hey josh. i read your article (http://desmoineskubb.com/blog/kubb-rules-breakdown-1-the-kubbadox) and funny enough, we just postet an article on www.baselcitykubb.ch with the same problem, but a very different idea. i try to translate the two basic-rules to enlish, but i need help of a friend. but it would be nice, if you could comment on our rule (i think it's by far the best). The Article can be found here (http://baselcitykubb.ch/?p=899), i'll soon add a translation.

 

best wishes, Samuel from switzerland


My Swiss friend,

Although Google Translate isn't the best, I think I understand the problems you are trying to uncover from your article. And thanks for the link to our rules, very cool. You are proposing a solution to what I refer to as "The Kubbadox" and "The Block", if I understand correctly. The proposition is that in instances where there are two potential footprints overlapping, you would simply "shunt" the kubbs with the least amount of position change to get them both in bounds, versus what we are currently doing based on our rules, which is to rethrow one of the kubbs.

I know the rules folks have discussed this many times, but there is something holding directors back from accepting the change. And from what I understand, there is significant issue with the fluidity, or the intangibles of allowing the defenders to shunt. "What direction?" is the major question that cannot be quantified for every scenario. Defender’s choice or attacker’s choice? And another very important question, at what angle is the kubb's final placement? All these questions can easily result in a kubb being shunted into a placement where it actually would be better for the kubb thrower to rethrow the kubb. The variables when shunting are not dependent on the kubb footprint, but more dependent on how the defenders "feel" like shunting the kubb, and that allows the kubbs to form legs and start crawling.

I think that a very skilled kubb inkastare will accept these very unlikely scenarios, or try to stay out of those scenarios altogether. It's no different that hitting a bulls-eye in darts, then continuing to attempt a second bull’s-eye. There are some inherent risks with that move. Maybe you should go for the triple 20, because there's less "clutter" and less metal to hit. As an avid kubb driller, I would rather have some awkward things come up that are completely on ME, than rely on the defenders to "shunt" my kubbs in however they like. Just my 2 cents.

Dobbie

 


 

Hi Josh, love your blog! Anyway I've got a kubb standing question for you: If a kubb is blocked on one side by the center stake but the other side is open, could I put up another one first so that both sides of the first kubb are obstructed and I can put it up against the stake? I mean, assuming I had a choice with the second kubb.

 

Thanks for these detailed explanations!

 

John


Hi John,

I had to get the big dogs involved on this one. And after discussions and review of the rules, the intent of the rule is that you cannot force an obstruction, if an unobstruction is an option. So in your scenario, if the second kubb can be raised a different way, you would have to do that. Forcing an obstruction can only happen if a kubb, when raised on either end, will force an obstruction, and there are no other kubbs that can move out of the way to do so.

Dobbie 

 


I am a live in Turkey. Amd we play kubbs. But.we.dont use pins in the center. How do a strategie change when pins are unused?

Derin


Salutations Derin! It’s been a while since I played without center pins, but I imagine that the overall strategy for kubb raising remains the same, with the exception that raising on the sideline for a center-pin-obstructed shot ceases to be an option. Playing without a center pin raises some questions regarding the boundary though – since a kubb can be raised over the vertex of the centerline and sideline, a kubb that is half-in/half-out on the sideline AND half-in/half-out on the centerline would only be 25% “in bounds”. I suppose it would be up to you and your group to determine whether such a kubb would be considered in or out of play.

Chris

 


 

What’s with that “Approximate Risk Picture”?

Kevin


Hi Kevin,

It’s a quick-and-dirty visual representation of the fact that a kubb is much more likely to tumble over an edge rather than a corner. It takes a perfect edge-on hit to push a kubb over a corner, and even then it probably won’t follow that path for very long. Also note that the risk picture of a kubb will vary significantly based on the facing, and the specific image I included only approximates the risk for a kubb oriented 45° to the throwing line. 

Chris

 


 

Hey DMK,

Great blog post. I live in Eau Claire, WI (on Championship Hill), am an avid kubber, love thinking about strategy and different aspects of the game, and enjoy your blog. Question on the four kubbs with the green circle. I totally agree to keep the two possible doubles away from each other. However, in the green scenario, what do you think about if a team had the double on the right or left, but not in the middle. Just thinking if the kubbs on the right are up against the sideline, etc., it might be tough to come across them to get the middle single, etc. What would be your thoughts while you are raising them?

Thanks for all of your work, sharing, and your shout out to Championship Hill.
Cecilia Anderson
 


Hi Cecilia – thanks for the great question! The more I learn about Kubb the more I learn that there are no absolutes, and the answer to almost every strategy question is “Well, sometimes…” In the scenario I was illustrating I was trying to demonstrate a tactic to isolate kubbs, so that after baton number one is thrown (and presumably hits the middle double) the attacker is now left with two singles that can’t be cleared with a single baton without extraordinary luck and skill. In this instance, standing the double to the one side or the other would (if struck appropriately by the attacker) leave the remaining two field kubbs much closer together and increase the odds of the attacker clearing them with a second baton. That said, there are a lot of other factors that might make the outside double you mentioned be the better idea. For instance, the facing on the front kubb makes you think the double is unlikely, or the best line of attacking the double runs through the center pin making the shot trickier.


What I hope that you and other readers take out of the article is a method of thinking about this phase of the game, rather than specific “in this case do that” kind of instruction. If you’re considering how the batons will come in, how the pieces will move, and what the field will look like after the throw then you are going about solving these problems the right way. 


Chris