This would change games quite a bit, hence it should only be an option, not the standard, but always being able to trade in on 4 cards, even it costs all 4 cards would change the dynamics of the game.
All too often a players game revolves around having a trade on 4, to survive, to win or to be knocked out, it would be nice to at least have the capability to trade (at greater cost), putting the play in the hands of the player's tactical and strategic decision, rather than mere luck.
Sometimes it would extend the length of games, other times it would shorten them. How it would play out could only really be determined by implementing and trying it out.
Let the flame wars, commence. 😉
#Game option to allow trading "two pairs" of cards
zinc igloo
wintry hollow
I actually really like this idea. At first glance it seems balanced and would likely reduce the luck factor. I have lost too many games simply because I didn't have a set on 4
grave vine
I actually really like this idea. At first glance it seems balanced and would li...
Just make all the cards… dude cards as nature intended. Then you can always have a set on 3.
dull badger
I like this idea too. Losing a card is expensive but there are times it would be worth it.
dull badger
For fixed card values allowing a 10 trade for any 4 cards would also be interesting
grave vine
grave vine
This would change games quite a bit, hence it should only be an option, not the ...
2 pairs in the hand must be worth at least 3 of the dudes.
Also a slight design update of the dude cards: