immediately turn in captured spoil sets of LESS THAN 5 cards

[s3xt0y]

I'm gonna stop you right here. If cash is at 20, and you only have 1 spoil, there are two options:

1) You attempted a kill with 3 cards and missed
2) You misplayed your spoils

Either way, there shouldn't be a new game option to give a new "strategy" for this situation.

Or....Player A just eliminated Player D, or you have had shit dice, or your boxed in, or another player tried to eliminate you and you cashed to save yourself the turn before...there are 1000 different possibilites not just the two you mentioned, I'm not going to argue with you. The point being there would be new strategy involved if you were to implement this type of cashing, plain and simple.

This time before you post think your statement through, this is the type of narrow thinking that the current cashing method complements.

s3x

[comic boy]

Its a terrible idea , it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game,

[s3xt0y]

Its a terrible idea , it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game,

Anyone can say it takes strategy out of the game, how about some reasons?

[Culs De Sac]

I see this change making for more overall aggressive gameplay.. Individuals would be much more willing to take out others if they know that no matter what they can turn in a set if they had it regardless of troop count.. Im opposed to it.. Like others i believe that there is an art and killing the right opponents, in the proper order, at the most opportune time..

Furthermore, let me add that cashing in a 3 card set is an option if you kill someone who has 4 cards and you have 3.. if you get 2 sets.. you are able to play them both due to the kill..

If this change were made.. It only benefits the initial attacker if he has a set to replenish troops.. Because he is not forced to kill another player or make strategic kills. i.e. why should you benefit from a possible 3 card set if you decide to move for a kill in an 8 player game with 6 other players following.... You get a benefit because you attacked prematurely? No thanks

[Metsfanmax]

If this change were made.. It only benefits the initial attacker if he has a set to replenish troops.. Because he is not forced to kill another player or make strategic kills. i.e. why should you benefit from a possible 3 card set if you decide to move for a kill in an 8 player game with 6 other players following.... You get a benefit because you attacked prematurely? No thanks

It's not "premature" if it results you getting in a sweep -- it's then perfectly timed. If you fail to make a set, then you have much fewer troops and will probably lose.

[drunkmonkey]

If this change were made.. It only benefits the initial attacker if he has a set to replenish troops.. Because he is not forced to kill another player or make strategic kills. i.e. why should you benefit from a possible 3 card set if you decide to move for a kill in an 8 player game with 6 other players following.... You get a benefit because you attacked prematurely? No thanks

It's not "premature" if it results you getting in a sweep -- it's then perfectly timed.

Well, take your odds of wiping out a player on that turn and multiply by 1/3. Those are your new odds of a sweep. It's not "perfectly timed" if you happen to make those odds. It means you took a bad gamble & lucked out.

If you fail to make a set, then you have much fewer troops and will probably lose.

And the next person in line has a win fall in their lap, which means everyone else in the game gets screwed. Not because they played poorly, but because one of their opponents did. This happens now, but I predict it would increase exponentially if you give people another reason to gamble.

[Metsfanmax]

And the next person in line has a win fall in their lap, which means everyone else in the game gets screwed. Not because they played poorly, but because one of their opponents did. This happens now, but I predict it would increase exponentially if you give people another reason to gamble.

So you're saying that if this were enabled, you would never take someone's cards in that position because it's a bad gamble? You'd play exactly the same as you used to play?

[drunkmonkey]

And the next person in line has a win fall in their lap, which means everyone else in the game gets screwed. Not because they played poorly, but because one of their opponents did. This happens now, but I predict it would increase exponentially if you give people another reason to gamble.

So you're saying that if this were enabled, you would never take someone's cards in that position because it's a bad gamble? You'd play exactly the same as you used to play?

Most likely. There's a 33% chance of getting a set with 3 cards. Taking a 33% chance at a win is a bad idea (33% is the ceiling, if you have a >99% chance to kill the player). The only time I would use it is in desperation, which 2 out of 3 times would end up handing the game to another player. This is the main reason I think it's a bad idea. It encourages those in bad position to make a bad decision (because they have nothing to lose), screwing the game up for everyone else.

[Metsfanmax]

And the next person in line has a win fall in their lap, which means everyone else in the game gets screwed. Not because they played poorly, but because one of their opponents did. This happens now, but I predict it would increase exponentially if you give people another reason to gamble.

So you're saying that if this were enabled, you would never take someone's cards in that position because it's a bad gamble? You'd play exactly the same as you used to play?

Most likely. There's a 33% chance of getting a set with 3 cards. Taking a 33% chance at a win is a bad idea (33% is the ceiling, if you have a >99% chance to kill the player). The only time I would use it is in desperation, which 2 out of 3 times would end up handing the game to another player. This is the main reason I think it's a bad idea. It encourages those in bad position to make a bad decision (because they have nothing to lose), screwing the game up for everyone else.

Yes, in 8 player escalating games that results in a win-or-lose situation. But in smaller games it's not necessarily the case that it immediately ends the game. Plus, 4 card groups have a fairly high chance of containing a set, so it would make sense to go for one of those.

[chapcrap]

And the next person in line has a win fall in their lap, which means everyone else in the game gets screwed. Not because they played poorly, but because one of their opponents did. This happens now, but I predict it would increase exponentially if you give people another reason to gamble.

So you're saying that if this were enabled, you would never take someone's cards in that position because it's a bad gamble? You'd play exactly the same as you used to play?

Most likely. There's a 33% chance of getting a set with 3 cards. Taking a 33% chance at a win is a bad idea (33% is the ceiling, if you have a >99% chance to kill the player). The only time I would use it is in desperation, which 2 out of 3 times would end up handing the game to another player. This is the main reason I think it's a bad idea. It encourages those in bad position to make a bad decision (because they have nothing to lose), screwing the game up for everyone else.

Yes, in 8 player escalating games that results in a win-or-lose situation. But in smaller games it's not necessarily the case that it immediately ends the game. Plus, 4 card groups have a fairly high chance of containing a set, so it would make sense to go for one of those.

They have a 2/3 (67%) chance of cashing.

Also, I think exponentially is a little overused. I really doubt the bad play would be increasing exponentially. Although, the more I think about it, the more that I don't like this idea.

[Metsfanmax]

They have a 2/3 (67%) chance of cashing.

The odds of having a set with 4 cards are 80%, not 67%.

[chapcrap]

They have a 2/3 (67%) chance of cashing.

The odds of having a set with 4 cards are 80%, not 67%.

False. It doesn't matter what your first two cards are, there is only one card that will give you a set (that's 1/3) if you don't get it, that means you have 2 of one color and one of another. So now there are two of three colors that will give you a set. That's 67%. Where are you getting 80 from?

[comic boy]

They have a 2/3 (67%) chance of cashing.

The odds of having a set with 4 cards are 80%, not 67%.

False. It doesn't matter what your first two cards are, there is only one card that will give you a set (that's 1/3) if you don't get it, that means you have 2 of one color and one of another. So now there are two of three colors that will give you a set. That's 67%. Where are you getting 80 from?

You have not factored in the percentage of 3 card sets that are carried forward, that would take you up to the 80%.

[comic boy]

Its a terrible idea , it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game,

Anyone can say it takes strategy out of the game, how about some reasons?

In short it would take all the subtlety out of the game , for example the art of skipping cards ,in order to manipulate the order of cashes , would be lost. If this rule were introduced then it would just turn escalating into a race for cards , going first would become a much bigger advantage and a 3 card set on second cash would be gold , the standard game would in effect involve the same strategy as terminator.
I can see why certain players would like to see a more luck orientated game , but few if any of them play at a good level , this change would be simply dumbing down the game

[Metsfanmax]

False. It doesn't matter what your first two cards are, there is only one card that will give you a set (that's 1/3) if you don't get it, that means you have 2 of one color and one of another. So now there are two of three colors that will give you a set. That's 67%. Where are you getting 80 from?

As comic boy pointed out, I am giving the odds of any four cards containing a set. You are giving the odds of having a four card set but not a three card set. This is invalid logic because we're talking about situations where you had fewer than three cards and then eliminated someone to get up to 4. In that case, you want to use the pure odds of having a set.

[General Brock II]

Yeah, I don't want to see this rule imposed.

[chapcrap]

False. It doesn't matter what your first two cards are, there is only one card that will give you a set (that's 1/3) if you don't get it, that means you have 2 of one color and one of another. So now there are two of three colors that will give you a set. That's 67%. Where are you getting 80 from?

As comic boy pointed out, I am giving the odds of any four cards containing a set. You are giving the odds of having a four card set but not a three card set. This is invalid logic because we're talking about situations where you had fewer than three cards and then eliminated someone to get up to 4. In that case, you want to use the pure odds of having a set.

Understood.