H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Oct 9, 2009 01:34 PM EDT:
I wonder if Mats agrees with the 2s I replaced by 3s? Can the Bifurcation pieces really end on those squares with the same type of move as they are allowed to make to the 2s?
. 2 . 2 . . . . 2 . . . . . 2 . .
. . 3 . . . . . 3 . . . . . 3 2 2
. . X . . . . . . X . . . X . . .
. . 1 . . . . . . . 1 . 1 . . . .
. . 1 . . . . 2 4 4 4 # . . . . .
1 1 # 1 1 X 3 . . . Z 4 1 . . . .
. 4 Z 4 . . . 2 . . . 4 . 1 . . .
4 . . . 4 . . . . . . 4 . . X . .
I don't have Zillions, and perhaps I should learn how to read ZRF files. But the simplest way still seems to ask Mats! ;-) What was a bit ambiguous, and was also not explicit in Sam's diagrams, was what happens in the presence of the piece Z with a Colliding Bifurcator. Does it create moves to the 4s? Not for Mats' pieces, but you could make stronger versions that could.