Reply: Risk Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Would you allow it?

by CapNClassic

Shirtripper wrote:

Since this is the only thing you pulled from my last post I am going to assume that you either agree, or at the very least comprehend everything else I wrote.

I choose it, because it was the second time you repeated it and it appear to be the basis for your argument against placing troops outside territories you control to plan expansions.

Your basis for supporting "playing by the rules," is that if it removes any chances of mistakes, in your next point you argue that it makes you more likely to make mistakes to your advantage. So, which is it? I am sure even you can see that holding both of these points to be true is logically inconsistent.

Shirtripper wrote:

First, allowing a player to do this, pretty much allows them to recruit, place and maneuver all at the same time, which is game breaking in my opinion. This eliminates any chance of error on that players part while others who are playing normally still have a higher possibility of making a mistake.

Second, this makes for a much stronger chance of mistakes that will benefit the player. For example he puts a place holder in a territory with a city, but once he actually does his expansion he forgets to lose a troop to that city pop. Things like that would happen much more frequently than if they played properly.

Your only explanation for this, is that players that place pebbles, instead of counting on their fingers, or in their head are "dumbing down" the rules, and giving themselves an advantage because they are less likely to make mistakes. I wonder why you think your method of counting is superior? The rules don't mention going to the bathroom, or answering texts, or getting a beer. Are these people incapable of paying attention to the game, thereby giving the active player an advantage when he makes mistakes? (What precludes them from asking when they return their attention to the game, "Did you remember to lose 2 troops to that major city?" You argue that there are no chances for mistakes, but simultaneously dismiss all those players taking actions outside the rules of the game that give advantage to other players by not paying attention.)

It just doesn't make any sense. Stu Holttm's comments don't make it any more reasonable.

Stu Holttum wrote:

Ummmm.....tricky.

On balance, I'd probably say not. You have to be careful with expansions as to how many troops you push along each front (Saharans less so!), so I'd be against it more because he would be "skipping" those decisions.

Like you said - expanding while reinforcing "helps him keep track of his plans". I think that's the point - when you move armies along a route, at each territory you have to think "how many do I move"? Playing the way he did takes that tough decision away.

How exactly are you skipping the decisions about where to expand to, by placing troops/pebbles in territories that you plan on expanding into? It would seem to me, that if you are formulating a plan on the board, or in your head, it would require making decisions about where to place troops. How does placing the troops on the board, magically remove the decision making process?