Lots of people seem to be surprised by the 50-turn forfeit (automatic loss) rule. In fact, I've heard from more than one person that the game "ended" after 50 turns and they can't wait until the "real" version is here -- e.g., thinking that we've put some kind of move limit on the game for testing, which of course we haven't. Separately, I've had it suggested to me that it should be 50 turns per person, not in total, but that's an awful lot of turns.
There is a different rule I've found in a couple of places which I think is a bit more natural: Instead of enforcing a 50-turn rule, make it that if you leave any pieces in your opponent's camp, they win the game once they've occupied every space in their camp that you're not occupying -- so this would be a win for White, because Black is occupying one of the spaces in White's camp. This means there's no turn counting, which is much more like playing in real life where people are unlikely to (accurately) count turns. It also moves and extends the strategic element of trapping your opponent, making it more of a mid/endgame thing than an early/midgame thing. (He said, as if he had any idea of Halma strategy.)
I want to get the rules settled before we take Halma out of "testing" mode (e.g., before there are rated games), hence all the questions. I think we're very close.
What do people think, toss the 50 turn rule in favor of the above, or keep the game as it is? Totally up to you.
(Of course, we could have a variation using one rule and another variation using another. I'm a bit worried about having too many variations, though. -- T.J. )
HI PRIMMATE HEHEEH MY FRIENDS AND I ARE VOTING NOOOO ON THE 50 MOVES WE STILL WANTED TO PLAY BUT IT WAS OVER..:( MY FREINDS ARE LIKEING IT BUT THEY DONT WANT THE 50 MOVES....
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3933 Replies: 1
posted by Bobbie (Bobbie Whitney) on 10/17 at 14:20
50 turns is not enough to finish a game it definitly gets in the way of strategy. If 50 turns seems like too many turns then just get rid of the 50 turn rule.Besides I never count the turns so I dont know where I stand in the game.
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3942 Replies: 0
posted by Bobbie (Bobbie Whitney) on 10/17 at 16:03
Why not raise the limit since 50 is not enough to finish a game usually?
i like the above mentioned way... the 50 turn rule sometimes will mess ppl's special plans up... even if the opponent isnt close to trapping them in yet...
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3927 Replies: 0
posted by petr.pavel (Petr 'PePa' Pavel) on 10/17 at 09:24
I vote for the rule shown in the picture (plus discard the 50 turns rule). I used to play this game when I was a kid and I remember we didn't count turns. The rule with blocked piece(s) in opponent's home sounds familiar to me.
"pint of beer" has been doing a lot of poking around, and he's determined fairly conclusively that most other online game sites impose a 50 turns per person rule rather than the 50 turns total that we did here. Thanks for doing the legwork, John!
So far, it's seeming like most people like this other rule more, though. We'll see what the U.S. crowd have to say when they wake up. :-)
I like it, TJ. This new option sounds workable and it eliminates any confusion about the number of turns (which doesn't exist in the board version, if I remember correctly). My guess is that the "50 move rule" is a contrivance developed by other on-line game sites to limit the size of their turns database. The "occupation" rule seems to be the more accurate way of handling things. Go for it!
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3934 Replies: 1
posted by bones43902 (Bonnie G.) on 10/17 at 14:36
I agree T.J. Post the rule so that if all your pips are in home except one that your opponent has there to block you win. Otherwise the first to have them all home period wins. I too never counted turns. I have enough to keep track of in my life swithout counting turns in my games. :)
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3937 Replies: 0
posted by bones43902 (Bonnie G.) on 10/17 at 14:48
The 50 turn rule is fine, but I find myself continuously checking to see how many turns have transpired. I like the "home" rule better... it allows for strategy and you have a visual of play.
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3945 Replies: 0
posted by robin (Happy Johns other half x) on 10/17 at 17:04
i dont like the idea of the 50 move rule the other one gets my vote.
Well I have only come across that 50 count once and I believe it is at IYT. What it is there is that if you or your opponent leaves a man in their own home so that all blocks cannot be occupied until that man is moved. I think some people think this is funny and hopefully not thinking that they are going to win as they have alot more moves to make than yourself at this point! You do keep moving your man around that area as you are not stopped from moving just from occupying that final space. Hope this helps...my 2 cents worth! :-))
Halma 8x8 all pieces must be out of your yard by move 30. In Halma 10x10, a variation on this game described below, pieces may remain in their own yard until move 50. IYT Rules!
Another thought...this seems like a larger version of Halma than I've played before. 50 turns doesn't seem like that many.
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3950 Replies: 0
posted by PepsiTwist (Sherry~Ohio~Kansas) on 10/17 at 19:41
I think loss the the 50 moves I had 2 games just finish & neither one of us was close to getting our peices in the opponents end..thats my oppion... Sherry
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3951 Replies: 0
posted by daisyheadmaisy (daisyheadmaisy) on 10/17 at 20:27
My understanding of the rule is that after each player has made 50 moves all pieces must be out of your yard or you lose the game. However what ever you decide will be fine with me.
posted by RedBaron (Will C. Crowder) on 10/18 at 00:45
At this point, and I'm a veteran of a whole ONE game of Halma :-), I think I'd like to have both versions, the "50-turn limit" version, and the "all unoccupied spaces is a win" version...I think that distinction really makes it a very different game, and both versions have their merits.
That's my $0.01 (when I've played more, it might be worth $0.02)...
Now I can live with this option over the 50 move rule (unless there is some kind of move counter added to the game page, with a warning telling the player he or she is in danger of reaching the 50th turn, but that sounds kinda illogical to me)....... go for it TJ, I like it.
I think you should still apply a turn limit too, but 50 moves per player. I'm currently in a game, where the opponent is hardly out of my yard i need to move into and im finding myself dancing around waiting on them.
These new rules would be better. I find the 50 move rule does not allow for strategic play and becomes a matter of getting all your pieces out of home first by which time the game is over. For me that is when the game begins. So I will go for the new rule rather than the old. I like halma and hope one day to actually get all my pieces to the other side. :O)
time since I played "chinese checkers" -- something on the lines of two and a half decades -- but I don't remember a move limit in the game. I am sure there is one, I mean you found all these references and everything ;)
However I suspect that most casual players are like me. Either we didn't know of a move limit, or ignored it. So I would propose that the site support both a move limited version, and a non move limited version.
Yeah, exactly. That's what I meant about it being "more natural" to do it this other way. I don't think people count turns when playing in person. It's not like there's a widget for turn counting in the packaged kits I've seen (not that I've seen many).
Why not use the 50 move limit per person and/or all pips in home,which ever comes first. I think that way, the game would usually end because one person got all their pips in home before the other person.
All pips in the target camp is always a win. The only question that comes up is how/whether to prevent someone blocking the other person's camp by keeping a piece there. Some sites (lots of them, actually) do that by saying you can't have any of your pieces left in the camp you started in (your opponent's target camp) as of the 50th move. But as several people have observed, that's a fairly artificial rule and probably not the way people play in real life.
Whereas the rule saying that a person wins when they occupy all of the free spaces in the target camp just prevents someone keeping a piece back to block their opponent. -- T.J. Crowder First Primate Pocket-Monkey.com
I like the 50 turn rule. I think the main problem is that people didnt know about it or forgot it. After playing for a short while they will get used to it.
Right, we're ditching the 50-turn rule that's used on most other online sites in favor of the "fill all empty spaces in the camp" rule, which is much more natural and like playing the game in person.
I'll post a banner message (a message on the front page) when the game's been updated; in the meantime, beware, the 50-turn rule (nto just the rule, but our particularly -- and mistakenly -- aggressive version of it) is still in place. But then again, all Halma games are still unrated, so at least if you get caught by the rule it doesn't go on your stats.
If any of you are Pente players, please do be sure to check out this thread about the rules for Pente and make any comments you have on them there -- I think we have them right, but then I thought we had the Halma rules right, too... :-)
Thank you again! Enjoy your games, -- T.J. Crowder First Primate Pocket-Monkey.com
Re: Question about Halma's forfeit rule
Message #3961 Replies: 1
posted by pint of beer (john shields) on 10/18 at 09:58
one of the things that needs to be cleared up about the 50 move rule on IYT, there they have both players making number 1 move and number two moves, here every moves is counted so here the 50 moves is in fact 25 per person and not 50 moves per person like on IYT, just thought i would enlighten everyone
Yes, I've mentioned that a couple of times here in this thread. That's what I meant in my most recent post about "...our particularly -- and mistakenly -- aggressive version of it..." ;-)
Forum
software by
Crowder Software Pocket-Monkey and the Pocket-Monkey logo are trademarks of T.J. Crowder and Jock Murphy. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
