Well, don't have to like it. :) I put out the topic to get responses, so thank you for yours. And, while I have no problems with Aquarius as is, there are some of those who may have gone beyond the basics, so I thought I would this idea forth. Besides that, the Aquarius mailing list has been really bare. Actually, it spawned from the fact that there aren't nearly enough quad cards to cover the large number of possible quad cards available. This was one option that I could see to allow for more quad card options to be available. And, while multi-player balance may be affected, mostly what I was thinking about was the ability to use multi-panel wild cards for Alison's Aquarius Challenge. I.e. by just adding one multi-paneled wild card, and which type, how many cards could the pattern be reduced to? That type of theoretical discussion. The reasoning behind the "this card works this way for you but that way for me", was to prevent people from using wild panel cards to lay down multiple panels. Otherwise a person could theoretically have four panels with the placement of only two cards. While the joining of 7 panels could become much easier using wild panels, my real questions are how much easier? And would it be equally easier as long as the cards were balanced? Would quads make a greater impact or duals? Would it be better to add to the deck or replace from the deck? How many should be used? 5? 10? A full deck? For a full deck composed of wild paneled cards, you could have 5 long duals, 5 short duals and the rest would be quads. This allows a single player the variety of 2 "singles" (the duals with their element), 8 duals (the duals without their element) and 30 out of, umm, 120? possible wild quad options. Just with the Wild card, I'm not trying to change the base game, but I'm trying to put forth an "advanced" option for those who want a new challenge. For anyone who doesn't like it, fine, no arguments, but if you have an actual reason why it wouldn't work, I'd love to hear it. -----Original Message----- From: aquarius-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:aquarius-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kheldar Septyn Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 10:10 AM To: aquarius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [Aquarius] Aquarius gone wild? 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005