I guess it is not clear what we are talking about.
From an historical point of view, what we call the "old rule" is modern and what we call the "new rule" is ancient. We call them in that way because the "old" one has been the previous rule adopted by the site until some months ago, the "new" one is the rule we are using now.
All this is about turning in after a kill, and the most of the difference in game-play concerns "increasing" games. The opinions you can read on this thread, many from the very best players of this site, are quite opposing on defining what rule is the best.
I will try to give a clarification but I'm going to tell you that really the rules are three:
A = Ancient Rule After a kill you are free to turn in if you can, doesn't matter how many cards you have. You clearly must trade if you have 5 or more cards. We call it the NEW RULE. Actually very old but still common in the board game.
B = Modern Rule After a kill you are free to turn in only if you have 5 or more cards. In case you have 5 or more, then you can turn in every set you want. We call it the OLD RULE. I guess not very common on the board game but you can see it in other sites. By the way I have found it in an English version of Risk dated 1992.
C = Common Rule After a kill you can turn in only when you are forced to do it, so having 5 or more cards. If you have turned in one set and then the number of your cards has been reduced to less than 5, then you must stop trading. This is the most common in the board game, but also the most stalemating. Double turn-ins are almost impossible with this rule, they require 8 cards!
"A" gives easier turn-ins, "C" harder, "B" is a middle way. The debate here is between A(=new) and B(=old). Someone, for example Matty, loves the new rule in Deathmatch, because it avoids stalemates and predictable games. Someone hates the new rule in Capitals, especially Thorpe that did quit to play from the rule change, because it cause very short games based on luck more than strategy. Personally I agree with both.
I'm going to tell that I have recently discovered how interesting is to play Domination game-type with increasing (or high capped) turn-in values. But also in that case I think the new rule doesn't work properly. Domination is interesting for me as long as the game is based on conquer territories rather than be based on kill an opponent for get his cards. I think the harder is the turn-in rule, the nicer is the effect in game-play, since I would suggest "C" for Domination.
Is it possible to have 3 different rules for 3 different game-types? In that way:
- A for deathmatch;
- B for capitals;
- C for domination.
This is just the best tuning of the turn in rules in my mind.
In case the answer is No, it is not possible, and we have to pick one rule, then I don't have any doubt to pick in the middle: the "old Dominating12 rule", just the best middle way!
I guess it is not clear what we are talking about.
From an historical point of view, what we call the "old rule" is modern and what we call the "new rule" is ancient. We call them in that way because the "old" one has been the previous rule adopted by the site until some months ago, the "new" one is the rule we are using now.
All this is about turning in after a kill, and the most of the difference in game-play concerns "increasing" games. The opinions you can read on this thread, many from the very best players of this site, are quite opposing on defining what rule is the best.
I will try to give a clarification but I'm going to tell you that really the rules are three:
[u]A = Ancient Rule[/u] After a kill you are free to turn in if you can, doesn't matter how many cards you have. You clearly must trade if you have 5 or more cards. We call it the NEW RULE. Actually very old but still common in the board game.
[u]B = Modern Rule[/u] After a kill you are free to turn in only if you have 5 or more cards. In case you have 5 or more, then you can turn in every set you want. We call it the OLD RULE. I guess not very common on the board game but you can see it in other sites. By the way I have found it in an English version of Risk dated 1992.
[u]C = Common Rule[/u] After a kill you can turn in only when you are forced to do it, so having 5 or more cards. If you have turned in one set and then the number of your cards has been reduced to less than 5, then you must stop trading. This is the most common in the board game, but also the most stalemating. Double turn-ins are almost impossible with this rule, they require 8 cards!
"A" gives easier turn-ins, "C" harder, "B" is a middle way. The debate here is between A(=new) and B(=old). Someone, for example Matty, loves the new rule in Deathmatch, because it avoids stalemates and predictable games. Someone hates the new rule in Capitals, especially Thorpe that did quit to play from the rule change, because it cause very short games based on luck more than strategy. Personally I agree with both.
I'm going to tell that I have recently discovered how interesting is to play Domination game-type with increasing (or high capped) turn-in values. But also in that case I think the new rule doesn't work properly. Domination is interesting for me as long as the game is based on conquer territories rather than be based on kill an opponent for get his cards. I think the harder is the turn-in rule, the nicer is the effect in game-play, since I would suggest "C" for Domination.
Is it possible to have 3 different rules for 3 different game-types? In that way:
[size=14]- A for deathmatch;
- B for capitals;
- C for domination.[/size]
This is just the best tuning of the turn in rules in my mind.
In case the answer is No, it is not possible, and we have to pick one rule, then I don't have any doubt to pick in the middle: the [b]"old Dominating12 rule"[/b], just the best middle way!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
