I also fell into this category.
Always love starting off the day with a good game of solitaire and a cup of coffee but one has to ask as they "soldier on" is this game flawed from the beginning.
Suffering not actually being able to see the game and the difficulty of some of the cards falling off the grid or not sticking to the proper place it still seemed like more of the original concept was flawed.
Most solitaire games of that nature--all of the cards out and face up--have a parking place of some sort or a rule allowing other than Kings to be placed in blank rows. Then, thinking that it was the difficult nature of the game I was forced to get out two decks and try it on my own.
The deal did not make sense to me, either. The difficulty concept would not exist with a real deck--right?
Could there be a mix-up in the game plan somewhere between Churchill, Rumsfeld and the developer. Is Rumsfeld flawed.
Is the deal flawed placing new cards on every row unless it starts with a King?
|Grape St. Dog Park, San Diego|
Was it me--the game was just too diabolical as Rums said. Rums keep referring to the devil's six as the problem but I did not see that as the giant issue.
When I tried it with cards it was much easier and much more random and the devil's six did hold the game up on more than one occasion simply because it blocks the sequence to build up the cards.
With the real deck it was much easier to play and see. The problem to me is that Rums keeps talking about the devil's six as the problem spot and other that that it is a regular solitaire game.
Well, Donald must be a real card game and solitaire expert because the trial at the hard level is more difficult to move than 4 card spider.
Somewhere there is a gap between Winston Churchill, Donald Rumsfeld and his basic solitaire knowledge and the developer--perhaps this is not this game creators bailiwick--and the info Donald spouts hawking the thing.
Were all of the ducks in a row before the game was issued or the war ensued.
One is left asking themselves--is this what happened in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld went around on all of the Sunday shows touting the brilliance of the war but left out certain points when George Bush went on to play the game.
Would you buy it............
Seriously, there are plenty of cute and perfect and difficult solitaire games out there for free--why would someone pay for a hint or an undo for something that does not really make sense in the first place.
Is Donald trying to fool us?