Opponent turned in cards three times in a row?

[josta59]

I hope I'm not asking too many stupid questions, but my opponent just turned in a third set of cards in as many turns. How is that possible if he can't have more than five cards at a time? We have escalating cards, and I thought I was doing alright because he'd already turned in two sets and couldn't possibly do it again. Now I don't know what's going on, but I can't possibly beat someone with so many cards!

[foolish_yeti]

What's the game number? My suspicion is that he eliminated someone and got their cards. If this occurs you can momentarily have over 5 cards, but have to cash them in immediately.

So say he started turn X with 5 cards, and cashed in- down to two, gains a card in this turn- now at 3.

During turn Y he eliminates someone with 3 cards- giving him 6- he's forced to cash in immediately and is again down to 3. Gains another card. Up to 4.

Turn Z he choses to cash in again- down to one card.

Thus being able to cash in three times in a row.

[josta59]

It's game 233904. And 5 - 3 = 2, so for turn X in your example, he should have two cards before eliminating the player, ending up with a maximum of five afterwards.

[foolish_yeti]

first example is fixed- here's what happened in your game:

He had four cards.
X- Cashed in down to 1. Eliminated player: gained their 3 plus a card for the turn. Now at 5.
Y- Cashed in. Down to 2. Gained Card. Now at 3.
Z- Cashed in. Down to 0. Gained card. Currently at 1.

Perfectly legit.

[josta59]

Wow, thanks. After I thought about it for a while last night, I saw that it was more than possible. I just didn't know that you got the cards from the opponent you eliminate. A simple ignorance of the rules. That made me wonder, though...if you have five cards when you eliminate the player, and the player eliminated had five cards...you could have ten?

[Stishovite]

Well you couldn't have five cards when you eliminate a player because you have to cash in cards at the beginning of the turn if you have five.
But you could have four and take his five, for a maximum of nine.

Stish

[tahitiwahini]

Wow, thanks. After I thought about it for a while last night, I saw that it was more than possible. I just didn't know that you got the cards from the opponent you eliminate. A simple ignorance of the rules. That made me wonder, though...if you have five cards when you eliminate the player, and the player eliminated had five cards...you could have ten?

Yes, and since it's not possible not to have a set with 5 cards, you would have at least 2 sets to turn in (no choice you would have to do this) and possibly another set in the 4 cards remaining (which you could hand in now or defer at your discretion).

Talk about an abundance of riches!

[tahitiwahini]

I was wrong in my previous respone. You can never have 5 cards when you elminate someone. In order to eliminate someone you must be in the attack phase. Whenever you are in the attack phase and you have 5 or more cards you are forced to turn in a set. So it couldn't happen that you have 5 cards and you inherit 5 cards from a player you eliminate. Make sense?

Edit: Just saw Stish's response, he's right of course.

[AAFitz]

if you kill someone with 5 cards, and you have four cards you can turn in 3 sets all at once if they match...it is fun...

[cricket]

did u know that if u had 9 cards and u cash in a set, u will have 6 cards. then u cash in and u have 3 cards. and if u have another set, u can cash those in too? i didnt know this until it happened to me.