Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The rules for the Long Leaper as written are ambiguous. The offending
phrase in the list of moves the Long Leaper may not make 'jump over
adjacent pieces' might be interperpereted in two different ways. 

I think we can determine the correct rule by examining the author's
intent and the history of Ultima.

First, the Rococo LL rules are cut and pasted from this site's Ultima
rules. This indicates that the author intends the LL to have the same
move
in Rococo as it has in Ultima (the special circumstance of edge square
excepted).

So the question resolves into what is the correct rule in Ultima. In
'Abbott's New Card Games', Abbott lists the sources for the capture
powers in Ultima. The capture power of the Long Leaper is stated to be
derived form those checker variants where kings can leap over and capture
enemy pieces anywhere on the same diagonal line. Abbott limits the
capture
power by prohibiting change of direction, but the LL's capture power is
otherwise not altered from these checker variants. 

The rules of these several checker variants are unambiguous: a king may
capture a piece adjacent to itself, but may not capture two or more
enemies  adjacent to one another: there must be a vacant landing square
for each capture.

Therefor the correct rule is that the Long Leaper may capture a piece
adjacent to itself as long as a landing square is available, but may not
capture (or leap over without capturing), two or more mtutually adjacent
pieces--that is, a landing square is required for each capture.

I agree that this rule should be rephrased on both the Rococo and Ultima
pages.

It's not too hard to examine the history of Ultima, but it's pretty
hard,
on the other hand, to examine the history of the author's intent.  How
are
you going to examine the intent?

It's certainly reasonable to assume that Rococo descends from the games
of Baroque (from the name itself) or from Ultima (by which other name it
is known, admitting the possibility of house rules that distinguish the
two) but it appears to be pretty hard to arrive at a statement of intent.

How would we know now, long after the act of the game' creation, what it
was at the time of creation?

Did the author address the matter then, or is the author addressing the
matter now, as in a 'nunc pro tunc' solution for what now appears to be
a problem?

talking about 'authors intent' by 'none' a few comments ago, i don't
think it matters how the inventor of ultima (Robert Abbott) intended the
longleaper to move, at the time of creation, i think it matters more how
he thinks it should move right now. 
an author can create a game, and all the pieces move 'as intended', but
that doesn't mean the game will play 'as intended' .. for 'some reason
or other' .. and i don't think that is a fault by the author, games with
unusual pieces probably have to be play tested for awhile, and not
everyone has the chance to do that. i don't see a problem 'adjusting' a
game to 'fine tune' it, at a later date.
as far as the authors of games that sprung from ultima, they too should
adjust the movement of the longleaper to play best for their game, seeing
some of these 'ultima' games turned out to be different, and really
their own game, inspired from ultima.

As was mentioned earlier, there is no way of gauging a history of 'design intent' short of reviewing the games available to the designer at the time the game was designed, and paying special attention to the comments that were written back when the game was designed. Waiting a few years for some differences to arise, and then looking at the new comments, is only good for saying what the designer's current intentions might be, not what they were when the game was first designed.

that both the Long Leaper and the Advancer are equally prohibited from capturing adjacent pieces, and that adjacent captures were intended to be limited to the King and the Withdrawer.

It does so by reference to the rules that are similar, and by contrast to the rules that are different. We ought to know that Rococo somehow descends from Baroque. That much we should know from the way their names are spelled. But there is also the issue of the extent of the game's inheritance. At this point, it is unclear whether the Leaper of Rococo was actually intended to be any bit different from the Leaper of Baroque, which I assume to be the same as the Long Leaper of Ultima. Perhaps we should dwell a moment on the nomenclature for the Leaper, and conclude that games with 'Long' Leapers operate according to different sets of rules than those other games featuring general purpose leapers. (Even the cannonball pawn, for instance, is arguably a kind of Leaper, one that forbids capturing adjacent pieces in favor of those one square away.) But unless someone can cite a reference that can be accurately dated back to the time that Rococo was invented, it will ultimately be a matter moot than dispositive.

Short of that, we could just as soon flip a nickel.

• If the nickel comes up heads, we believe the written rules, which have consistently indicated that Rococo's Long Leaper moves and captures in the same way as Ultima's Long Leaper.
• If the nickel comes up tails, we believe the testimony of the game's inventor, Peter Aronson, who has consistently indicated that Rococo's Long Leaper moves and captures in the same way as Ultima's Long Leaper.
• If the nickel balances on its edge, then we'll have to think of something else. Pistols at dawn?

(As for reference to old emails, unless they are extremely old documents, they'd have to be subject to authentication somehow, and I'm not sure they are even capable of that.)

Hi! I was exploring Rococo's ZRF, I found many divergences between what I
was expected to be correct and what does Zillions do.
Now I have many questions to any one concerned with Rococo:
1) wether the Chameleon could swap with the Swapper, jumping over any Long
leaper;
2) wether the Chameleon could swap and capture any Withdrawer or
Advancer;
3) wether a Pawn that's already on the 9th rank could promote by moving
sidewards (it's clear it could not go to the 10th rank);
4) wether a piece on the outer ring could 'commit suicide' (i.e. - does
this count as capturing?).

I will appreciate having authors' opinion.

Thanks a lot.

Well, I am not an author, but I think the answers are:
1.- No.
2.- No.
3.- Yes.

1-2: The rules on this page state quite clearly, 'Swaps with Swappers may be combined with other captures.' Also, the animated illustration unambiguously shows a Chameleon swapping with a Swapper and capturing a Withdrawer, a Long Leaper, and an Advancer in the same move.

3: The only requirement for promotion is that the Cannon Pawn's move end on the 9th or 10th rank. There is no restriction on where the move must begin. Therefore a Cannon Pawn may promote after moving along the 9th rank.

4: A move to an edge square is permitted only when necessary for a capture. Moves from edge squares are unrestricted. Suicide by an immobilized piece on an edge square is surely not a move to an edge square, and is therefore permitted.

Rococo's claim to clarity is a matter of how clear the moves and captures of the pieces are, not, alas the clarity of either the write-up or the ZRF. Game rules are really hard to write well, and just when you think you've made everything unambigious, a new issue arises. As for the ZRF, probably it needs to be coded again from scratch, but I don't think either Dave nor I have the time nor energy these days. Sorry.