Thanks Ken for your reply. I hope you get it and it doesn't cause you too much trouble.
Merci.

I like Camelot. Probably few people play because it requires more concentration and wizards are not a safe trick, so you have to use a very different strategy than the other versions, and this must make many regular players lazy.
Thanks for your input. I intend to alter the function of the Excalibur card. I hope to improve gameplay and enhance strategy. Changes are expensive and difficult but I hope the results will be worth it.

For me, I think Camelot’s unpopularity is that you can’t count on a wizard to take a trick, so it’s hard to bid accurately.
There are too many variables when is comes to trying to make an accurate bid
I tend to agree with you. But I think the fact that no card is a sure trick makes strategy more important which is a good thing when we are looking for advanced play. That is why a change must be made.

I like Camelot and agree with Carles regarding the first set of rule changes, even though it made scoring a little easier. It is a very challenging game and so many folks multi-task while playing other versions, that you simply must concentrate on Camelot. I hope more Camelot tourneys are hosted in the future, maybe that will spark more interest. Thank you Ken, Carles and our Wizard family for all the fun.
Thanks for for this. Food for thought. But the current situation is not tenable.

Let it Be.. camelot is less popular because it is more challenging...I believe
Players are up for a challenge but nobody is playing Camelot. I do not believe players find it too challenging. I think they just do not like the current rules. It is difficult to change horses in midstream but I must tweak the rules in an attempt to eliminate perceived problems and increase strategic play.

I liked the original Camelot rules, where the Holy Grail had extra 20 points and also extra points for zero-bid bets were at stake.
In online play, the simplification of the original rules and scores of Camelot, in order to make it easier for most players to understand the game and gain followers, I think was not a success, since they did not increase the number of games played since these modifications were implemented.
If we compare it with the Magic version, which incorporates some minor modifications compared to the regular Wizard, we find that the ease of understanding the mechanics of this version of the game has given many more interested people and demonstrates the success of this version.
If we look at it from the commercial side, if the success of a new version of the Wizard depends on the increase in sales of the new product, I think that the Camelot does not have the right characteristics to stand out in this aspect.
By definition, a game with sophisticated rules or scoring system will likely greatly limit the number of potential players.
In any case, I believe that a version like the Camelot is necessary to complement the different levels of sophistication of the Wizard's rules in its different variants, and that the main distinguishing feature of Camelot is precisely a higher level of demand on players in understanding the rules and game strategy.
In short, I am not in favor of a further reduction in complexity or simplifying the effect of a special card such as Excalibur, but on the contrary, I would love to recover the characteristics of the original rules.
Interesting! Food for thought.Thanks

To me, Camelot is too complicated, especially when some cards have different values depending on whether the player is "even" or "odd".

* Thanks for the feedback...wizard

Why is Camelot Wizard not popular? Limited feedback but a rule change will be probably made.