h a l f b a k e r y
"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# Domenga

Dominoes/Jenga hybrid
 (+1) [vote for, against]

This game uses pieces that are the same shape and size as Jenga pieces, but are black with white dots just like Dominoes, except they have dominoes on the top and bottom. The sides are blank. It is played by connecting like dots, like in Dominoes. First, you establish a base of 4 square, like Jenga. Then, play requires that you build upward, matching like dots on the way up. After establishing a symmetrical square base layer, progressive play allows for pieces to jut out here and there, and pieces can be further stacked on the outcropping pieces. The first player to topple 2 or more pieces on a single move loses, or gets some sort of penalty. Once all the pieces have been used, or there are no more legal moves available, you dismantle the stack like Jenga. First player to topple the stack on the way down loses.
 — 21 Quest, Oct 13 2009

Jenga http://en.m.wikiped...?wasRedirected=true
[21 Quest, Oct 14 2009]

Dominoes http://en.m.wikiped...?wasRedirected=true
[21 Quest, Oct 14 2009]

Why the bone?
 — 21 Quest, Oct 13 2009

 Could the base layer (on it's surface) look anything else than

 1 -------------------- 2

 1 -------------------- 2

 1 -------------------- 2

 1 -------------------- 2

And how would the game continue from there?
 — loonquawl, Oct 14 2009

Depends on what numbers you start with. By the same principle that allows a game of Dominoes to be played with nearly limitless combinations, only vertical rather horizontal, and with an added level of difficulty in keeping it balanced. I never said you had to start with a piece that has a 1 or 2.
 — 21 Quest, Oct 14 2009

Dominoes are bisected. Jenga vertically arranges sections of four pieces orthogonally. You would need four sections of number on each piece to do the lining up (unless you only want to count the outer two sections for the dominoe moves). The chances of having four sections of one piece line up with what is available (only four options at any given moment) will be very slim, and this is why I'm not going to bun the idea. It will be nearly impossible to strategize the dominoe aspect, you will simply move out of forced desparation at all times. Many people will be drawing. The game will most certainly end in a Jenga, everytime, since nobody will be able to run out of dominoes so why not just play jenga.
 — daseva, Oct 14 2009

As [daseva] says, you would need four sections, but if the pieces were all numbered 1-4 in various patterns, and there was a rule allowing a minimum of two squares to line up on each go, then it could work. Remember you don't have to stay within the original square base.
 — egbert, Oct 14 2009

The minimum idea helps a lot. The only question is, now, are we going to be adding up the tiles for multiples of 5, like normal dominoes? Or simply the first to run out wins a point, the first to cause collapse loses a point...
 — daseva, Oct 14 2009

 The first to cause collapse loses, either building or tearing down. At least that's how I interpreted it.

Some may have to forfeit a go on the way up, if they really can't match a tile pattern. They will still have to draw an extra tile from the pool. They will catch up at the end, where they are obligated to place their tiles when others have run out. Maybe the minimum should be waived at this point, a by whose necessity can be determined at the design stage depending on statistical analysis of the possibilities.
 — egbert, Oct 14 2009

As has been mentioned already, after tha square base is formed, you can branch out to form a sort of inverted pyramid, provided you've got the know-how and steady hands. And there would clearly be a lot more than the traditional 28 Domino pieces. This game would have its own set of more specific rules, I'm merely setting a template.
 — 21 Quest, Oct 14 2009

 [annotate]

back: main index