Minimum of Four Cards in Hand before Cashing

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:39 pm

This is an unoffical option that me and my friends play.

Its makes getting your cards harder.

Risk_06 · Post by **Risk_06** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:02 pm

Question.

What if you don't have a set once you have 4 cards? Do you trade a card for a random card from the top of the deck or something?

Like, for example, you have 2 blue cards and 2 green card.

thegrimsleeper · Post by **thegrimsleeper** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:14 pm

No, what he's saying is that to turn in a set of cards, you must have a minimum of 4 in your hand before doing so.

Risk_06 · Post by **Risk_06** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:49 pm

thegrimsleeper wrote:No, what he's saying is that to turn in a set of cards, you must have a minimum of 4 in your hand before doing so.

But...it says...maximum...

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:32 am

here it is in clearer english:

maxium number of cards you can have is 4
This way, there is a chance you wont have a set.
you have to give up three cards when you hold 4 - but if your unlucky - you get no extra armies

It makes getting extra armies a lottery.

It is a killer, when you dont get extra armies.

especially when the cards are escalating. It also makes you play cards differently. - why give up three cards straight away if you got a set with the first three recieved?

wait and see if someone else claims armies first, thus when you play your set, you capitalise.

Clearer? - I hope so, From Pete

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:19 pm

Once again george W gets it arse about face (INVADE GEORGE - INVADE)

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:21 pm

What if you don't have a set once you have 4 cards? Do you trade a card for a random card from the top of the deck or something?

Like, for example, you have 2 blue cards and 2 green card.

IF YOU HAVE 2 BLUE AND 2 GREEN YOU HAND IN THREE OF EM - IF YOUR ONE THE TERRATORIES YOU GET THE 2 BITS TO PUT ON, BUT THATS IT

Risk_06 · Post by **Risk_06** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:50 pm

Errr...sorry. No need to yell; you posted your explanation after I said it.

Thanks for explaining it, though.

Pedronicus · Post by **Pedronicus** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:57 pm

no more shouting - sorry. i dont look at the screen when i type - when i look up and discover that ive typed all in caps, i can't be bothered to re-type.

rip_tide · Post by **rip_tide** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:54 pm

how do you trade cards in if you only have two blue and two green? Also is four the maximum number of cards you can have? You still need a set of three to get armies.

Maybe I am not following the thought process here...

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:47 pm

Seems completely unnecessary to me. Just an unusual varient played by a very small group of people. The ability to hold onto your cards is a strategy which is an integral part of the game.

I could be wrong, but I can't very many people interested in changing this.

Scarus

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:40 am

I totally supported this idea until you explained it...

When, as Grimsleeper said, you have to wait until you have four cards until you cash in, that eliminates the chance of getting two cash-ins in two turns, as sometimes happens after a player gets five cards. I thought that was a decent idea, as two cash-ins in a row will totally end a game at a certain point just because a dude got lucky.

The actually idea only really seems to serve to reduce the number of cash-ins. But if it reduces them equally for all players I don't see what the extra magic is.