Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Rules flaws, etc...  (Read 20309 times)

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12184
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #120 on: March 24, 2009, 08:54:20 PM »
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211129\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 03:15 PM\']Originally, Three on a Match's gameboard had four prizes in each column. This resulted in a guaranteed win for whomever scored $270. There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that. The fix: place a "No Match" card somewhere on the gameboard. Now that there are no guaranteed victories, players risked the gameboard with as little as $150.

This game change is one the precious few game changes in any game show that made its way into the home game by Milton Bradley.[/quote]
In the first place, as Chris pointed out, there is plenty of strategic sense in going to the board before you reached the guaranteed $270 mark.  There was just enough random luck in the game that you couldn't count on scoring every round, and once you got close, oftentimes a gamble was worth it.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be positive, thirty-eight years later, that the "No Match" card wasn't something that was part of the show all along.   The fact that it is part of the home game, when (as you rightly point out) Milton Bradley rarely addressed changes to a game, would be a pretty strong indication that it was there from the beginning.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

rjaguar3

  • Member
  • Posts: 208
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #121 on: March 24, 2009, 09:29:58 PM »
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'211156\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 07:54 PM\']
Originally, Three on a Match's gameboard had four prizes in each column. This resulted in a guaranteed win for whomever scored $270. There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that. The fix: place a "No Match" card somewhere on the gameboard. Now that there are no guaranteed victories, players risked the gameboard with as little as $150.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be positive, thirty-eight years later, that the "No Match" card wasn't something that was part of the show all along.   The fact that it is part of the home game, when (as you rightly point out) Milton Bradley rarely addressed changes to a game, would be a pretty strong indication that it was there from the beginning.
[/quote]

Figured I should ask, do any of you who were actually around in the 1970s remember a "Stop sign" card that would immediately end a player's turn?  I read about it on Wikipedia (insert Wikipedia joke here), and I was just curious if any of you could confirm or deny this.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 09:30:23 PM by rjaguar3 »

CarShark

  • Guest
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #122 on: March 24, 2009, 10:46:23 PM »
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'211157\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 09:29 PM\']Figured I should ask, do any of you who were actually around in the 1970s remember a "Stop sign" card that would immediately end a player's turn?  I read about it on Wikipedia (insert Wikipedia joke here), and I was just curious if any of you could confirm or deny this.[/quote]That sounds like "Eye Guess", another Bill Cullen show.

pyrfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 380
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #123 on: March 25, 2009, 01:15:45 AM »
[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'211143\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 05:52 PM\']
Quote
I know that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy made repeat appearances together, playing against each other in 1976 and 1977. This same source -- very reliable -- also says that he saw them play against each other in the show's first year

Too bad TVGuide listings from the early days of the show weren't more accurate.  Even by 1976, the listings were pretty reliable - but the '76 Shatner-Nimoy week was never listed (the '77 matchup took place during "premiere week" for the primetime shows).  Anyone know what week the '76 matchup occurred?
[/quote]
Almost exactly a year earlier than the '77 matchup -- the week of September 6, 1976. TV Guide mistakenly listed Jo Anne Worley as Leonard's opponent.


Brendan

BillCullen1

  • Member
  • Posts: 2368
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #124 on: March 25, 2009, 10:26:33 AM »
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'211157\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 09:29 PM\']
Figured I should ask, do any of you who were actually around in the 1970s remember a "Stop sign" card that would immediately end a player's turn?  I read about it on Wikipedia (insert Wikipedia joke here), and I was just curious if any of you could confirm or deny this. [/quote]

The memory's a little fuzzy after all these years, but I believe 3onM did have a STOP sign on the board.

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12184
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #125 on: March 25, 2009, 02:21:50 PM »
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'211183\' date=\'Mar 25 2009, 09:26 AM\']
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'211157\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 09:29 PM\']
Figured I should ask, do any of you who were actually around in the 1970s remember a "Stop sign" card that would immediately end a player's turn?  I read about it on Wikipedia (insert Wikipedia joke here), and I was just curious if any of you could confirm or deny this. [/quote]
The memory's a little fuzzy after all these years, but I believe 3onM did have a STOP sign on the board.[/quote]
Boy, I sure don't.  Then again, as we've said, Stewart changed the rules of some of his his games every other day or so, so who knows?  The fact that a STOP card was featured prominently in the OTHER Bill-Cullen-hosted, Bob-Stewart-produced, three-year-running game-show-with-a-board-where-answers-were-revealed game that aired just ahead of 3OAM chronologically may be creating the confusion for us.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

alfonzos

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #126 on: March 25, 2009, 03:59:17 PM »
Quote
I'm not sure how you can be positive, thirty-eight years later, that the "No Match" card wasn't something that was part of the show all along.   The fact that it is part of the home game, when (as you rightly point out) Milton Bradley rarely addressed changes to a game, would be a pretty strong indication that it was there from the beginning.
Okay, this is matter of your memory versus mine. But, I vividly remember the first 3oaM format having four prizes and no "No Match" card on the gameboard. I have nothing to gain by lying and when proven wrong, as I have been many times by you other fanboys (and fangirls), I apologize and stand corrected.

One indication that the home game was introduced late in the game's history is the copyright date on the home game is 1972. The show premered, according to TEoTVGS, on August 2, 1971.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 03:26:47 PM by alfonzos »
A Cliff Saber Production
email address: alfonzos@aol.com
Boardgame Geek user name: alfonzos

Dbacksfan12

  • Member
  • Posts: 6013
  • Facts, not emotions.
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #127 on: March 25, 2009, 04:09:24 PM »
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211207\' date=\'Mar 25 2009, 02:59 PM\']One indication that the home game was introduced late in the game's history is the copyright date on the home game is 1972. The show premered, according to TEoTVGS, on August 2, 1971.[/quote]And the series ended June 28, 1974 according to Wikipedia.  Even if it was released in December of '72; that by no means is "late in the game's history".
--Mark
Phil 4:13
@thatdbacksfan on Twitter

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12184
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #128 on: March 25, 2009, 04:18:40 PM »
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211207\' date=\'Mar 25 2009, 02:59 PM\']
Okay, this is matter of your memory versus mine. But, I vividly remember the first 3oaM format having four prizes and no "No Match" card on the gameboard. I have nothing to gain by lying and when proven wrong, as I have been many times by you fanboys (and fangirls), I apolgize and stand corrected.

One indication that the home game was introduced late in the game's history is the copyright date on the home game is 1972. The show premered, according to TEoTVGS, on August 2, 1971.[/quote]
OK, stand down.  No one's accusing anyone else of lying.  It's absolutely just a question of who remembers what.  Still, I think it's important to note that there's no way you could have ever seen all four prizes complete on the game board, since they would never have revealed all twelve spaces.  And to the larger point of whether the "No Match" card would have fundamentally changed the way contestants approached the game board, we have to disagree there too.  Finally, in a forum where we're all members, and we all remember these old shows fondly, using the phrase "you fanboys" strikes me as a little odd.  We're all in this together!
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 04:19:31 PM by Matt Ottinger »
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

weaklink75

  • Member
  • Posts: 1662
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #129 on: March 25, 2009, 05:24:22 PM »
One current show that has a rules "annoyance" to me is Catch 21- A player can be busted without ever answering a question, because cards can be passed AFTER they've been revealed. Either give the player who's about to be busted a chance to "rebound" the card back to the original player in a one-on-one question showdown, or go back to the original Gambit rules and not reveal the card value until the person in control decides if they want to take the card or pass it.

And another annoyance in the same genre- On Top Card, the Aces were always worth 1. (I prefered the 1st version of the frontgame rules and the 2nd version of the endgame rules on that show)

alfonzos

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #130 on: March 26, 2009, 03:29:13 PM »
The "you fanboys" remark was out of line and it has been edited. Again, this my memory at work, Cullen made a big deal about the "No Match" card being added to the game.
A Cliff Saber Production
email address: alfonzos@aol.com
Boardgame Geek user name: alfonzos

That Don Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 878
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #131 on: March 26, 2009, 10:42:07 PM »
[quote name=\'rjaguar3\' post=\'211157\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 06:29 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'211156\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 07:54 PM\']
Originally, Three on a Match's gameboard had four prizes in each column. This resulted in a guaranteed win for whomever scored $270. There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that. The fix: place a "No Match" card somewhere on the gameboard. Now that there are no guaranteed victories, players risked the gameboard with as little as $150.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be positive, thirty-eight years later, that the "No Match" card wasn't something that was part of the show all along.   The fact that it is part of the home game, when (as you rightly point out) Milton Bradley rarely addressed changes to a game, would be a pretty strong indication that it was there from the beginning.
[/quote]

Figured I should ask, do any of you who were actually around in the 1970s remember a "Stop sign" card that would immediately end a player's turn?  I read about it on Wikipedia (insert Wikipedia joke here), and I was just curious if any of you could confirm or deny this.
[/quote]
I remember the "Stop" sign, but only near the end of the run (when they changed to the buzz-in format).

Also, this is probably a case of misremembering something (as I never remembered seeing the "No Match" card until I saw a clip with it being used - for that matter, until I saw another clip, I didn't know that if all three players put in different numbers and the player with the highest number missed a question, the next player could select one of the other two categories), but "the version I remember was," in the original prizes format of the gameboard, there were five prizes - three appeared in all three columns, one in two of them, and the third in just one - presumably to make sure nobody could have a guaranteed win.

-- Don

That Don Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 878
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #132 on: March 26, 2009, 10:48:00 PM »
[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'211138\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 02:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'211130\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 03:31 PM\']
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'211129\' date=\'Mar 24 2009, 12:15 PM\']
There was no reason to try for three-on-a-match if a contestant  had less than that.[/quote]
Um, sure there is: You have, say, $200, and following your strategy, you yell "Play on, Bill!" I slime in on the next contract, and complete it with $150.

I go to the board and get lucky. Oh, and that was my third match. Enjoy your Rice-A-Roni.

(I question the math, too, but was the rule that you could only buy three of the four boxes in each column? The math works out, if so.)
[/quote]

That was indeed the rule. Some categories offered two or three "free boxes." The obvious strategy here would be to use the free boxes in the $40 column and spend your money in the $20 and $30 columns.
[/quote]
The thing was, you couldn't use your free boxes unless you couldn't afford to buy any remaining boxes.  Of course, in that case, you start by buying just $20 and $30 boxes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they had the prizes on the gameboard, didn't the losing players have to leave immediately if somebody won a prize (as opposed to the later "first to 3 games or getting a match on their first 3 picks wins $5000 in prizes" format)?

-- Don

Matt Ottinger

  • Member
  • Posts: 12184
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #133 on: March 26, 2009, 10:55:01 PM »
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' post=\'211314\' date=\'Mar 26 2009, 10:48 PM\']Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they had the prizes on the gameboard, didn't the losing players have to leave immediately if somebody won a prize (as opposed to the later "first to 3 games or getting a match on their first 3 picks wins $5000 in prizes" format)?[/quote]
Yep.  Much like early Pyramid, it was one & out.  The later shows (evidenced by the five in a row most of us have now) were much more enjoyable.  Sorta like watching a set of tennis instead of just one game.
This has been another installment of Matt Ottinger's Masters of the Obvious.
Stay tuned for all the obsessive-compulsive fun of Words Have Meanings.

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Rules flaws, etc...
« Reply #134 on: April 01, 2009, 11:46:38 PM »
The $100KP that aired on GSN today had an instance of what I think was a horrible flaw in the tournament. The two players split their games and won the exact same amount in the Winner's Circle, so they tossed a coin to see who came back.
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.