Ok. As it seems each side has stated their reasons and arguments, I've started a poll on the wiki. Please, vote and let's see what option the community as a whole likes better.
On 11/9/07, Jorge Arroyo <
Oops... Brian, I just read all your posts for this discussion because I happened to look at my Spam folder and somehow your messages were there...
Let me say that I agree with you. We were not talking about any specific game, just hypothetical discussion. I just cited the example of David's game because it was the closest at hand. He talked about Mundialito implying it was my game and that all I wanted was to submit it, but as I said, it's not my game, and this discussion is not about one specific game.
I hope David reconsiders his decision, as there seem to be enough support for a modification. It's not too late, as the competition has just started and the modification won't affect any games that have been entered already...
On 11/9/07, Brian Campbell <
On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:39 AM, kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I think I'd rate this pretty low in a 2HOUSE-restricted
competition. I don't think I'd need it to be filtered for me; I can
make up my own mind about how well this fits the 2HOUSE design
There are lots of games that can be played with Icehouse pieces that
don't really fit the set very well. Heck, even Martian Chess is really
one of the least Icehouse-y games I've played, and while I might say
it meets the requirements of a design restriction of using 4 monocrome
stashes, it really takes no advantage of the 4 monochrome stashes, nor
does it take advantage of the stacking, pointing, colors, or
distribution of the pieces. On the other hand, RAMbots makes lovely
use of 4 monochrome stashes, so would get a higher rating in such a
competition even if I liked Martian Chess better.
>> 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,
>> 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
> 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."
Icehouse mailing list