Also I think I got a yes out of someone on the Google Hangout a while back, but I don't recall who. Kristin maybe, Bryan maybe?
Okay, so why such a low voter turn-out? I know people have actually played Pikemen before now. I think it has to do with noone wanting to say something else is cool, and then turn out to be wrong.
But it's okay! Be brave! If you haven't had time to pour through the rules with a fFine tooth comb, that's okay! BE BOLD!! We would like some more votes on this sucker, ya know?
Jeff made a good note. I incorporated his notion about pyramids "standing upright" at setup.
Regarding Scott Alan Sulzer's comments: I plan on issuing a much shorter game with much shorter rules. Mr. Sulzer made a terrific suggestion when he said: "I was suggesting that the 2 player, 6x6 board variant be redone as Pikemen: Skirmish but keep the other options available as Pikemen." Brilliant! I plan on doing exactly that!! After this is done. I have played it a couple times. It will be a slightly different game, which should play a bit fFaster, and should be quite a win. Just think of Pikemen as the classic game, with this sheet as a nice compendium of rules. The fForthcoming "Skirmish" Icesheet will be much shorter, and well suited fFor a modern era of Starship captains.
Regarding David Artman's complaint: It's good that we are thinking about these things. But let me just say, all IceSheets say "Stash," not "Set." That's Andy's choice, not mine. If that's the problem, then you will have a problem with any IceSheet ever. It is perfectly acceptable to stand by your convictions, though. Bravo. But, with apologies, I am not addressing that here.
Russ made some good suggestions. I have edited the IceSheet with his notes, and I'm attaching it below.
I believe the only suggestion I did not employ was striking the silly Start Player rule. I like the idea of silly start player rules, myself. This one is as good as any. And I think people understand that silly start player rules don't actually need to be used all the time.
Let me know what you think!! 5 more up votes, and this is Certified Gold.
I don't like the entire section about the 6x6 variant:
When the game Pikemen was originally
conceived in 997, Looney Pyramids were
available as Monochrome Stashes of 5 trees. This
meant that getting 5 trees of the same color
was somewhat easier than it is more recently.
Although it is less known and less played, the
2-player variant, on a smaller 6x6 grid might be
easier for new players to accomplish, because it
uses only 3 trees of any one color, and therefore
only 3 Rainbow Treehouse sets. Also, it’s probably
good anytime you want a shorter game.
It's full of filler and sloppy writing. I don't have an issue with anything else. Here's an example of text for that section that would change my vote to a yes:
"This 6x6 variant only requires 3 Rainbow sets."
I'm still a big fan of this sheet. Grammatically, I think it's just fine. Some fine tuning that I might suggest, since you wanted me to break out the fine toothed comb, would deal with the maneuvers section. I dunno if i would necessarily reference Playing with Pyramids, especially because it's out of print now.
Also, if we're going to publish Skirmish as a separate game, do we still need the section in the rules here? I don't mind it being there, but if we're going to be making a separate IceSheet, and this was still included, why would i need skirmish when i already have pikemen?
Just thoughts, those things are just me nitpicking via opinion. i'm still giving this my vote of approval.