I am not bothered by special equipment, as I said before, since people could have access to it online or at Origins. But I do find the originality argument persuasive. I like Dectana's design; however, it is an adaptation of an existing game paradigm to a different deck. So, after some consideration, I am reluctantly willing to drop Dectana, and have the finalists be Crosswalk, Quicksand, and Stack Control. Bryan On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I feel strongly that there should be exactly three finalists. The current > discussions seem to be focused on five games. Here is my take. > > Infiltrate/Stack Control: I agree that only one of these should be a > finalist since they're by the same designer. I'll give a slight edge to > Stack Control, which supports more than 2 players and has a more definite > game ending. > > Crosswalk: A lighter game with a random element. Considered as a > meta-issue, that's a point in its favor. But it would be in my Top 3 > anyway. > > Quicksand: My biggest problem with this one is that nowhere in the rules > does it explicitly state that jumping a piece captures it. That is a > fundamental element of the game, and it's only implied in the discussions on > captured pieces. And, I guess, implied by it being a Checkers term. Other > than that, I'm fine with the game. Any way somebody can sneak that small > change in there before the rules are printed up for Origins (assuming it's a > finalist)? > > Dectana: I don't like this as a finalist for two reasons. One, it's > inaccessible due to the Decktet requirement. Two, it's not really original, > being another implementation of the Zarcana/Gnostica/Zark City concept. > > So, here's proposed list of finalists (in alphabetical order): > > Crosswalk > Quicksand > Stack Control > > - Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >