The 4 card set

Thanks for the feedback.
It wouldn't complicate anything, once a 4 card turn-in has been used before an attack, a 4 card turn-in cannot be used during the attack, this part is exactly the same as now!
The 4 card turn-in is essentially only a survival turn in. Who in their right mind would turn in 4 cards instead of 3 to get a bonus which they could easily wait for under no pressure or for that matter, who would use up 4 cards to start an attack where every card is essential for success? The last comment though, again reinforces the concept, as most players with 4 cards can turn in a set and start their attack, but the unlucky guy with 2+2 currently can't and may well have to attack so as not to be attacked. Therefore, the life saver turn in is in use as intended.

Who in their right mind, do you ask? That was my point. The same people who go all out suicidal hoping to get a turn in will do the same except more often if they have a for sure shot with four total cards instead of five.

Wow wise words! Rare to see. Thanks Paddlin.

About the special "4 cards set". I don't agree with...

I mean, with a "4 cards set" those are not suicide moves anymore, why to not encourage a move which is smart?
The problem is when you are forced, by the bad luck, to end your turn with 5 cards. It doesn't matter if you have killed someone or not during your turn, the problem doesn't change: you will be killed by the cards you gained.

It's the most unfair feature in this game, I am glad somebody is trying to solve this problem.

I have given stacks of information on this subject earlier in the thread, but I will say it again, suicidal idiots cannot be avoided without identifying them and passwording them out of games.
This turn-in has nothing to do with crazy moves or any other bad thing players would like taken out of the game, it is only to combat bad card luck and save you being a viable target with 5 cards at a crucial point in the game.

If a player is worried about being a target for their cards, there is always the option of not attacking for one so they are not a target. That being said, I still think that it will encourage more suicidal moves in an increasing card game thus making those games not appealing to experienced players.

Thanks for this wisdom!

I didn't think of his amendment like that, yes of course the very thing that saved you would kill you if not still useable throughout any game winning attack and after all that is the whole point of the game!

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I see your are really put off by a possibility of increased suiciders! I don't see why it would increase them? I'm sure you are well aware that when somebody is well up on troops and decides to go for a game winning move, but fails through bad dice luck, they are not suiciders! Suiciders are usually novices who believe they would fair better with your cards and fail to realise that they would gain 4 or 6 troops after losing 12 or 14... I assume these are the guys you worry about and if so, again, identify them, educate them and if they are not responsive, password them out, or better still minimum point your games.

Okay, here's where I am due to all the feedback so far.

The 4 card set (2+2), should be introduced after extensive private game trials. Once programmed into the game, it will be a permanent option throughout every game.

Reasons:
Suiciders are not going to increase as a result of this new option as there has never been an advantage from a suicide attack and they are only carried out by foolish players / novices or are just spite attacks directed toward a particular player in which case nobody has any defence against such actions regardless, apart from blocking their ability to join your games.

Sygmassacre suggested an amendment to the proposal of making the 4 card set unuseable during the process of an attack move, which I initially thought was a good idea until some further wisdom light was shed on it by The_Bishop and now realise that the original proposal was correct and true and should stand.

The whole point of the 4 card set is to allow a player a life line at the cost of an extra card, which if we all think about it will eliminate bad card luck to a certain degree, making the games more playable and not over in a jiffy.

The most annoying thing, particularly in a Capitals game, is when you have wasted your time building troop strength and attack routes only to be set upon powerless to resist by the lucky card guy, just because your cards didn't suit a turn in criteria, even though you may have strategically collected more of them than the attacker.

I still like Syg' suggestion: you onlu can use the 4cards set when you start your turn. This was a defense against bad luck with your cards (you have to play your turn with 4 cards because didn't have a set and you probably will finish the turn with 5 cards, so now you are everybody's target). I am fine with that but if you use this change of the rules to attack somebody who just hold 4 cards, that's your problem.
I know that what I am saying may be according with those who say this change can increase suiciders attacks, but I think his option worths a try.

Any rule change scares me ...just look at what happened before.

'Thank you for your valuable feedback. I see your are really put off by a possibility of increased suiciders! I don't see why it would increase them? I'm sure you are well aware that when somebody is well up on troops and decides to go for a game winning move, but fails through bad dice luck, they are not suiciders! Suiciders are usually novices who believe they would fair better with your cards and fail to realise that they would gain 4 or 6 troops after losing 12 or 14... '


A 100% accurate interpretation of what I would be worried about (suiciders) and what a suicider is. Not someone who just had some bad luck witht the dice but someone who clearly had almost no chance in the first place.

In regards to your suggestion;

'I assume these are the guys you worry about and if so, again, identify them, educate them and if they are not responsive, password them out, or better still minimum point your games.'

I started this topic in the forums quite some time ago:

http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1145

Yes MuzuaneAskari, it would be their bad luck for going for four cards during their turn....upon reflection it won't stop people going for four cards mid turn as there is a good chance of getting a playable three card set but I still don't think you should be able to turn in if you end up with four cards after taking someone out as the point of the rule is to negate the bad luck when you end a turn with four cards but dont have a playable set

After further thought, I have reconsidered. While I'd still like to see the implementation of this made as an option rather than a change to the default game, I would support the change as originally suggested, sans Sygmassacre's amendment, which I still dislike due to the fact it requires inconsistent turn-in criteria. A set is a set, is a set, is a set (be it with 3 cards or 4).

I see from the few regular people offering feedback, there are deep rooted concerns that this possible change brings to the surface!

I can sympathise all day long with the concerns having been affected by them all many times myself! However, if these concerns are about things that are already happening and the admin are struggling to control, surely we should not let them hinder us in our plight to better the game, even in some small way?

I will probably be starting some new topics with some new ideas about combatting these concerns that may perhaps shed some new light on them from a different angle and set the respected great minds of these forums in motion!

But, one thing at a time! I really need some feedback on the 4 card set, that takes into account; the fairness of the game, the fact that to even have to use a 4 card set is unfair to a player, it's ability to be programmed, how we would test it, who would like to be involved in the testing of it, in which way it would affect game play?

To state your views but not give stats, references, model examples or any other form of solid evidence to support a claim or concern is why just chatting about important things never really gets results. I'm going out on a limb here asking the people who control a game that is now very much a part of my life to make a change, not for me, but for the good of the game, whilst risking offending people I respect by doing so!

Tough call, Sygmas suggestion does make certain sense as well,, hmmm , So does Thorpes ''Rule changes Scare Me!" comment,, hmmm

 i find myself considering stuff like; this may mean a new circle-icon it the lobbys ~index bar of the game set up~ indicating that its a special rules game .
And i suppose in the Game Creation section there could be some options that are ,,beta tests?, or personalized ? player suggested?
Some kind of 'Special Rules' games (SR) ? That when one enters one see's a pop up window (perhaps in the form of a yellowing parchment) That states boldly its a special rule match and that states briefly the card rules.

From a D12 map creation page to (SR) rule changes, it seems an upwardly mobile concept to goal to eventually offer extras & options as D12 bonuses ,
And D12 conquers the world!

in other words, i would maintain the mainstream rules as house rules , and if its practical, have game options.