> From: kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx > > long as you assign each die color to a player color. > > Two things: > 1. Doesn't the requirement for two TreeHouse dice make this > a 2HOUSE game by the slimmest of margins? > 2. Be careful about requiring identifiable TreeHouse dice. I never said "Treehouse die" (in fact, it's two six-sided dice). > I would automatically give one demerit to any game that > requires two different TreeHouse dice. But if it requires two Treehouse dice with no particular preference as to color of the dice--each player controls his or her die when it's rolled, to ensure which goes with what side; or the game uses two TH die results per turn (pick one, do both)--then it is most definitely 2HOUSE. As for your condition of *absolutely, positively requiring* two different color TH dice (I can't imagine how that would happen or what mechanic could necessitate that, frankly) then, yep, it's going to hurt the game because, as with *any* and *all* equipment requirements (say it along with me, kids!), equipment requirements make a barrier to entry for any game, IGDC or not. It's self-correcting, thus I do not regulate it in IGDC rules (nor have they ever, unless it was perhaps a past design requirement of "pyramids only; no other equipment"). > IF you need less than six colors and > at most one of each size of each color and > at most one TreeHouse die, then > I would consider that a 1HOUSE game, Seems an exhaustive definition of 1HOUSE, until... > EVEN IF specific colors are specified. OK, true, if one can merely color substitute and then be able to play it (ex: Homeworlds with Xeno). But.... > I cannot think of a way to use, say, one color each > from Xeno and Rainbow the actually requires specific colors. No, false, if the game (as I said) actually depends upon the additive color results of colors from two different sets. A quick and dirty example: Find The Green Mid! * "Challenger" puts a yellow large over a cyan medium and puts a clear large over a green medium. * Challenger places the two stacks at least 20 feet away from the "Guesser." * Guesser gets one chance to state whether the left or right stack has the green mid. Cheap? Yeah. Dumb and way too easy? Yeah. "Requires two TH sets?" Yep--it qualifies (and is doomed to last place, I imagine). > The only exception I can think of would be if you needed > two different opaque colors. THEN I could see that as a > requirement for a mixed 2HOUSE set. Absolutely... but the opaqueness must have mechanical relevance (e.g. hiding smaller mids), not just be arbitrarily designated as "black v white" (which is what the game that I mentioned at first did, when I first realized this wiggle of the requirement). > I think that situation is a perfect illustration of why > the level to which any given game qualifies as 2HOUSE > should be left to the judges' discretion instead of the > contest administrator's. Trust the judges to use some > judgment... that's what they/we are here for. As a judge, > I wouldn't be irritated at seeing an entry that requires > yellow and cyan (and no other colors of pieces and only > one die). I would just rank it quite low indeed because > I don't consider it truly 2HOUSE in nature. What you fail to mention is that you would have invested time and effort into reading a game that you would, in turn, then rate very lowly because it basically spurned the requirement or tried to circumvent it in a trivial manner. Now recall how much trouble we had getting complete ranking from every judge--why should we exacerbate that problem by admitting games which spurn the requirement just to "get seen" or whatever (as we presume winning would be neigh impossible). I am with Don and Jorge on this one: > From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> > I, for one, don't think it's unreasonable for the contest's sponsor to > immediately disqualify games which *obviously* do not meet the > requested criteria. Yes, there will be a lot of gray space for the > judges to, y'know, judge, but something totally out of line shouldn't > even be included. > > They can submit in the next competition. ...and... > From: "Jorge Arroyo" <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > rules... Let's hope that people do games that really need 2 sets, else > newcomers to the system that bought a second set to play more games may feel > a bit cheated :) ---- Finally, in closing: > From: "Avri Klemer" <avri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > If a game *can't* be played with 2 sets, it's not 2HOUSE and > should not be eligible for the next IGDC . . . I assume you mean "If a game can't be played *without* 2 sets, it's not 2HOUSE..."? In general, Don's "math" holds true: 1 set < requirement to be able to play the game <= 2 sets I am just adding the clarification that "forcing" a game into 2HOUSE by assigning Xeno v Rainbow colors to arbitrary color assignments isn't a valid 2HOUSE game, until the number of requisite transparent color stacks exceeds four... or five, if you agree with Ryan's assessment that an opaque can serve as a transparent--that's one "gray space" where I'd *would* let such a game enter, if the only way to "1HOUSEify" it is to deal in a kludgey manner with an opaque stack which one would rather be transparent. My 2¢; David