On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Andy Looney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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! I played another 2 games today at lunch, just two player this time. We played that Aces were face cards. Seemed to work well and I'm looking forward to trying it again. Also it sounds like I need to try Zarcana or Gnostica if I'm looking for a little more complexity. -Jason