Interesting because the primary intention of the repeated positions x 3 draw is to resolve a perpetual check where one player may not want to agree a draw. But the opportunity also exists to have the same postition repeated 3 times by other means, even by accident. I once played a game where the situation arose where my King was being chased around the board. I was able to manufacture the same postiion 3 times with about 10-15 moves between each occurance ... when I pointed this out my opponent he was not happy but had to accept the draw (in fact he was real mad as he was 2 minor pieces up!) ... a fluke, yes, legitimate, also yes, played for again, yes! So, what were my opponent's choices, maybe to move differently and avoid the situation if he thought he could win, if not, good play on may part.

I think the same applies here. If a player wants to win then do something different or else accept that there will be a draw. A person in a losing position can use this tactically to better their lot, if you don't like it do something else. A perpetual check may be able to be instigated by someone in a losing position but if you are winning and don't avoid it then you have been tactically defeated (drawn?!).

My vote is that it should be a draw, 3 repeated positions, irrespective of the pieces available for placement.