Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Since this is a game which involves the goal of a stalemate, the possibility of a cluttered field is actually desired. A player would be wise not to impede their own progress with stone-throwing. Capturing the opponent's Ariki will be an in-game strategy. With three of them, this will be a tough objective to capture them all. But the potential is there. Impeding this piece's moves and stone throws would be a good tactic. And once a player loses all their Ariki, they might not have the ability to make their cell goal but they still might capture the opponent Moais. Or even to draw the game. The Mato to’a can only be fully impeded by their own stones or enemy pieces(not enemy stones). They cannot be captured. Send them into the fray. Remember that the Moais can move swiftly across the field, it is merely dependent on the connectivity of its stones. The fact that a computer program has difficulty playing this game does not negate its potential. In fact, it increases it. Once a game has been fully quantified, although it may have a high degree of difficulty, it becomes trivial. For now, this game might best be played between two humans. Once certain patterns of play can be discovered, a good computer program might be worked out.
'9x9' percentagewise has far and away the most Excellent Chesses, however it may be broken down to get subsets of 0.1% to 1.5% of the 10*4 CVs invented per grouping: whether by such board sizes, or by locale of invention(Hanga Roa is South American), or by Western or Xiangqi-based(further subdivided to get < 2%), subsets of Mutators versus new piece-types, any way that can be thought of to slice it. '9x9' is the pinnacle, however weird it seems. Among the several acme 9x9 is Hanga Roa, already analysed couple of times. Hanga Roa does so much with only three piece-types. One of the two win conditions has kinship with just-discussed Melee preceding it chronologically.
One thing of note that is not directly stated, but I think is specified in context. When the author writes: 'After carrying out its movement, the Ariki has the right to throw 2 stones in any direction (orthogonal or diagonal) and any number of squares.' I assume that it means two things: -An ariki MUST move in order to throw stones. -An ariki may move and only throw one or no stones, as specified by it having a 'right' to do so, not an obligation. If the inventor or any players would like to clarify that this is correct or incorrect, please let me know. I am playing a game and will assume these rules as such until told otherwise. Thank you :) -Neil
Mr. Duke: Thank you for the clarification :) -Neil
George: Did you noticed that it is unfair? After all, I guess that I'm the only south-american in the CV? Should I create ALL cv's or just Brazil's (by the way, I'm starting to think about it)? Hugs!
I did not expect it from reading the rules, but after trying it I think it is one of the best games in the data base.
This game has everything I love in a boardgame: simple rules, interesting play, a fun theme, and unusual mechanics. The stone throwing reminds me a bit of Amazons, but using the stones as roads is completely new to me. There's a choice at every turn whether to try to build your own road, or destroy your opponent's road.
There's also a bit of a hint of hnefatafl with the two goals of surrounding and immoblizing the other piece, and reaching the far side of the board.
I followed the link in the article and read about the history of the Moais, how the inhabitants descended into warfare as the island was deforested, and how they destroyed the Moais of other inhabitants as part of that warfare, which adds a darker tone to the theme.
What a fascinating and unusual game. I really love this one. I wish it were more widely known.
Would the designers mind if I listed it on boardgamegeek, with a link back to this page?
18 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.