immediately turn in captured spoil sets of LESS THAN 5 cards

[Smokey McBandit]

Concise description:

Whenever you eliminate another player and take their spoils, you should be allowed to turn in a set immediately, even if you only have 3 or 4 cards.

Specifics/Details:

Currently, when you take someone out, you can only turn in a set if you have 5 or more cards. This is different from Risk (c), where you can immediately turn in a set, regardless of the number of cards. This would allow runs to continue rather than stall. There have been times I have taken someone out, received a set of less than 5 cards and had to end my turn (because I couldn't turn the set in) and then been taken out. I know, you can plan not to overextend, but this happens when the remaining player gets lucky and has a set of 3 cards to turn in after I have taken out the other players, which he can do at the start of his turn. Basically, the current system rewards the lucky whereas the proposed one would reward the bold.

How this will benefit the site:

Great lords from all the lands shall come forth and give unto us their finest meats and cheeses and there will be much rejoicing.

[White Moose]

No.

There is no reason to change it.

[Smokey McBandit]

Eloquent if verbose argument, sir. Not sure what to say. Agree to disagree?

[dwilhelmi]

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]

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).

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]

1959 Rules, The Play, Section (i), Elimination of Opponents, at page 10.

[drunkmonkey]

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. Currently, you can only cash mid-turn with 5+ cards, when a set is guaranteed. You're suggesting the ability to cash if you end up with 3 or 4 cards, and are lucky enough to have them contain a set.

[Metsfanmax]

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).

The 2003 official rules modify this to be in line with what dwilhelmi said. Older versions after 1959 have similar restrictions as well.

[jefjef]

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.

This sugg would benefit the BOLD that gets lucky. I like it myself. It adds an entirely new strategic dimension. It will embolden some to take more risks and would change boring card games.

[drunkmonkey]

I still don't get how it benefits the "bold". Does "bold" mean you're willing to take out another player, regardless of consequences? I believe any strategic dimension it adds merely replaces the current one it removes.

[zimmah]

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.

exactly. you should just plan your eliminations better, basicly learn to play.

no reason to add even more luck to the game.

mid-turn cashes only if you have 5+ cards. otherwise no. this is also in the original risk®

[White Moose]

Eloquent if verbose argument, sir. Not sure what to say. Agree to disagree?

I have no reason to argue for it.
Your argument is very bad in the first place.

There is no need to change it, this suggestion won't improve or make anything better on CC.

[Smokey McBandit]

The change would shift the "luck benefit" (I.e., the benefit of having a 3 card set) from the next guy after the bold guy to the bold guy. It would not change the game that much. It would be a small shift that would benefit bold players at the margin. You would still have to plan your moves carefully b/c you could not count on getting a three card set.

[drunkmonkey]

You can't just keep saying "it benefits the bold guy" without explaining how, or what "the bold guy" even means.

[Smokey McBandit]

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 brakes on them.

[drunkmonkey]

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.

There's a lot more strategy involved in this scenario than you give it. Implementing your plan takes it all away.

[Smokey McBandit]

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. The ability to turn in more sets is advantageous to the attacker. It also enables longer and more runs.

I get that not everyone supports or likes the idea (some, apparently, even hate the idea and want me to die (see Moose, White)); I'm fine with that. Just thought I'd throw it out there and see what happened.

Like I said, this is the way i play my home games. In practice, it probably shortens games by a turn to two rounds is all. Not a huge effect. Simply stated, it results in aggressive players winning more games.

I leave the fate of this suggestion to the fellow members of CC...

[White Moose]

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...

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.

[spiesr]

While your argument is sort of interesting, it does not provide as strong enough reason to make this change from the way the site rules have always been. As it stands, the confusion and backlash that would come from changing any of the core game rules on the site would be too such an extant that it would require a very compelling reason before such a change would even be considered. I mean, your idea would be worth considering if you were in the process of creating a risk based game site, but changing the rule for one that has running for 5 years? In that case that change would not be universally desired enough to overcome the undesirableness of changing a core game rule.
I also don't see any real possibility of this being implemented as an option either, as introducing options for every rule variation like this would lead to some option creep/overload that this site has sort of tried to stay away from.

[Smokey McBandit]

Fair enough. I'll leave you with this quote, which I find particularly appropos:

"People underestimate their capacity for change. There is never a right time to do a difficult thing. A leader's job is to help people have vision of their potential." -John Porter

[chapcrap]

I like it as an option. Not sure if I would want it for every game. I'd have to think about that.

I always like different game variations. I don't think this variation would ruin the game we have in any way.

[TheForgivenOne]

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.

[chapcrap]

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.

I can't argue about that.

[s3xt0y]

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.

Little harsh...? There would be a different type of strategy involved with this idea. I like the option because there are times in games where you have an elimination that you know you can pull off and then one that if you have good dice you can pull off. For example:

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


In this situation with less than 5 cashes you can easily eliminate player C and could potentially get a set to cash, yes it does involve luck but it opens up a new type of strategy. Instead of risking all your troops to take out player A you have an option to take out player C. If you fail at taking out player C, then player C may have a chance to cash and keep the game going. If you attack player A and fail to eliminate him Player C can then hit him and win the game off of your risky move.

In the situation with 5+ to cash, the only option here is to go for Player A. If you fail to eliminate player A, player C can then win the game or if player C has no set player A can win the game. Because if you went to eliminate player C you would be stuck with 5 cards and Player A would just eliminate you the next round anyway...

There is a lot more to think about with the under 5 set cashes. It would make escalating games more complex in my opinion because you would always have to be worried about getting eliminated instead of cashing early so you don't get eliminated.

s3x

[drunkmonkey]

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

I'm gonna stop you right here. If cash is at 20, and you only have 1 spoil, there are two options:

1) You attempted a kill with 3 cards and missed
2) You misplayed your spoils

Either way, there shouldn't be a new game option to give a new "strategy" for this situation.