I think if you let people first draw and then discard, then the game is too easy. I like it better if you have to first decide what to discard (sacrificing possible future pairings) to increase the chances of drawing cards you need. It gives the game some tension...
-Jorge
On 2/27/08, Christopher Hickman <tophu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Andy: Should we move this to the betatesters list, or is this considered complete and you're looking for less substantive changes than typographical?
On Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 12:26PM, "Andrew Plotkin" <erkyrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Christopher Hickman wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 11:09AM, "Andrew Plotkin" <erkyrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Assuming I'm right, the rule could be worded to "...then draw one, two, or
>>> three cards. You can never hold more than six cards."
>>
>> Or "...then draw until you have six cards total or you've drawn three,
>> whichever comes first."
>
>That's less clear to me.
Which sort of makes my point that a more elegant simple rule of "draw, then discard down to six" would be better.
>(The other suggestion, "draw up to three cards", unfortunately collides
>with a common game idiom meaning "draw until you have three cards in your
>hand.")
Agreed.
>> I see now that it was trying to stay true to Zarcana, but I think a DRAW
>> action of "Draw three cards and then discard, if necessary, down to a
>> hand of six." would be a much cleaner and simpler rule.
>
>A little simpler, but I don't see it as a huge win. It would also change
>the balance towards drawing -- drawing when your hand is full would always
>be tempting, and it would be easier to get the hand you want. (Meaning the
>attack cards you want.) I would have to be convinced that this makes the
>game better.
Drawing when your hand is full is tempting now, if you don't have the cards you want. The small tactical difference of having to choose what to discard before you draw replacements isn't worth the extra complexity, in my opinion.
>> It also would allow for digging through the deck faster to get to the
>> shuffle, which would be a good thing, in my opinion.
>
>Oh, we did that anyway. I spent a lot of turns discarding three and
>drawing three.
You miss my point (or rather, I didn't state it well). Those discard three, draw three turns aren't very exciting. Being able to draw three, discard three gets you to the hand you want faster, so you can get on to the more fun parts of the game faster. It also is likely to put more cards overall into the discard, so the reshuffle comes comparatively sooner.
Topher
_______________________________________________
Icehouse mailing list
Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse