Rule 9 deal with this situation, and here is what is said about it:
Soucie did not cover this situation. LOA players thought that this situation was impossible in a real game for a long time. But computer simulations proved that such a situation could occur in a real game. The alternative proposed and commonly used was that the player has to pass. Unfortunately Soucie has died in 1997. It is hard to find a satisfying rule.
Some points against the lose rule.
* The object of the game is to connect your pieces in one group. Not to eliminate the opponent's moves like in Amazons or draughts. LOA is a connection game, you win by connecting your pieces. * You don't know if the player would have lost the game. It deserves a chance to defend itself. * The player is punished enough by passing. In LOA passing is mostly disadvantageous.
Some points against the passing rule.
* If you look at rule 3 a player has to move, passing is out of the question. * The game is called Lines of Action. The name suggests active play, not passive play by passing. * The player would probably lose the game anyway in this situation. By the passing rule the game would continue unnecessarily longer. * It is possible that passing is an advantage. The player is not punished but rewarded.
Current Results
Recently, Jorge Gomez Arrausi posted the following alternative solution to this matter: "If a player cannot move, the game should be drawn. The objective is the connection." The problem with this rule is that introduce drawing, which is not the intention of LOA (see also the discussion about rule 8).
I've searched a couple of websites about the game, and I could only find 1 mention of this situation, and even then they did not say what the result would be.
I've asked on a yahoo discussion board about the game what should happen.
I would guess either (1) the player just passes the turn or (2) loses the game or (3) game is a draw.
Once we know what is suppose to happen, we can probable have Fencer program it so that it will happen. I will let you know when/if I get an answer.
ruby2shoes: Now that 5 pieces is only for the line that has 5 pieces. If you move a piece in a different direction, you have to count how many pieces are in the line that you are moving in.
So for the example of 5 pieces - as long as you do not jump OVER any of your opponenets pieces, and the 5th place away from the piece you are moving is your opponenets piece(or blank), you can land on it and capture it. You can jump over your own pieces. (With the note that you don't want to capture too many since that might make it easier to connect all his pieces with less to work with - but then again, sometimes it is good to take a piece to help "block" your opponenet, or help yourself)
And if that 5th piece is your own pieces, then no - you can not move there and capture your own piece.
. . . . . It's one of those games which can be hard to figure out at first, but sooner or later it will *poof* jump out and make sence on how it works - sometimes it takes a few games for some to catch on.
ruby2shoes: How many total stones in one line is how many spaces you can move your piece.
So lets say there are 5 total stones in a line (3 of yours, 2 of your opponents), you can move one of your 3 stones taht are in that row 5 spaces in that same row. You can jump over your own pieces. You can land on your opponent piece. But you can not just over your opponents piece.
If you want to move a piece on a diagnal, it is the same thing. Total number of pieces on that line is how many spaces you can move one of your own pieces in the diagonal line.
furbster: I'm far from an expert, but my early thoughts are at least at the first of the game, don't "take" too many of your opponents pieces since that leaves less for them to connect. But as the game progressing, sometimes taking a "key" pieces which is linking 2 "groups" could be a good way to stall your oponent from connecting everything.