In short, no sir, I don't like it.
Here's why: I see the basic Aquarius game as being very light and carefree.
It's easy to teach and easy to play. The most complex part of the game is
remembering what each of the action cards do. I think that adding half- or
quarter-panel wilds to the game would hork it up, especially if there are
"it's wild this way for me, but wild that way for you" or "this counts as a
single panel" rules involved.
The other problem, as you've noticed, is the balance issue. Aside from some
minor asymmetries created by the quad cards, every element is on equal
footing with every other element. To properly add panel-wilds, you'll need
to create 5 of each kind just to keep it fair. Then when you've added 10
more cards to the deck, you'll need to decide if the rest of the rules need
to be tweaked a little, since joining 7 panels may be easier or harder with
the new mix of cards.
-----
Please don't think I'm shooting you down. I could be blowing smoke here. But
some similar thoughts ran through my head when I was working on 3-panel
cards, and I finally asked myself "Do I want to screw up a perfectly fine
game just because I feel something could be added?" I still like the idea of
3-panel cards, but I'm not about to make a set. (Mostly because I'm lazy.
;^_^)
Phil
From: Scott Sulzer <ssulzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Aquarius] Aquarius gone wild?
Just because no one seems to be talking on this particular mailing list,
I thought I would attempt to start a discussion.
I've had a concept bouncing around in my head for a bit of time. What
would happen, i.e. how would strategies change, if wild panels were
added to more Aquarius cards? I know that there is already a Single
Panel wild Aquarius card, but what about putting a wild panel on either
a double panel card or a quad-panel card? What about a full deck of
wild paneled cards? And how should it work with the adjoining elements
on any particular cards?
--remainder of long topic supressed--