Brian Campbell: > Now, I haven't > actually looked at the rules of whatever the game in question are (is > there an actual game, or is this all hypthetical? I haven't been > following the discussion closely enough to have picked that up), but I > really think that if a game makes good use of two Treehouse stashes, > it should be allowed. I'll offer up my own Ice Dao (http://home.att.net/~kerry_and_ryan/IceDao.html) as a strawman. It's a two-player game where each player uses one large, one medium and two smalls. The easiest way would be to have all of a player's pieces be the same color, and that requires 2 Treehouse sets to get the requisite number of smalls (and that's how the rules are written). But the game could easily be played with a single Treehouse set as red&yellow versus blue&green. As I think I've mentioned before, I wouldn't mind seeing such an entry in this competition, but I would rate it at least a little lower just because it isn't "solidly" a 2HOUSE game. I could see other judges rating it as either perfectly 2HOUSE or perfectly non-2HOUSE. It's a judgment call -- that's what judges are for. Discuss. > but if there is any disagreement at > all (and there's certainly disagreement here), just leave it up to the > judges to decide. That echoes my thoughts. > If just > reading the rules you think "meh, I can't see how that game would be > any good", well, that game probably needs some work. Of course, judges > should always have at least read the rules of any game they rank, but > I don't think that playing a game should be a requirement for ranking > it. I agree with this as well. Another criterion a judge might use during this initial weeding-out is whether _that_particular_judge_ considers each game "a 2HOUSE game." Ryan