Deadlock endgame in Mint Tin Mini Apocalypse

posted in: dice, games, mini apocalypse | 0

A Mexican Standoff is a cinema cliche.

I prefer the term deadlock with a definition of

a situation in which two competing actions are each waiting for the other to finish

It’s an exciting point in a movie and hopefully exciting in Mint Tin Mini Apocalypse. It can be the actual endgame or the penultimate endgame (lol, I love that word!). =D

I didn’t map this out and I’m not that clever; I let the numbers do the work and get out of the way (by being careful that rules don’t constrict these interactions).

It’s like the ancient pyramids.

In 1859, John Taylor wrote that ancient Egyptians understood the mathematical concept of Pi and the proportions of the great pyramid represented the radius and circumference of Earth. The latter being a phenomenal accomplishment since ancient people were supposedly clueless about the size of Earth.

Perhaps ancient Egyptians understood Pi very well, but Taylor’s “discovery” was due to something simpler.

Measuring tools used to build the great pyramids included wheeled instruments. They would mark out X revolutions for various measurements. The nature of using full revolutions automatically means everything is related to a circle and thus to Pi.

I apologise to big math brains out there (looks at Tessa) but the point I’m trying to make is that what I call “natural systems” have automatic interactions that you don’t have to plan out.

That’s the case with this deadlock in Mint Tin Mini Apocalypse.

In this pic, the fallout shelter has 6 inside so only one more can go in. Both players have sacrificed a meeple onto the monster’s die to keep the game going (this cancels snake eyes which would have the monster win), and both have 1 standing outside. Another snakes eyes has been rolled and blue calls it out – Snake Eyes!

  • If neither sacrifices another meeple, the monster wins and each player gets 0 points.
  • If yellow sacrifices a meeple and blue rolls a 7 to get its last meeple in, and rolls another 7 to close the lid (you need 4 in to close the lid), blue wins with 3 points and yellow gets 1 point for being selfless.
  • If yellow sacrifices a meeple and either player rolls snake eyes (both keep rolling till the end) before blue closes the lid, then the monster wins and we each get 0.

The deadlock boils down to taking an action for possibly 1 point or taking no action for 0 points (and the ethical issue of humankind’s survival!).

Why would you ever care about earning 1 point if it means your opponent earns 3? If you’re keeping score in a journal for a badge (bragging rights) or playing in a tournament.

You can view the game as being luck-based (and it is) but you can also view your 7s as “luck-based” resources. You’ll roll 7s 16% of the time and you both have the same odds – the luck is balanced – it comes down to planning.

What you do with those 7s.

Kate uses an overarching strategy that helps dictate what she does with her 7s. I tend to be “spontaneous” and all over the place (read: spaz). She wins more often but my games always feel different to me (lots of “dang, should have done this, not that” moments).

Note: in this pic, I decided to “use” the manhole cover to knock down the monster rather than risk Kate claiming it as a second chance to open the shelter (but that “consumed” two of my 7s).