to get them to the finish circles on the other side of the board - which are occupied by your opponent's runners at the start. However, that's really the last resemblance there is to Chinese Checkers - the board in Octiles has to be created as you begin play, then constantly alters throughout play as players rotate and replace existing tiles.

Each turn you may either place a tile or move a runner. Runners can only end a turn on the "stops" or a finish circle. Once they've moved from a start circle, they can't return to it, and once they've landed on a finish circle, they can't leave it. Moves are along paths created by the tiles. Once all seventeen spaces for tiles have been filled in, there is one tile left. At that point, a player can either replace an existing tile with the spare (the replaced tile becomes the new spare), or rotate an existing tile, or move a runner.

There is a rule which prevents unlimited rotation of tiles - use the provided markers when you rotate a tile. No one can rotate or replace that tile until after your next turn. When you first make a tile move (rather than move a runner), place your marker green-side up on the tile. If you make another tile move before moving your runner, place your marker white-side up on the new tile. If ever all the markers are on the board white-side up, the next player must move a runner rather than make a tile move. This is a good rule which prevents endless rotating and rerotating of tiles.

A second game is called Move Over because each turn you must place a tile and then move a runner over that tile. There is no rotation of tiles in this game - simply place or replace a tile, then move over it. The object is the same: be the first to get your runners to their finish spaces.

The third game is called Team Up and has a different goal and starting position from the first two games. The runners start interspersed around the edges of the board, on the starting circles, and the object is to position them and the tiles so that all of your runners are directly connected by paths - either in a chain, a star formation, or a Y-formation. There is no rotation of tiles in this version, and once a player has formed a link between two runners, other players may not break that link. If they replace a tile containing a link, they must maintain the link.

All three games are excellent. I had earlier posted that the first two games needed a fix - that they could become stalemated with the rules as written. The game designer has since written me to point out I have missed a rule, and that I was in error thinking they needed a fix! In my defense, I can only say that the rule he quotes is actually only listed for the second game, though I have no excuse for missing it there. He assures me it should also be applied to the first game. So if you own the game (and you should!), please note that the rule that you must always have an empty starting circle applies to both the first and second games.

Octiles is a very fine game, one that is attractive to look at while playing, and one with a high replay value. While expensive, the game is worth it for those reasons. Recommended.

-(Review first published 1998)

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

mardeck — 2007-02-21T06:10:17+00:00

Kaliko (as I learned to know Psyche-Paths) has 85 unique tiles.

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

molnar — 2007-02-19T06:46:20+00:00

I think that Stephen just made a typo and left off the /2; there are n*(n-1)/2 pairs of items to be chosen from n items. I'm willing to give anybody who scored 25 on Putnam the benefit of the doubt.

It turns out, the actual problem Stephen was remembering from 1973, which is a while ago, was slightly more detailed. It asked to prove that it is impossible for seven distinct straight lines to be situated in the Euclidean plane so as to have at least six points where exactly three of the lines intersect and at least four points where exactly two of the lines intersect.

So Marlin, how many tiles for Psyche-paths?

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

mardeck — 2007-02-18T22:42:42+00:00

Your math confuses me. As a simple example, if N is 3, then there will be 3 pairs of lines: AB, AC, and BC, not 3*2=6 as your formula would suggest.

What you really want is the formula for combinations, in this case all combinations of choosing any 2 from a set of N. The formula for that is

N! / (K! * (N - K)!)

where N is the total number of items and K is the size of the combinations.

For 3 lines, N is 3, and to form pairs of lines, K is 2, giving:

3! / (2! * (3 - 2)!) = 6 / (2 * 1) = 3

Now put those three lines together in 2 dimensions so the enclosed area forms a triangle, and there will be 3 points where the lines meet. You can draw a fourth line so it crosses all three of those lines, for 6 intersecting points, and the formula above tells us that for 4 lines, 6 is the number of pairs.

In general, if all the lines are not relatively parallel, and all are coplanar, then they will cross in N points. Note that any one line cannot possibly cross another line in more than one point, since by definition, a line cannot curve back on itself as it would have to do in order to cross another line a second time. Consequently, the maximum number of intersections of N lines (in either 2 or 3 dimensions) is the same as the number of pairs of lines. Perhaps that's the proof you were after.

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

sroney — 2007-02-13T02:39:03+00:00

molnar wrote:
Nate, that's a very reasonable assessment, and was pretty much my point about the 13-year-old. Your post reminds me of a study that was done to measure problem-solving ability among professional mathematicians. The subjects of the study were asked to solve certain problems, one of which was to find the number of ways to make change for a dollar. Most of the mathematicians used some high-powered techniques like generating functions, much worse than what I've done here, and some of them got the correct answer, some didn't. The very top mathematicians in the study though, the Fields medal winners and such, just wrote out all the combinations. I would say they probably used some sort of a system though to make sure they had all of the combinations, some case-by-case analysis; "hunt-and-peck" is I think misleading.
Although this really have anything to do with this discussion, I am reminded of a question on the Putnam exam (college-level math competition) when I was in college (1973 or 4, probably). It was something like prove or disprove whether n lines in 3-dimensions can meet in n-squared points. My answer was that there were only n*(n-1) pairs of lines, so of course they could not meet in n-squared points. I thought this question was ridiculously easy for this kind of test (where you have six hours to answer six ten-point questions and my score of 25 was a school record at the time). When I showed it to one of my professors, he started to walk to the board and then realized the answer when he was about a foot away. But he said if he had actually made it to the board, he might have been there for a long time trying to draw examples.

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

molnar — 2007-02-13T01:20:07+00:00

Nate, that's a very reasonable assessment, and was pretty much my point about the 13-year-old. Your post reminds me of a study that was done to measure problem-solving ability among professional mathematicians. The subjects of the study were asked to solve certain problems, one of which was to find the number of ways to make change for a dollar. Most of the mathematicians used some high-powered techniques like generating functions, much worse than what I've done here, and some of them got the correct answer, some didn't. The very top mathematicians in the study though, the Fields medal winners and such, just wrote out all the combinations. I would say they probably used some sort of a system though to make sure they had all of the combinations, some case-by-case analysis; "hunt-and-peck" is I think misleading.

In offering a more technical solution, I'm trying to show that there are techniques to solve such problems; mathematics doesn't necessarily have to be done in the dark.

Thread: Re: Why 18 tiles

NateStraight — 2007-02-12T21:48:37+00:00

Where the resulting number of possible configurations is so ridiculously low, I think even the most uptight mathematician would opt for the hunt-and-peck method rather than going to the trouble of actually enumerating every combination. Get yourself a good ol' fashioned pad of paper and start drawing out each configuration until you see that you can't make any others that don't match one you've already got.

Thread: Why 18 tiles

molnar — 2007-02-12T21:33:29+00:00

There was a post in the Tsuro forum asking about the tile set, if the 35 tiles there were indeed all the tiles possible. And they are. Octiles has very similar tiles, each decorated by four arcs, but there are fewer different species of tile compared to Tsuro's squares. I gave a longish enumeration there - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/150978 - so here I will just give the specific details pertaining to Octiles.

I explain in the Tsuro post how each tile can be assigned a numerical code from which the arrangement of the arcs could be reproduced. The problem there, as it is here, is that multiple codes correspond to the same tile, eg 24633455 and 46334552. And different tiles have different numbers of equivalent codes. The tool for counting equivalence classes in this situation is called Polya's enumeration theorem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnside_lemma)

The theorem tells us in this situation that the number of tiles is (N0+N1+N2+N3+N4+N5+N6+N7)/8, where Ni is the number of codes that are invariant under a rotation of 45*i degrees. N0 is the total number of codes, 105 as discussed in the Tsuro thread. The difference here is that the octagons can be rotated 45 degrees. So N1, N3, N5, and N7 are each equal to 1, the 44444444 code, corresponding to the tile in which all of the arcs connect opposite sides. N2 and N6 are each equal to 5 - these are the same as X1 and X3 in my Tsuro post. And N4 is the same as X2 in my Tsuro post, which is 25.

So, we have (105+1+5+1+25+1+5+1)/8 = 144/8 = 18 tiles. Of course, a well-motivated 13-year-old with time on his (or her) hands could reproduce this result with a systematic search. I hope though that this shows that there is a piece of the mathematical bedrock on which to place this result, and that such counting problems can be attacked in some way other than brute force.

David

Thread: RE: Narrow by Yi Qui Games

skelebone — 2006-05-09T22:31:10+00:00

From Dale Walton, game designer:

"Octiles is a US registered trademark for my game. I own the trademark and have lisenced this to Kadon and Pin International. Listing Yi Qi as a publisher is damaging to the trademark, as it implies their came is from me, and would inevitably lead to damage to the value of the mark, and to my returns on invention of the game. For now they may be listed as the source only of "Narrow" - possibly in the same field that contains that game name, e.g. "Narrow from Yi Qi ...". Since I have not read their actual rules, I cannot say whether that game is an illegal copy/translation of mine, or a distinct game that belongs on a separate page. The board however is clearly designed to mislead in order to benefit from my design and my mark, and thus, if left on the site on whatever page, the pictures should be annotated as 'Unauthorised copy product, as identified by the author of OCTILES'"

Thread: Re: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

Keng Ho — 2006-05-08T03:33:34+00:00

Hi, Dale,
I posted the pictures in question. There isn't any other information other than what you can see on the box. I got the game from a sundry shop (a chain by the name of 'Japan Home') here in Singapore, but the box does say the game is made in China.

A curious thing about the game is that it came with a superfluous six-sided die.

Regards,
Keng Ho

Thread: Re: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

otrex — 2006-05-07T20:25:32+00:00

dipdragon wrote:
Well, the pictures of the Narrow Game do have Octiles written all over the board, so it looks like a copy to me.

Well, if that's the case, then you definitely have a valid complaint.

Thread: Re: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

dipdragon — 2006-05-07T18:49:51+00:00

Well, the pictures of the Narrow Game do have Octiles written all over the board, so it looks like a copy to me.

Thread: Re: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

Moviebuffs — 2006-05-07T17:55:48+00:00

I shall chip in here as a master of the bleedin' obvious

Have you tried contacting the poster of the photo's to see if he can give you the info from the box ?

N.

Thread: Re: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

otrex — 2006-05-07T17:22:48+00:00

Is it an exact copy, including rules, or is it just very similar to your game?

It's a lousy situation to be certain, but sadly, there isn't much that can be done unless they copied your rules, or artwork, or something tangible.

Thread: Copy product - The author would appreciate information

dale walton — 2006-05-07T17:08:46+00:00

Several pictures of an unauthorised Chinese copy product of Octiles (called Narrow) have recently been posted to BGG. I would appreciate anyone with any information about this product to forward it to me.

I would also be interested in any lawyers who have experience in dealing with Chinese copy products to make a proposal to me.

Thread: Play seen at Gamecon1 Malaysia

dale walton — 2005-12-22T15:28:27+00:00

At Gamecon1, my enthusiastic helpers delved into the rules for all the games and began teaching them on their own immediately, having a wonderful time at it. I appreciated this enthusiasm very much.

After a while, I came over to watch a 4 player game of Octiles that was going on with much laughter and animation, and discovered they were not following the rules completely, - so I asked them to teach me my own game. Here is the essense of the variation, as I understood it.

====================================================================
VARIANT: Place the switch tile on top of a tile NEXT TO one of your runners. WITHOUT REPLACING the tile underneath, use it to move your runner. Then replace ANY tile on the board with the switch tile.
====================================================================

The "advantages" were: fewer runner decisions, and freer path-messing-up possibilities; hence a more obstructive game. (So there! )

I suspect that this version would add more than a little nastiness and kingmaking into the end game.

(The true move-over rule was specifically designed to limit one's ability to directly mess with others' paths at the game's end, but maybe that was what the laughing was about.)

=> This variant might be more workable if the position where you finally replace the tile on your turn has to be somehow connected to one of your own pieces.

===================
Octiles is fairly accepting of variants, and many of the rules can be flipped around. If you have a favorite variant, I would be happy to try it out and comment on it.

Thread: Basic primer on path uses

dale walton — 2005-12-10T16:06:59+00:00

Here are a few tips for those who wish to short-cut play experience in their eagerness to dominate others in Octiles. (Fortunately there is enough chance involved that it is hard to dominate others in Octiles.)

Others are invited to add their insights.

To start, one must understand the basic terminology: From shortest to longest the paths are called Arc, Bend, Curve, Diameter. (Shown in the rules)

Uses of the paths:
In the central 9 spaces, Arcs and Curves are used to begin or end a path, and Bends and Diameters are used either to directly connect two squares, or to splice together two paths.

In the outer 8 spaces the roles of the paths is mixed due to 3 of 5 Starting Circles not lying where squares normally occur, and due to the small arc printed on the board where a square would normally occur. The overall effect is that the roles of Curves and Diameters are mostly reversed there, while Arcs and Bends are less affected.

Since most people have a difficult time knowing how to use the Arcs, here are a few basic tips:

In the basic game, Arcs are frequently best placed behind the square with your runner, in order to move forward; or beyond an open square, in order to end a path there. They also may be used in front to connect to other forward-flowing Arcs or Curves, or to connect to longer paths that happen to be passing in front of your runner...

Another use for the Arcs that you are not travelling over is to place them in front of your start circles or the squares near your start circles while you are leaving the area, in order to make it difficult for paths to penetrate this area.

They are likewise useful in the endgame if placed behind your runner, in order to increase the number of different types of paths you can use to reach a finish circle. - However, this is mainly a consideration when using all five runners.

Regarding Bends and Diameters:

The most effective blocking in basic Octiles, is a facedown tile surrounded by runners, and/or surrounded by tiles with Bends and Diameters that connect to (preferably long) paths which in turn lead back to unplayed tiles - either back to the same tile, or to another tile / tiles that are close to your opponent. Such paths cannot be used, because it takes 2 tiles to connect them - one at each end. - And, since those paths cannot be used, likewise the tiles they lead to become harder to place on.

Sometimes it is possible to set up such a dead space in one of the central spaces near your start. Consider the implications for use of the Bends and Diameters which you do not use as part of your own path.

Note: This is one reason why, in the 3 player version, the tiles next to the empty side must be turned up before play begins.

============

Useful statistics for the Team-up Game:

Number of tiles that a path type shows up on:
Arcs 11 / 18
Bends 10 / 18
Curves 11 / 18
Diameters 7 / 18

Number of occurances on tiles total:
Arcs 20
Bends 18
Curves 20
Diameters 14

However, if you need TWO paths with a particular relationship (ie you need to connect to a specific direction from one runner, and also have to preserve one opponent's path across the space) then the number of tiles available to meet your need is always 2 (plus the existing tile makes 3).

Similarly, if an opponent has 2 paths across a space (or two opponents each have a path there) then there are only 2 other tiles that you can use there, and they may be in use elsewhere, so you have very little control of that space.

Note that a single path can cross any given space up to 3 times, so lengthening one's path or crossing other paths can be useful strategy.

In addition, long paths preferentially consume the bends and straights that others need for their long paths, as well as for the quickest connections between nearby squares.

============

Off topic: In Team-up, if you move a runner from a position with lots of long connecting paths, not only would you stand to lose a lot of control, but the board situation may also change drastically. For this reason, players are likely to make, in the course of the game, a few moves with unpredicted consequences during the game which may make deep look-ahead impractical.

Thread: Octiles Review

LittleMisfit — 2005-10-24T00:02:55+00:00

Octiles is an abstract game that has a good blend of luck and strategy. The game takes only a few minutes to learn, but takes far longer to master. The game has beautifully crafted wooden components, and the box is thicker and more durable than most games.

The game involves creating paths from your start points to your goals by placing octagonal tiles. Each tile has different twists and turns, and the game board changes throughout the game. You have to be careful where you place tiles, because placing a tile that makes the perfect path for you may also make the perfect path for your opponent! If you like games like Streetcar (A.K.A. Linie 1), Ta Yü and The aMAZEing Labyrinth, you will most likely enjoy Octiles.

One of my favorite things about Octiles is that you can easily adjust the length of the game by simply playing with fewer pieces. That way it can be played as a quick filler, or a full length game.

Another great thing about Octiles, and many other OTB games, is that you get multiple games in one. In fact, many OTB games can even be played solitaire. Check out all the Octiles variations at http://www.otb-games.com/octiles/variations.html.

If you like abstract games, Octiles would be a perfect addition to your game collection.

Thread: Re:Session Report

dale walton — 2005-01-14T15:01:48+00:00

Trinket Magpie (#76359),

An interesting session, that gives a good picture of the game. Your observations about playing opposite to the open side demonstrate why the rules state that those two tiles should be turned up BEFORE the games starts. While this does allow the other players to use them first; if they do so, you can occupy the center. Turning them up increases the advantage you have from not being blocked by oncoming pieces, which overall then balances the cross-traffic effect.

When the board is highly occupied, a face-down tile is a greater obstacle than a wrongly oriented one, because the latter can often be co-opted to your advantage by a connecting tile placement elsewhere, while the former cannot be played unless there is an opening to connect to across it and you have just the right curve available.

With three players, use 3 for a fast game, 4 for a longer game, and 5 if you like the frustration of traffic jams. For four players, playing with 5 runners turns it into a negotiation game. - players start to bid/bribe each other for moves with future promises.

Thread: Session Report

Trinket Magpie — 2005-01-10T21:24:31+00:00

Seems like an odd game to write a session report for, since there are no easy descriptors for either the playing pieces ("then I drew the tile that went whoop, whoop, straight, hairpin"), the board locations ("which I placed adjacent to my one yellow guy, not the first yellow guy I was talking about but the other one that I haven't mentioned in a while") or the moves ("this allowed me to execute an incredible 4-tile slide tracing a helixical path whose radius broadened until I shot straight through to the last empty holes in a sea of green pegs, thus providing a bulwark against the encroaching green hordes"). But I'll give it a try.

This was Jesse's game, and he had played it several times 2-player. It was his first multiplayer and Steve and I were new to it. This game literally takes less than 2 minutes to learn. Literally. We played with 5 pegs each. One interesting point is that Steve and Jesse were trying to move into each others' holes, since they were sitting across from each other, while I was trying to move into no one's holes, since I was in the middle. This difference in initial setup led to two differences in the board layout, at least, how we perceived it.

The first was that the quadrant where I was headed was the last to be flipped over. This is because I was the only one who bothered to enter it so I was doing all the flipping over. Therefore I was spending a greater percentage of my time penetrating virgin territory, an initial disadvantage since I had to penetrate one tile at a time: I couldn't take advantage of any "roads" that had been constructed before me. However, it was also an advantage, as I had free reign to set up those tiles as I chose and know that they would likely not be disturbed. This allowed me to plan in advance some multi-tile roads that could be completed in a number of ways.

The second difference was - and this is where perception is key - it seemd that a number of "superhighways" were being built and maintained by Steve and Jesse going across the board, and that I was trying to "cross traffic". I ended up with three of my pieces over to the correct side somewhat early, but two got stuck and I had a hard time getting them across. There were simply no easy paths across to be found. However, this is also partially due to the fact that I didn't occupy the center with my forces, choosing instead to shoot them all the way across. So I couldn't open anything up when all of the center holes were occupied by my two opponents'.

However, in the end, I was able to get the last two guys most of the way across, take advantage of one of my setups to get one in (the 4th), and maneuver my 5th to just one tile away from victory. An interesting game dynamic arose then: for either of my opponents to win, they had to prevent Steve from handing me a tile with a 90-degree turn on it. Steve could prevent this for a few turns, but finally Jesse handed him a tile such that the only places he could use it would force Steve to give me a tile with a 90-degree turn. They conceded, but Steve made his final move so that I could make mine.

This is a great game but I felt with 5 pawns per person, it took too long to play (more than an hour) and this was the unanimous consensus. Not only does it simply take longer due to more pawns, but it gets so clogged up in the center that at least three times the only move we could make was to use a hairpin to send the pawn back in a tight loop to where he started. Next time we play, we will play with 3 pawns per person. It would be more enjoyable to get a few quick games of this in then one long game.

Thread: Forced moves?

dale walton — 2004-03-07T06:38:04+00:00

Sometime ago I received the following question:

The rules state that passing is allowed only if a move is impossible. What about if the only possible move is in the wrong direction, opposite of where the player wants to go? -- Is the player forced to take a move that is in the wrong direction, or can he pass on the grounds that the move is of no value to him?

Here is the (edited) answer I gave:
The rule is you must move (unless it would force you back into your start.) This can have the effect that by a clever choice of which tiles one replaces, a player with two pieces to finish can sometimes force another player with a single piece in play, far enough away from the goal that the first player can catch up.

Octiles accepts rule variations quite well. There is no harm in agreeing to other rules before a game (i.e. house rules) e.g. by allowing a voluntary pass, if it is done clearly and explicitly. A rule allowing an optional pass is probably more gentlemanly, but raises a question when all players decide that they wish to pass on the same move (for instance with two players, when one really wants the other to move back, and so passes as well.) Then you would need to devise another rule to handle this case. The existing rule helps players to consider their options more carefully, and makes the game a little more strategic.

Best regards and enjoy your game,
Dale.

Thread: Re:rules questions

dale walton — 2004-03-07T06:17:45+00:00

Wendy (#29401),
Sorry you couldn't find mention that a turn ends on the first square your runner comes to in the main rules. I tried to cover everything there. The recap was to make it easy to find the key points.

Regarding the 3 player set up, here are some points to show my thinking in creating this set-up rule:

First: Blocking finish circles is not a very good long term strategy - pieces on the board have more movement options than those in the start. Also, it is not allowed to completely block the finish circles.

Second: The third player is normally at a disadvantage. The player opposite you has a common interest in making paths in the same direction as yours, unless you are playing extremely defensively. The third player must do all the work himself. On the other hand, the third player doesn't need to worry about building a defense behind his movements.

Thirdly, when most tiles are face up, face down tiles are the greatest obsructions to movement. (To prove this, try leaving a tile face down near your side of the board as you move into the central area so that your opponent has to deal with it on the way to finish.)

Thus if the two tiles were not turned up at the start of the game, the other two players would not be likely to place tiles there, thus slowing the end game for the third player.

Of course the two players can still benefit a little by travelling over these two tiles early in the game, instead of playing in front of the third player, but that would occur early in the game, and allow the third player to build easy paths though the center of the board. The disadvantage of having to play the tiles near the end of the game is far greater.

The strength of the effects I mentioned may vary depending on how many runners are being used in a game, and the strategies which each player chooses to use.

Hope this helps.
Dale.

Thread: Re:rules questions

Wendy — 2004-03-02T17:58:38+00:00

I noticed that rule in the "re-cap" section of the booklet, thus not thinking there would be more information on moves there, I didn't read it until I went searching for an answer.

So then the strategy is to build paths which connect tiles at the sides of each tile which eventually ending on a square? Considering in each turn your runner must cross the just placed tile at some point, this makes for a more "chess-like" game. I like it!:P

Also: In a 3 player game, what is the purpose of turning the two tiles face up in the empty spaces for the opponent who is already at an advantage by not having an opponent block his entry into his finishing circles?

Thanks.

Thread: Re:rules questions

DougOrleans — 2004-03-02T01:31:34+00:00

A runner must always stop when it reaches a square. It never passes over a square and continues in the same turn, so there's no issue of direction.

Thread: rules questions

Wendy — 2004-03-01T01:54:48+00:00

Octiles is great fun, but I have a question about the rules which is not answered in the instructions:

1) In one turn, when moving your runner through your newly created path, can you change direction on the squares when travelling through a path you've created, ie: if you came to the square from the top, can you make an immediate left or right hand turn and continue through it to the paths on the tiles, or do you have to stop and then change direction on your next turn?

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2004-02-18T22:28:17+00:00

An abstract cross between Chinese Checkers and Iron Horse - find out where best to lay a complex track piece to advance your pawn from one side to the other and move your guys over as far and fast as possible. Prone to paralysis, but a fun challenge to untangle.