# How does DeGray's Pilebunker chip work when trashing Gems of size 2+? [closed]

In Puzzle Strike, the "Pilebunker" chip says:

Opponents reveal their hands, trash their largest [Gem chip], then you gain that many [1 Gems chip]s.

How does this work when trashing 2-Gem, 3-Gem, or 4-Gem chips?

More specific example: if it's a 2 player game and I play Pilebunker, and my opponent trashes a 4-Gem chip, which do i gain?

• 1 1-Gem chip, or
• 4 1-Gem chips?

Edit: As per @lilserf's answer, I had misread the tile completely. A full list of tiles can be found here. And here is what the chip actually says:

-

## closed as unclear what you're asking by Joe W, Toon Krijthe, doppelgreener, diego, My Turn YetFeb 10 '15 at 16:51

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

## 1 Answer

You don't gain anything!

Pilebunker's actual wording is:

Opponents reveal their hands, trash their largest [Gem chip], then gain that many [1 Gem chip]s.

Note that it's "then gain", not "then you gain" - each opponent gains the 1-Gems. Pilebunker effectively splits their biggest gem in their hand into 1-gems, diluting their deck.

-
Wow, if that's true then both me and a friend both misread the tile completely. – Mag Roader Oct 20 '10 at 14:12
I too played this one wrong today. We went back and forth discussing possible interpretations, and decided that just breaking up the opponents' gems didn't seem powerful enough, and that it must be conferring some transfer of benefit to the holder. Of course, I wound up losing that game anyway -- perhaps for having too many 1-gems in my own hand. – seh Feb 12 '11 at 22:04
Yeah, breaking the opponent's gems actually turns out to be INCREDIBLY annoying and plenty powerful, though it doesn't seem so at first. – lilserf Feb 13 '11 at 2:05