Ricochet

Scott Hardie | November 27, 2007
Looking for a quick survey of RB player opinion, please. Feel free to skip this if you have no opinion or if this rule discussion is for hard-core enthusiasts only. :-)

If you haven't seen the new Ricochet play rule yet, check out this concert. It allows you to bounce a card's value off of the edge of the stage and capture other cards along that edge. Justin played Metallica with a 6 on the right above CCR with a 4 on the right, capturing it. Then Eric played EWF in the upper right corner with an 8 on the right, capturing both of the other cards.

When I created the rule, it was my intention for it not to work with Same, Plus, or Multiply, since those rules traditionally require two pairs of numbers. For instance, Same normally requires something like 4 touching 4 and 6 touching 6, but there are only three numbers along any edge, preventing four numbers to touch this way. I figured at best, you could pull off something like a 5 touching two other 5s, which is what Eric managed to do in that very concert, along the left edge.

But now Eric and Justin have gotten me reconsidering. Playing a card to a corner means it touches two edges, potentially capturing four cards with Ricochet. It can also capture the cards adjacent to it on the board, of course, which I didn't think of on Friday when I made the rule. Should I change it so that all of the possible number combinations allow Same/Plus/Multiply to be pulled off in a Ricochet match? For instance, say there's a card at Stage Left with a 4 on its top side, and a card at Upstage Right with a 6 on its top side. Using Ricochet, if you play a card to Upstage Left with a 6 on its top side and a 4 on its bottom side, the two matching pairs would activate Same and you would capture both.

This will be a nuisance to program, but I can make it work. I need to know soon, because this will retroactively affect all concerts with the Ricochet rule since Friday. So far nobody has wagered a card on the outcome of a Ricochet match, so we're only talking about a slight change in victory totals at most, but I'd like to change it before somebody does wager a card. I can reprogram it on either Tuesday night or Wednesday night. What say you?

Steve West | November 27, 2007
For what it's worth, I like it as it is.

Aaron Shurtleff | November 27, 2007
Hmm...glad I'm home sick to deal with these kinds of ticklish situations!

I think we're dealing with two (or more) different questions, and I think we might should consider them all separately... The issue in the match, if I am looking at it properly, comes down to the placing of Fats Domino (correct me if I am wrong, by all means), but there are two different situations that come into play there:

1) The Same and Richochet of just the 5's along the side.

2) The Same of the 3 with Neil Young, in combination with the Richochet of the 5's on the side.

I think in your explanation above, you are talking about something similar to the first type of a situation, but the second situation also could have activated it. Do we treat the two situations as the same or different? For the purposes of this mini-discussion, I'll call Scott's example (which wouldn't apply to the actual match linked (although if Fats Domino had a 4 at the bottom, it would have)) #3.

Personally, as long as I know what the answer to this is, I'm fine with whatever happens (and the less work for Scott, the better, I would think), but I would say, per the stated definition of the rules, #1 should not activate Same, since there are not the "two touching sides" (which is pretty much what you said as well), although it's kind of a nitpicky point. The other two situations (#2 and #3) would, by rule, apply to the Same, and so probably should capture the cards. I'm still kind of uncomfortable about the #1, though. It's not a situation that would come up often, I would imagine, and the played card does match "sides" with two other cards, even if it's not technically two pairs of numbers. You know what, I'm going to go against everything else, and say just leave it as not working with Ricochet, and make it clear. I think as long as everyone knows the interpretation, it wouldn't matter as much. I'm good with either interpretation, but, for simplicity, I'd leave it as is.

The other situation (which hasn't come up yet that I know of) is the combination of Global with Richochet. I would assume that Global would eliminate the edges of the stage (in effect), and Ricochet wouldn't work at all in a Global match, but what say you, Scott? Those two rules working together, I think, would be too confusing...especially if Same/Plus/Multiply were being used.

Russ Wilhelm | November 27, 2007
I would also say the if the sides are not touching, then same/plus/multiply should not apply. With Global the board wraps, the opposing edges touch, so the math still applies. With Richochet, the edge face never touches the edge of a card having the same edge in common.

Eric Wallhagen | November 27, 2007
For simplicity sake, I agree that "As is" is cleaner. I do think it would be fun to factor all those rules in together though. I was just curious, because between global, and ricochet, a card played to the corner would in theory touch 8 other edges in that condition. Couple that with same, plus, and multiply and OI you have a lot to factor into making a play. My vote on paper is to make the rules interact, but I won't be upset if it remains as is.

Scott Hardie | November 28, 2007
Thanks for the input so far. You guys think this through well. I'll decide tomorrow night.

Ricochet still works in a Global match. I will consider changing it so that one cancels the other, if you prefer.

Eric Wallhagen | November 30, 2007
Leave ricochet as it is. I've actually decided after more consideration that having same, and such work with it would just way over-complicate things. I think you can leave ricochet and global so that they both work too, because right now with global, in theory it doesn't matter where the first play is, as the board is essentially infinite. Though by adding in ricochet, it makes the borders meaningful again, making positioning more important. That's my 2 cents.

Aaron Shurtleff | November 30, 2007
So in a Global and Ricochet, the Ricochet only occurs on those cards which are on the "edge" (even though the edge technically has no real meaning)? I just want to understand what is going to happen for when it happens...if I happen to get the rules. :)

Scott Hardie | December 2, 2007
I have decided to leave Ricochet programmed the way it is. In spirit, capturing a card by Ricochet is different than capturing it by Same/Plus/Multiply. You can use both sets of rules in the same concert, but you can't combine them in one play to capture a card that you wouldn't be able to capture with only Ricochet or only Same/Plus/Multiply.

I will leave Ricochet and Global alone as well – that is to say, you can use them in a match together; one will not cancel out the other. If you don't like the idea of Ricochet playing off of the borders that Global supposedly erases, don't play a concert with both rules at the same time.

Thanks again for the feedback; it helped me think through this.