h a l f b a k e r yRomantic, but doomed to fail.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Players are given tiles depicting integers. Plus sign, minus sign, square root of, equals, etc. are understood and deployed in order to make an arithmetically true statement. So if player A places a tile depicting a “3,” player B can then place next to it another “3” followed by a “9,” (assuming [s]he
has such tiles in his / her arsenal) since 3 squared equals 9. Player A can then branch off of this play by placing a “-2” tile under the “9,” followed by a “7,” (same assumption) since 9 – 2 = 7.
Or perhaps +, =, etc. are depicted on tiles as well; whatever works better.
Distribution of integers should be skewed so as not to make the game too easy (or too difficult). With a clever distribution, player strategies would develop analogous to, say, the placement of the letter Z in standard Scrabble (i.e. something difficult to play off of).
It’s hard for me to believe this is not baked, but I did a web search and didn’t find it…
Tumble Numble
http://cgi.ebay.com...tem&item=1606746586
Until the auction expires. This particular one looks more like "Numerical Boggle" than "Numerical Scrabble", but that could be why it's *Tumble* Numble. [egnor]
WFF 'n' PROOF
http://www.wff-n-proof.com/
Game of formal logic. For ages 6 and up (if you are a very bright 6 year old). Google finds a number of other references to this game. [egnor, Jun 14 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
WFF 'n' PROOF
http://www.wff-n-proof.com/
Game of formal logic. For ages 6 and up (if you are a very bright 6 year old). Google finds a number of other references to this game. [wiml, Jun 14 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Rummikub
http://www.lemada.com/
similar but not quite what you are talking about [RobertKidney, Jun 14 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Equate - The Equation Thinking Game
http://www.conceptualmathmedia.com/
US knockoff game [daruma, Jun 14 2001, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I'm positive I've seen this before. You may not have found it in a search because the trademark lawyers get upset if someone else uses "Scrabble" to refer to a generic class of crossword games. |
|
| |
Well, in one example you multiply the numbers while in another you add them. Would the idea be to have multiplication (with division represented by fractions) on the horizontal and addition (with subtraction represented by negatives) on the vertical? |
|
| |
I don't think having extra symbols would work, or is necessary. If you place a 3, then I place a 3 and a 9, it's understood that I'm representing 3x3=9. On your next move, you could either add a 2 and a 7 to the end, making 3x3x9=27 or a 1 and a 3 to the front, making 13x3=39. When you have double digit numbers on the vertical, would they be written vertically or horizontally? I think it would be cool to have:
2
9
11
Or even to have a multiple-digit result of a multiplication used as part of a horizontal sum. The trick is that if to adjacent numbers are used as 39 in a sum, they have to be used as 39 if they are in a multiplication, not as 3x9. |
|
| |
Additional rules. Any lone number is a valid play, but only one unless you need more to make the statement valid. I can place another copy of the same value next to it, either as a larger number (say, 33) or as a compound statement (3=3), but I can't just put down 7654321 as my move. |
|
| |
Upon reflection I suggest that you include negative numbers, but not fractions. If a negative number or numbers is in the middle of a larger number (eg. 1-23) the negative or negatives move to the front, where they may cancel. |
|
| |
As for scoring, I think it would have to have something to do with multiplying (or dividing) the result of a statement and then adding that to your score. |
|
| |
I really like this idea. 3-2 croissants for you. |
|
| |
If only sums were as much fun as words... |
|
| |
there was a game like this-I think it was called "Numble". |
|
| |
hell why not make ebonic scrabble for those of us who think scrabble is dumb and it just might spice it up a bit. and while we're at it why not make jibberish scrabble that should be interesting. or how about you get a hobby not play scrabble at all. instead put your mind to good use and think about something like "is a lemon a yellow lime or is a lime a green lemon"? |
|
| |
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! math hurts us! |
|
| |
I dimly remember seeing a game called WFF'n'Proof that was vaguely Scrabble-like but the goal was to produce well-formed (logical) statements, and then provide a proof of their truth or falsehood... |
|
| |
[waugs]: Dead easy, by Mornington Crescent rules. |
|
| |
[waugsqueke] (3x3/9)^4=9-8 |
|
| |
One of my favourite game shows is the French show "Des Chiffres et des Lettres". I couldn't do the "mot plus long" segment ('cos my French isn't that great), but the "compte est bon" bit was just like this... |
|
| |
Saw a Brit version of this show when I was in the UK last week, too... |
|
| |
Brit *version*? version? I am apoplectic with rage! It's called Countdown, it's actually the original, it is loved by students and middle-aged women everywhere, and Richard Whiteley is a god, not a version!
On topic, what happens to those squares where you get triple scores and things? would it be more fun if you could apply the tripling to the digit or the operator, eg 3x3=27 where one of the 3s was on a triple thing. Or 3x3=27 where the multiplier was on any double/triple square - it becomes ^. |
|
| |
I lose points for bad multiplication (3x3x9=27? Gah.) and for not making it clear that, under my rules, you would only have a single number after the equal sign. I guess I also wasn't clear in explaining that the only operators are addition and multiplication, with subtraction indicated by negative numbers. If there is no negative in the number, you can't subtract. |
|
| |
[lewisgirl] I hang my head in shame. Just another boorish hick from the colonies who duddn't know no bedder... |
|
| |
<speaking in small voice> Actually ... we "borrowed" it (Countdown) from the french, they actually did it first, though "Countdown" was more succesful. </speaking in small voice> |
|
| |
i suggest puttin the ='s in a seperate bowl and designating them constantly available. |
|
| |
I don't know about "Tumble Numble", but Numble was a game put forth by the publishers of SCRABBLE(R) brand crossword game, which was somewhat as described here. |
|
| |
Tiles consisted of digits 1-9, with a distribution concentrated toward lower values, and four zeroes. The board was similar to a SCRABBLE(R) brand crossword game board, except that the term "word" on multiplier squares was replaced by "sequence", and "letter" by "number". |
|
| |
The building rules were similar to Scrabble, but with the following caveats: |
|
| |
-1- Sequences had to be monotonic increasing or decreasing [but see special note regarding zeroes]. |
|
| |
-2- The value of every newly-formed sequence, after taking double- and triple-, number- and sequence- squares into account had to be a multiple of three. |
|
| |
-3- Zeroes could be built onto either end of a sequence, either when it was first played or afterward, but after a zero was played nothing else could be played adjacent to it. |
|
| |
An okay game, but not as interesting as SCRABBLE(R) brand crossword game. |
|
| |
Each number tile should have a little letter painted on it to indicate how much it's worth. |
|
| |