The 4 card set

LOL at the Cireon / Vexer jewel, the problem with people expecting you not to have a set from 4 is, it's just a risky way to think, the odds of not having a set from 4 are mathematically quite low, however reality is different and when it does happen (usually when unexpected) it normally kills the game for all bar the guy who can get your 5 cards, as everyone will feel 100% compelled to get the 5th card, as when you have 2+2, "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't".
It might just be that some players carry bad luck and are more prone to them!
Although I see most of the people who post to forums think it is a good part of the game to have 4 unusable cards, I personally have lost too many games because of it and feel differently. I have only posted here with my views as Muzuane Askari's suggestion seemed fair an good, but if everyone else feels we should just leave it as it is, fine! I won't object, it is that way anyway and after all, there are many other ways to die through no real fault of your own!

I can't really remember how this thread developed, but one thing has changed since its creation and that is the card exchange rules, they are now back to the original system of requiring at least 5 cards after killing a player, to exchange a set of cards.

Also my rethink on this is to be offered to exchange all 4 cards (2 pairs only) when you receive your 4th card at the end of your turn and not be forced to go to 5 cards, thus not allowing you to form an attack with the extra troops and to start your next turn without any cards and as a non viable target for cards.

There will still be players that wish to hold 5 cards if they feel they are safe to do so and players that say no to the 4 card set if it happens on the 1st round of card exchanges. That's up to those that use maths or like to risk things. However, it will save so many strategic players that happen to get randomly dealt 2 pairs at the 20+ card value.

The current system of 5 cards required after a kill, seems to favour this suggestion.

What do others think about this?

One pair of a colour and one pair of another colour forming a set. After a long time, I am still honestly keen to test this game option. Of course it should remain an option as "balanced dice" and "capped cards" are, and it should never become the standard rule, because it would be very unpopular as a decision.

I don't think there should be any restrictions on the use one can make of the troops he gets by this special set. That is, someone spoke of imposing a defensive use only, when instead I am totally in favour of allowing an offensive use too: this can only help make the games more dynamic and interesting, and it would keep the rule simple.

The way I see it, exchanging 4 cards instead of 3 should in no way restrict the use of the troops received. You are getting what you deserve and what your opponents get for exchanging less cards. Also the loss of 1 more card than a 3 card set is worth 2 extra troops that you may get, should you own the extra card's territory.
Bear in mind, you'll be a card behind everyone else in the next round.

I am opposed to the 4-card set becoming the default behavior of the game. Some have proposed it being a game option and if it is implemented I hope it is only as an option.

Me too, I would like it only as an option.

LOL, you guys forgot to read the thread didn't you?

The 4 Card Set was only for when you have 2 pairs... the fairness is that you have to use up 4 cards instead of 3 like everyone who managed to get 3 Card Sets, but at least you don't go to 5 cards and get taken out by an opportunist.

If - ever - implemented, it wouldn't be a choice, nor would it need to be, it would be something that only occurred when your cards equal 2 pairs.