Moderator: Community Team
Smokey McBandit wrote:This is different from Risk (c), where you can immediately turn in a set, regardless of the number of cards.
.dwilhelmi wrote:1. This statement is wrong - in Risk, you can only cash at the beginning of your turn, or if you get 5 or more cards after an elimination.
Smokey McBandit wrote:As to your second argument, I provided a reason. This system would benefit the bold rather than the lucky. If benefiting the bold seems arbitrary, well, then so is benefiting the lucky.
Smokey McBandit wrote:.dwilhelmi wrote:1. This statement is wrong - in Risk, you can only cash at the beginning of your turn, or if you get 5 or more cards after an elimination.
The 1959 rules (which is what I play) state that "A player who, on his turn, is able to take from the board the last remaining piece of an opponent, receives at once all cards which that opponent has in his possession. He may combine them with the cards which he holds and IF HE CAN MAKE A SET, HE MAY TURN IT IN IMMEDIATELY ON THAT SAME TURN TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL SPOILS." (Emphasis added).
drunkmonkey wrote:Smokey McBandit wrote:As to your second argument, I provided a reason. This system would benefit the bold rather than the lucky. If benefiting the bold seems arbitrary, well, then so is benefiting the lucky.
I'd like to see you expand on this. There's a great strategy in planning out the order to eliminate your opponents to cash in cards. I'd argue that your suggestion benefits the lucky.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
dwilhelmi wrote:Smokey McBandit wrote:This is different from Risk (c), where you can immediately turn in a set, regardless of the number of cards.
1. This statement is wrong - in Risk, you can only cash at the beginning of your turn, or if you get 5 or more cards after an elimination.
2. Even if it were not wrong, it is not a strong enough argument for making a change. There needs to be a good, solid benefit, beyond the fact that you are not planning out your eliminations in the proper order and would like it to be easier to win.
Smokey McBandit wrote:Eloquent if verbose argument, sir. Not sure what to say. Agree to disagree?
Smokey McBandit wrote:The bold guy is the attacker. Example:
I have 3 cards and 30 troops and no set. You have 4 cards, 30 troops (I don't know if it's a set). Player 3 has 6 troops and 1 card. It is my turn. Next set is 25 guys.
I can take out player 3, but it is almost no benefit to do so because I can't turn in a set after doing it and I make myself weaker by attacking him. I don't know if you have a set, but I have to assume you do. If I could turn in a set after taking him out, it would benefit me to take out player 3 because I would then have a 67% chance of turning in a set. So, the system will have encouraged me to act more boldly, take out player 3 and then attack you.
Basically, by bold, I mean that this system would shift the paradigm to benefit the attacking, advancing player instead of the defending, complacent one.
Another way to say it is that it would enable runs instead of putting breaks on them.
Smokey McBandit wrote:Yeah, well, i'm trying to explain this by typing on my phone while sitting at my desk at work. I just don't get how it's a hard concept to grasp...
TheForgivenOne wrote:I prefer it the way it is. People complain enough about luck on here "Man, you got such lucky dice", "Man, you got so lucky that you had a 3 card cash right there". This would just create more people complaining about luck in my opinion.
White Moose wrote:
Accually, it's you who fail to grasp the way escalating currently works, it seems.
Instead of having all the advantage on attacking, one has to take STRATEGY into account.
No, it won't be changed.
No, it shouldn't be changed.
s3xt0y wrote:Cash is worth 20 troops
Player A has 25 troops 5 spoils
Player B (Yourself) has 25 troops and 1 spoil
Player C has 12 troops 3 spoils
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users