The 4 card set

Okay, I think we can use the evidence of kamikaze attacks as leverage for this cause! Only last night I was attacked by 35 on 35 to get a 12 bonus single turn in, it failed and gave the game to someone else, which it would have done even if it succeeded! I have PM the guy asking if he knows why it was a bad move and explaining why (education), but I doubt I'll get a reply or just get abuse back. So, let's put this to bed can we? These are going to happen, now and in the future and there's not a lot we can do about it unless we password the games and only play with good/known players and maybe be lucky to get 1 game per day! I can't see that it will increase these attacks if in a non passworded game, as the player who is going to do it with the 4 card set addition is going to do it with the current 3 card set too. The only argument anyone has, to try to prove it will, is that there is a guaranteed set from 4 to continue the attack. However, most of these dumb moves are ill thought out and don't allow further attack due to the bonus received, nor do they allow fortification defence, so what difference does it make if you have 4 cards now and 4 cards then, they will still attack. The main difference is though, if you were against the same kamikaze head with 4 cards (2+2) and he intends to get you if you go to 5 cards for a double turn-in, he no longer has the chance as you can turn in and become a non viable target and clean up if he attacks some weaker player who has not played so well. Also the experienced player looking for survival with 2 cards in his hand, has to think twice about attacking your 4 cards now and if this is introduced, as we all know there's no guarantee of a double turn in from 6 without a wild card and this is why the 4 card set is only really any good as a "life saver", it offers no new double turn-in combinations. As The_Bishop pointed out, it does allow you to continue your attack if you get lumbered with it again after a Cap conquer, and as he rightly said: [quote=The_Bishop]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.[/quote]

As a resume: always you have four cards you can change them, and you know for sure that if you kill someody you will get: -a set if at least you get 4 cards - double turn-in if you get 7 cards. If many of us we are complaining because there are too many suicide/kamikaze attacks, now it only can be worse: it will be easier to make a set. I liked this idea because it was some kind of defense when you hold 4 cards and you didn't make a set (avoiding became a target for the cards you hold because you couldn't change them, but I never had an offensive approach to this idea) so my suggestion will be radical: if you use the 4 card set you cannot conquer any territory in that turn; in this way it will just be a defensive resource.

7 cards is a guaranteed double turn in now isn't it? The only change is you can turn in 4 cards for a set instead of 3 to keep you in the game! I don't believe you are seeing the unfairness that the cards give when any combination of 4 cards gives most of the other players a set of 3 and you have to go to 5, this not only makes you a target, but it allows those others to create an attack move, whereas you are unable, even if you collected more cards earlier than them. Therefore as The_Bishop pointed out, you should be allowed to use them in the fair way cards are intended and that is whatever you wish to do with them.

You are right about 7 cards (and it's something I know!!). My point aeronautic it's that I am not happy with so many risky attacks in the games (in general) and the fact of having 4 cards and no set kills you (if you don't get a card next turn you won't have a set neither, and if you hold 5 cards somebody will.go for you; if the first one fails the second one will finish the job). That's what I liked your idea (you could protect yourself) but if the result it's that it will make easier "give your last shot" I am not interested in it; I have enough of "it was my only chance; I had to try it".

I think you are missing something Muzuane, I mean, it is not "easier" it's just "SURE". Gameplay it would be different of course but the effect of luck greatly reduced. But maybe I am missing something. We should try and then argue. A suicide attack for me is when one goes for a kill but he doesn't have enough troops to do it. If you go for a kill and get to hold 4 cards and then you can't turn in, it's "bad luck". Then the next in turn wins the game easy without any merits... Just luck.

If you go for a kill just to get 4 cards you know that maybe you won't have a set, maybe that wasn't the moment to try it. What will we do next? If you have 3 cards and no set you cand change them and get half of the troops? With these changes (you can change cards after a killing + sets of four cards) what we get it's that almost everybody has some chances to make his try when sets are around 20; if what you try to avoid it's not depend so much on luck you get the oposite: you will depend more on dice because there will be more risky attacks (under 50%). I thought we were more people worried about these attacks but reading the forum it looks like I am part of a tinny minority, and people just complain about silly attacks of other players.while they ask for rules to get at least a chance in every game. You say they are not suiciders because they have some chances: if you need good dice to kill.someone and get his cards, then you need even better dice to get 4 cards (and change the rules to be sure you will make a set) and even then, after changing your cards your chances are not higher than 60%, excuse but for me this attack is as close to a suicide than to a kamikaze. I loved when I lost a game saying: "what a movement! Well played" Now, most of games I play they finish with "what dice!" (I include those I win)

Ok, thanks Muzuane, I get what your point is. With the [u]new rule[/u]* turn-ins became easier and with the "4 cards set" they would even more. Well, but it looks like we will be able soon to play Capitals with the [u]old rule[/u]*. In that case I can't see any bad effects on having a double turn-in guaranteed with 7 cards. I like it! * I'm referring to [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=631&page=1]this[/url]. It's where this discussion started but I asked Aero to move it in a new thread to avoid confusion though these topics are correlated. [quote=Thorpe]Any rule change [b]scares me[/b] ...just look at what happened before.[/quote] I agree with this. [u]I don't want any rule changes which is not "optionable".[/u] Maybe D12 can plan how to make a special section of game settings which is intended to contains the options in test. Maybe.

I want to start a new discussion...The 'one card' turn in option...;)

If the proposed rule change means that I can make a set after starting with one card and killing someone with three you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be going for it if I deem the turn in high enough even if, for example, its my 20 vs their 30. And I wouldn't make any apologies for it either if it means there is a good chance I can sweep the map from there and win. As it is now I would never go for this because there is a good chance I won't make a set, and this is why I think there would be more complaints about so called "suicides" in games because I would not be the only one who would go for it

Sygmassacre, I didn't expect anyone's apologies. I just said that I don't like the dynamic of games now (you may say my way of playing it's boring); actually I also do these attacks I am complaining about.

The one card turn in...do it!

So you can have a triple turn-in with 3 cards? Not bad, but what about a 0 cards turn-in option? It would be much more interesting because you can have an unlimited turn-in at the first round! :) Be serious... please.

@Bishop, I already do that in most my games, it's my secret to success actually. Even though each turn in is worth zero, I usually turn in infinity sets so it all balances out in the end. (But don't tell anyone!) @Elysium... Actually, a 1 card turn in would be interesting. Each turn in is worth 1+n, where is the number of previous sets turned in (Or maybe k+n, with whatever suits k best, I dunno). You can still hold up to 5 cards, and turn in as many as 5 in one turn. Sorry to derail this thread. If there is any interest I'll start a new one. Just thought it was neat.

@Life - I played once in the board game in a similar way, with the restriction that you must turn [u]all[/u] your cards in. It was funny. I guess it should be another thread though. [b]Here the subject is: 4 cards set[/b] (2 pairs of same color). Useful as a defense resource in case of bad luck, at the cost of 1 card lost. Some restrictions have been suggested in addiction to this to avoid suicide attacks.

I sense players getting peeved with my suggestion! Silly suggestions are starting to appear! I don't want this to go around in circles and nobody having a clue what we are discussing anymore, so I will put it to you all this way: I have suggested a turn-in addition of the 4 card set (2+2)! Don't speculate what might happen from kamikaze attacks, they are already happening and by the way, the defence you might have had is gone with (2+2) in your hand under the current turn-in options. We should look at the normal game, how it 'pans out' and what can make it more of a game than a given??? Since starting this topic, I have had a (2+2) in almost every 7/8 player capitals game at a crucial point, one of which ended 3 nights ago but not before I screen shot it and left a message in the chat box drawing attention to the end of the game due to my 'No Turn-In', which everybody in the game probably knew already and yet, they have come on this topic in denial!! I will add the screen shot here! http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/image_holder.htm (image upload having a little trouble, be patient, I will get it there) The_Bishop went on to win the game in that round and there had not been 1 single turn-in from me! Now that was a perfect example of 'sitting duck/s', due to bad card luck! The_Bishop said after that to his amazement, some players said they had sets and didn't turn-in! In an 8 Player Caps, if you don't turn-in by the 3rd turn-in, an attacker usually gets so many extra troops with double turn-ins that they win the game from that point before your next turn! After this post, I will ask you each to search your conscience and stand up and be counted for: A) I am no longer blind to the unfairness of card combinations for some players in each game and a 4 card set is required! B) I have my reasons why there is no need for a 4 card set, I am happy with how things are! A or B?