Seeking the advice and knowledge of any and all individuals who have mastered the grouping games. Would you recommend any particular order of going through the Cambridge packets for the grouping games (e.g. Determined Assignment -> Undetermined -> In/Out -> Distribution) or does it not matter? Also, I have looked around for an equivalence table between LSAT / Cambridge / PS, but only found one for LR.
I know that the common piece of advise that is thrown out in response to these types of questions is "don't concern yourself with game types", "approach LGs on an intuitive level", "get to a point where you no longer depend on game-type classifications". However, I think it takes practice and familiarity with the games before one gets to that level. So to achieve that end I was wondering if there is an established order of progression that has been deemed most efficient or the most likely to properly build a base for grouping games.
For example, with Linear games the progression that seems to be advised is simple -> advanced -> relative (although MLSAT introduces relative ordering in between simple and advanced). Is there a similar level of progression for grouping games as well?
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 3091
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm
akechi wrote:Would you recommend any particular order of going through the Cambridge packets for the grouping games (e.g. Determined Assignment -> Undetermined -> In/Out -> Distribution) or does it not matter?
I'm not too familiar with the Cambridge classification system, but if I'm translating to Blueprint's classification correctly, I'd do:
Though I believe that "Distribution", if I'm translating correctly, is a sub-type of both In/Out and Undetermined Assignment, and it's more a tool to use for those two game types than its own game type.