Sure. The 2nd player has two "hidden" bonuses. The balloon itself carries a +1 bonus, and having the dart and the balloon is a -1. During play, these two bonuses cancel, but when the 2nd player uses the last dart (he survived) then the -1 goes away since he has no units left in the dart. and he is left with a +1 to pop player 1's balloon.

Very nice. Thanks for sharing.

So it appears the tournament is a lock. Congrats Hugh.

After much debate, it has been verified that black has a winning sequence of moves, but this sequence depends on white's defensive posturing.

We (Alpha and I) will be working on a fix, that will take away one move for black. We have a couple ideas how to do this, and will run a few tests before loading a new board. Suggestions/testers welcome.

Figuring out the solution was awesome fun good times, thanks to all who got into it.

This thread is all the reason I need to ask for a "Mark All As Read" button on the forum page.

Actually Amidon, there were difficulties in doing the hidden bonus trick, so we reverted to the five dart solution.

It's amazing how often fixing some aspect of a map creates a problem elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eke8bGgYhwU

The problem was that if you make it so that when you're out of ammo, you get a +1, then that player could just attack with 0 sided dice against a 1, lose everything, and get a +1 within a few turns.

Too bad. A clever foul-up to a clever work-around. One of those carnivorous territories that was proposed would work as a nice countdown clock.

If you had abandonment off then players would not be able to attack territories with 1 unit(and waste their units), but then player 1 would not be able to use all theirs up and lose the territory. So, yeah no help here....

I could turn off continuous attack, but pressing T is so wonderful for throwing darts, with the max of 1. Carnivorous territories would be cool if each player had an hour glass that was a negative or positive bonus and didn't attack to anything, and when it ran out, the bonus disappeared.

The new version of five has been promoted. After several different fixes, we settled on the one that seemed to play the best and has a low chance of stalemate. Mongrel and I are not sure if one player can play perfectly, so the challenge can begin anew. I have created a new five tournament and some open tables.

Good luck and thanks for playing and enjoying the map.

I'd like to say here that initial playtesting suggests our fix is actually an enhancement to the original. Mechanics are the same, the only change is the starting scenario. The tray no longer has a unit max, black starts with 4 in row 1 and white starts with 5 in column 1. The play board has a max of 1, so the units trickle on to the board, starting close together and slowly moving action to the outside of the board. In this way the "far away" scores are prevented, until later in the game when the board has developed. Also, Early scores are close to your opponents tray, and more easily broken.

The extra unit bodes well for white in the later stages, as black is unable to protect all 5 columns. We like it. Try it. again.

Tourney's up.

1 more seat.

Okay. One more leeeeeeeeeeeetle tweak to the starting scenario (white occupies the first two squares in its tray, black occupies one). Now, black is only 1 move ahead of white instead of the usual two. This, together with the extra unit for white, should provide balance. No more "can black always win" math problem- just a good ol' time.

P.S. Can white always win?

You know.....this game is really hard to break when you keep changing the rules on us. =P

Mongrel wrote: Now, black is only 1 move ahead of white instead of the usual two.

I thought this was the solution the first time. Why can't you figure these things out <i>before</i> I get schooled 5 games in a row (I drew white in every single game in the 'five is fixed' tourney)?

1 turn = 2 moves. Five.0 was broken because black could stay 1 turn (2 moves) ahead. In Five.1 (the tournament version) clumping the units in the starting tray was intended to slow the black offensive, and it did open a couple new counters for white. But it also added a new set of fortifies for black, and they still had the 2 moves-ahead advantage, that could be exploited (with high success) before white could use a wrap fortify.

The hope was that the extra unit for white could shift momentum to white in time- "counter efficiently to gain control". Initial test runs appeared to play beautifully. It didn't take long, however, for seasoned fivers to revert back to the old bag of tricks, as black, and this still put white in all kinds of trouble. The majority of these games still go to black, as white has to counter perfectly to an easy-to-remember set of black opens. I still feel in my bones that Five.1, ultimately, is a win for white.

As Hugh said, a board of this kind may fall victim to opening theorists, but if we inject enough fortifications in the midgame, then the gap between openings and end game widens, creating an enjoyable AND replayable map.

Alpha should have named it the "Five might not be completely broken" tournament. Hasty.

Mongrel wrote:
Alpha should have named it the "Five might not be completely broken" tournament. Hasty.

Guess I jumped the gun, but we wanted to have people play it and see how others approached the game.  Also, the name "Five is Fixed" has a double meaning that I couldn't have captured any other way.