elimination and cards

Capitals, Schmapitals... I have scoured the internet for a site where I could play [b]Risk![/b] From my perspective, it would be a pity if the decision at hand were skewed by how it might affect a version of the game that did not exist when the rules were written.

There is one major issue I see with this option if I can call it an option. We already experience this issue in games as it is with the low probability of a double turn in at 6 cards. When a game gets going and the turn in gets higher sometimes players with less experience decide that instead of having patience to wait it out and opts to go for a kill for a double turn in at 6 cards to try and gain an advantage. In most cases this does not work and instead makes him/her self vulnerable to attack and an easier kill for 4 cards. The same would apply now if players would be able to turn in with only 3 cards. A less experienced player may opt to try for a kill for a chance to turn in at 3 cards. Knowing that it is a possibility but not thinking that it is not a high probability of happening. It would create more games where players get upset over being killed when they knew that it was a low chance of success. The same way people get mad now when you go for a kill for 6 cards and a chance at a double turn in when there is a low chance of success for that as well. I am just one of many but I thought that I would bring up this point before we chose on what to use. If the majority would enjoy the change then I have no problem with it. In my personal opinion though I like the turn in the way it is now and would not change it.

I am in agreement with Holt. I think this rule change will have virtually no impact on what I do. I think it will impact people who like to die early--allowing them to die earlier.

I am going to admit here that I have not read most of the posts in this thread, but I am stating my opinion on the broad topic of elimination and cards. Why is it allowed to turn in cards when you defeat a player? The original reason you turn in cards is: to prevent the situation of you having five (5) or more cards after killing a player, causing you to have six (6) or more cards at the start of your next turn. I don't see what's wrong with having six (6) or more cards at the start of your next turn, considering that would give you the same chance of a double turn in just at a later time. It is purely luck based (unless you hold a wild) to even be able to do a double turn in with seven (7) cards. I prefer skill based options, even if this allows for bad players to make bad game play decisions. Thus it should be all or nothing: either allow no sets to be turned in after you kill a player, or allow any and all sets to be turned in after you kill a player.

Only being able to turn in one set after killing a fool would slow down the landslide effect with increasing card games. I find increasing games is more about when you turn in and who you take out rather than establishing a territory. If you position yourself well, you can be a turtle then run over the entire board with a well timed take out and turn in.

Holt, Paddlin. Glanru, Brewdog all them said the same thing I was stating with players...just I am not sure this is a bad thing, just to know it will happen. Maybe a option?

The original American rules are very similar to the modern game. But the European rules of the years '60 and '70 are definitely different. Little by little Europe adopted the American rules. Italy is the only country which still keeps the old European rules. I like to change the rule but I prefer to make it as an option. I think the option should be "all or nothing" as Glanru said: [u]after killing a player you can turn in, or you cannot.[/u] He also said another important thing: why a player must turn in when he holds 5 cards? This rule is important for [i]increasing games[/i]. Not so for the [i]fixed games[/i] in which is more interesting, in my opinion, the possibility of accumulate cards. Really I would like to make 2 options: [b]- free turn-in after a kill:[/b] YES / NO; [b]- "5 cards" forced turn-in:[/b] YES / NO. Those 2 options make 4 cases; 3 of these cases are existing or existed versions of the game.

[quote=Thorpe - Sep 18, 11:07 AM]As I own one of the "Old Games" rule books...I found it in a garage sale and just read it!!!! Wow! This is a step in the right way! But why did they change it in the later games? Did it cause problems? [/quote] Why did they change it? Why indeed! It is important to note that the rules remained the same from 1959 to 1975, during which time [b]Risk![/b] permanently established its place as one of the great board games of all time. The game's creator, Albert Lamorisse, died in 1970, so we can be certain he was not consulted. For those of you who may have missed it, please refer to post #23 which begins this branch of the thread. There you will find links to the rules for [b]Risk![/b] from 1959 and 1963.

I dont like that people consider lamorisse the creator of risk. He was not a games creator at all. He just invented the dice battle and the idea to fight on the world map. Surely a great innovation compared to "snakes and ladders" or monopoly; but unfortunaternly his game was very unplayable! We can consider Jean-Rene Verne made the first playble version of the game. Then the Parker Bro made some improvements more and also changed the name as "risk". Why they changed the rule later? I don't know... Maybe the [i]"free turn-in after kill"[/i] makes too many sudden ends... you know, when a player kill all with a multiple shot. Since I agree with a 30 days test.

Thank you, Your Eminence. That is [i]tres interessant![/i] I have seen in a few places now, Vernes credited as co-creator. In the brief history below, it says that the cards were not introduced to the game until the American release. So much for my presumption of dead men's opinions. Nevertheless, the point of post #53 remains the same, that the game was played by those rules for 16 years. History of Risk! [url=http://www.indepthinfo.com/risk/history.shtml]http://www.indepthinfo.com/risk/history.shtml[/url]

Ok, I'm going off-topic... but I can't resist, it's really very interesting! The game proposed by Albert E.Lamorisse in his patent of 1954 was supposed to be played on a kind of chessboard representing the world, with 13 x 5 = 65 cases (including lands and also seas). Battles was determinated by dice, 1 die the attacker, 1 die the defender, with re-rolls in case of tie. Very long game! Reinforcements was determinating by special cards. The first French release was in 1957 (3 years later) by the Myro Company. Jean-Rene Vernes was commissioned to improve the game. Maybe Lamorisse had already maken some improvements in those 3 years, we don't know that. Surely Vernes changed the dice battle to [u]3 dice to the attacker and defender both[/u] and decided that defender wins the ties. He also invented the increasing sets (4,6,8,...). Map and reinforcement were like they are nowaday. Setup was absolutely unfair determinated by dice! The first American release was in 1959 by Parker Brothers. They adjusted the setup determinating it with the cards deal, [u]they reduced the defender to 2 dice[/u] and introduced the "5-cards forced turn-in". In 1963 they adjusted the setup again, introducing the starting amount of armies (35, 30, 25, 20) and the free choise of territories. In the years '60 and '70 United Kingdom adopted the American version but they liked better the random setup. France and German [u]maintained the 3 dice to the defender.[/u] But there was something new. They introduced the secret missions (another idea by Vernes). Later the sets were changed in this way: 4 armies for turning in 3 cannons, 6 armies for 3 infantry, 8 for 3 cavallery, 10 for 3 different cards (various but not increasing). That was the European version of the game. In Italy nowaday we are still playing in that way. It's a nice game, very similar in tools but very different in strategy! The difference more or less is like basketball and football. Who know how to play the American Risk doesn't know how to play the Italian Risiko and vice versa. I guess maybe who likes the "fixed game" may have a nice surprise to discover the "Italian game". For complete the story. Kenner-Parker took the supremacy in Europe and made a unification of the European game in 1975-76 with all the rules above, but [u]reducing the defender's dice to 2.[/u] So nowaday we have 3 "Risks": American, European and Italian.

Thank you again, Holiness, for this interesting off topic historical post. Your point about the flux of Risk! rules on a world wide scale is well taken. So I must refine my previous statement to: "...the game was played by those rules for 16 years [i]in the United States[/i]." ...and of course, many players continued to use the 1959 rules after the 1975 version of the rules was issued. Thus, in reality, these rules held sway longer than 16 years ([i]in the United States[/i]).

Well, I can remember getting a risk board from my grandparents. And we played some sort of fixed games. The cards values where like the bishop described: 3 cannons=4, 3 infantry=6, 3 cavalery=8, 3 different=10. We could ALWAYS turn in cards, even if I was being attacked for example (if I decided to turn in cards then you had to keep attacking at least one dice roll). If you had 5 cards, you had to turn in. However, if you defeated a player, his cards were lost. Also, the attacker had to roll first, and then the defender decided whether he would roll with 1 die, or with 2 (if he had 2 armies of course). And, worst of all, you could either defend (place armies) or attack. Yeah, games took a long while to complete :D It was nice playing with these rules, but I think the rules we have on DXII are way better.

I know that version: defender can choose 1 or 2 dice after the attacker rolls. But I don't know where and when it was born. I think someone realized the game is more strategic whether the defense is the ahead. In the "common game" with 5 dice the ratio is near to 1:1 (armies lost by attacker and defender). In the "Italian game" with 6 dice the ratio is near to 2:1. Defender get a very strong ahead! It is not so easy to attack a territory when it has more than 3 armies, but you need to attack if you want cards... Since every rolls is crucial and everybody plays very "defendy". That game should be named "caution", not "risk". Btw I don't want to publicize the Italian version. It has been a great emotion for me to discover the American Risk and I love it! It is more based on skills than the Italian one, also more dynamic and it can make very funny endings. Unfortunately in the ending it become more a numeric game rather than a territorial strategy game. I also love the Italian... Just it is absolutely another game! I could tell about the comparison for hours so I stop. I just want to let you know how this game can get very different changing some little things. This is way I would like to have many options. [I also don't know when/where fixed game born] ... Lol Ty James! Holyness is too much! ... Eminence is ok! ;)

Well, more or less I know the history of Risk, but I still don't know many things. @jamesjulius - Wow what a surprise! Since the "6 cards rule", that we had read in the official rules published by Vexer, was born in the far 1975! I didn't get that, I thought it was a modern changing. http://boardgames.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=boardgames&cdn=hobbies&tm=8&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1975.PDF