**Rejection Reason**
**Rejected by the Community**
Ok well there are two different rules that we could use. We are currently using the 1975 rule set that if you have 5 or more cards after eliminating a person then you must trade in a set of cards if you have more than one set then you can trade in as many sets as you have
In the 1999 rules it is different this is what it says
If winning them gives you 6 or more cards, you must immediately trade in enough sets to reduce your hand to 4 or fewer cards, but once your hand is reduced to 4,3, or 2 cards you must stop trading.
Which do you think is better?
1999 Rule Set *Rejected*
Moderator: Community Team
1999 Rule Set *Rejected*
Last edited by moz976 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:58 am, edited 7 times in total.
Here is my 2 cents on why I think we should use the 1999 rule set.
If you use the 1975 rules and are playing an escalating card value and a person can cash in 2 sets of cards back to back that person is going to have an extremly high amount of armies to use and will most likely win the game.
But if you use the 1999 rules the only get to cash in one set immedietly so you have more of a chance to defend yourself.
Anyways just wanted to add my reason for wanting the change.
If you use the 1975 rules and are playing an escalating card value and a person can cash in 2 sets of cards back to back that person is going to have an extremly high amount of armies to use and will most likely win the game.
But if you use the 1999 rules the only get to cash in one set immedietly so you have more of a chance to defend yourself.
Anyways just wanted to add my reason for wanting the change.
moz976 wrote:Here is my 2 cents on why I think we should use the 1999 rule set.
If you use the 1975 rules and are playing an escalating card value and a person can cash in 2 sets of cards back to back that person is going to have an extremly high amount of armies to use and will most likely win the game.
But if you use the 1999 rules the only get to cash in one set immedietly so you have more of a chance to defend yourself.
Anyways just wanted to add my reason for wanting the change.
I play with flat rate cards so i personally prefer the way it is now, but you have a good point about escalating card values. then again, if a person eliminates someone they have a right to do with the cards as they will.
-
AndyDufresne
- Posts: 24935
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
- Contact:
-
tidalsemaj
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:51 am
The 1999 rules make more sense. At the beginning of your turn you can choose not to trade in cards as long as you have less than 6, but must trade in if you have 6. The rule about mid-turn card trade-ins is to simply prevent a person from having more than that amount at the beginning of their next turn.
Also, many people play flat rate games in order to escape the rampages that result from trading in cards during escalating games. The 1999 rules reduce one turn rampages, spreading the conquest to at least two turns and in-turn making what I think to be a fairer game.
As far as escalating games go, isn't 40 armies on your next turn enough people? The power-trip caused by an extra 50 armies in the middle of one's turn is probably unhealthy. ;b
Anyways, there is a reason Risk changed it to 6 instead of 5, because it makes more sense. If the vote is going to be swung by the power hungry, I think that the option of choosing 1975 or 1999 rules when creating a game would be a possible compromise (though this would probably be a pain). Thank you.
Also, many people play flat rate games in order to escape the rampages that result from trading in cards during escalating games. The 1999 rules reduce one turn rampages, spreading the conquest to at least two turns and in-turn making what I think to be a fairer game.
As far as escalating games go, isn't 40 armies on your next turn enough people? The power-trip caused by an extra 50 armies in the middle of one's turn is probably unhealthy. ;b
Anyways, there is a reason Risk changed it to 6 instead of 5, because it makes more sense. If the vote is going to be swung by the power hungry, I think that the option of choosing 1975 or 1999 rules when creating a game would be a possible compromise (though this would probably be a pain). Thank you.