From f90fdfa42ee3894ad8f9c214a271bf1f106402e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Wagoner Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:23:10 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] The duel skill learns to rob one victim twice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Game nine, four rounds: Kestrel stole both of one bot's treasures — two bankings for the win, the second doubling as the victim's elimination. Concentrated theft beats spread theft: same points, one fewer opponent. Also recorded: never chain move commands blind after the (6,6) nook ate a full turn of refused exits. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015RCWSTnb1KYTPyL4GmhGnF --- .claude/skills/wizwar-duel/SKILL.md | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/.claude/skills/wizwar-duel/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/wizwar-duel/SKILL.md index 2fe85fa..8906860 100644 --- a/.claude/skills/wizwar-duel/SKILL.md +++ b/.claude/skills/wizwar-duel/SKILL.md @@ -167,6 +167,20 @@ probing legality is free, so when unsure, try it and read the error. — the treasure I'd just consolidated. When your fork only threatens what you own, it isn't a fork; it's a to-do list you published. +## Game-nine scar: concentrate your thefts + +- Kestrel won in FOUR ROUNDS by stealing BOTH treasures from the SAME + victim (the nearest bot): two bankings = the win, and the second one + simultaneously eliminated the victim via the captured-treasures + clause. Robbing one player twice beats robbing two players once — + same points, one fewer opponent, and the victim's own corner becomes + your supply depot. When choosing the second steal, weigh "same + victim" heavily. +- Also: never chain move commands blind in a script — the (6,6) nook + refused all three exits and my pipeline barreled into endTurn, + burning a full turn standing still. Verify each step's result, or at + minimum stop the chain on the first refusal. + ## The board is the truth (I keep paying for this one) - NEVER narrate a persistent effect without re-verifying it in the