Zark City is a mind-bendingly fun game, and we've all enjoyed it.
Awesome! :-)
On the ace rule proposition: Being playable AND a power card is a nice idea.
Well, it's interesting, but I'm not in favor of it.
On adding another new ability to the 10: I cring at more complexity with the rules of this game. it's elegent and intricat enough as is and doesn't need too many more rules.
Exactly. For example, in my first draft of the rules I had provisions for covering over cards in play, and for reclaiming cards from the board, but after playtesting I took those options out because I decided they weren't needed. I want Zark City to be as simple and exception-free as possible. And with that thinking in mind, I find I don't like the idea of a card that can be used in two places. Here's why. If we say Aces can be used for attack AND can be put onto the board, this leads to a question: can you make a free attack with a piece that's sitting on an Ace? It would make sense to Zarcana players that you could, but it would require more explanation, and it doesn't seem worth it to me.
All that said, I agree that it would be good to have more attack cards, so for version 1.2 of the rules I'm planning to add this clause: "Aces are considered Face cards, not Number cards." I like this because A is not a number, and Aces are expected to be powerful.
As for the feeling that the 10 (and now the 2) are slightly undervalued, well, that doesn't bother me. Not everything needs to be balanced.
Thanks as always to everyone for their input! Keep on playing! -- Andy Looney