It's the talk page. Yey!
Why use paper?
It seems to me that 15 action "cards" (a third of the game!) is a lot. Why not set aside one of each one-pip pyramid to be the goal cards? You'd have to trust your opponents to not swap it around behind their screen (although that would be pretty easy to notice, and hippies wouldn't cheat like that anyway).
Also, what's this business about keeping tips lined up? I figured you'd just play with all your 'mids upright.
I thought about doing it that way, but I wanted to eliminate the possibly of cheating. Now that I think about it, it would be pretty hard to cheat with 5, but with less than that it would be really easy. When I said "tips lined up" a meant them to be up right... I'll clarify.
I'm going to preface my question with some information that will hopefully make me seem less stupid after I've asked it. Almost a year ago one of my sons lost my entire collection of pyramids (5 full treehouse sets) at the lake. So, I've had no way of playtesting this one yet. Now, with that said, it seems(since I can't actually find out by playtesting.. Thank you Dillon, and yes you are still grounded) like it might be difficult to actually win this game since you have to link 6 pieces of your goal color. Has anyone found that this is the case? How many drawn games do there seem to be in a given number of games? Seems Like it will be a very nice game to play though.--GameBrain42 20:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
David Artman Asks...
Interesting variation. I have a few points/comments:
- Look at my Wormholes page for the way I credit Andy and Chris for the game play elements. Basically, I'm saying your game is unique, if only by virtue of being a pyramid game, not a card game; just as Wormholes is unique in structure and play, even though I basically lifted Zamboni Wars' mechanics whole-cloth. Thus, I'd credit yourself, with a further acknowledgment or credit to Andy for Aquarius inspiration. Put another way, there's a TON of games on this wiki that are inspired by or utter copies of other folks' games; but the use of pyramids--even a slight variation to enable pyramids with the inspiration's game play--is enough to warrant personal credit.
- As I read it, a player can basically pull whatever size he or she wants from the bag, yes? I mean, I can tell by feel the difference between a small, medium, and large; what's to prevent me from pulling a small whenever I want one--or, worse, pulling the LAST small, the color of which I know by process of elimination, when I want to do so?
- Connect six out of nine (3HOUSE, yes?) might be very hard to accomplish, I'm thinking.
- I might be dense, but how could one really cheat, other than by palming a piece (or more) prior to Draw and dropping it (them) to draw two (or more) new pieces? Hell, why not let that be part of legal play? It might be an interesting balancing mechanic to have folks "Discard" only to reDraw a dropped piece.
- Another idea: why not distribute all pieces prior to play, given that the smalls can have such a radical effect on goals and piece positions and, as such, planning for their use could be key? It should make for much deeper strategy, eliminating the highly random nature of blind drawing (random color, at least). And with such a variation, you can clearly claim uniqueness--Aquarius without randomness is no longer even remotely Aquarius (IMO).
- Oooooo. I'm liking the idea of #5 David. And I agree with you about the difficulty of connecting 6 pieces. That might be "challenging" to say the least. --GameBrain42 16:20, 12 June 2008 (EDT)