$10.00
Recommend
21 
 Thumb up
 Hide
309 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [13] | 

Risk Legacy» Forums » Rules

Subject: Official Non spoiler Questions and FAQ rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Greg Bow
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lomn wrote:

Is moving into a space with only an HQ considered an Expansion or an Attack (i.e. does it qualify for drawing a resource card)?

I replaced my original thoughts with the official answer to avoid confusion.

RobDaviau wrote:
A HQ and NO city is an expansion with no troop loss.

Otherwise you would expand and lose troops as per the standard rules for an empty city.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mar hawkman
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ah, that's a very rare case, but yeah It could happen. my interpretation says it's mandatory too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ty Hansen
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Checking a quick question:

Can a player turn in a single territory card with muliple resource coins on it for troops, or must a player have a minimum of two cards to turn in for troops?

We believe a player can turn in any number of cards (including just one), but as the rules use the word 'set' and 'cards', we wanted to make certain.

Thanks for the confirmation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Caldwell
United States
flag msg tools
You Greeks are always children!
badge
Jean Gabin in La Grande Illusion
mbmbmbmbmb
DarthHansen wrote:
Checking a quick question:

Can a player turn in a single territory card with muliple resource coins on it for troops, or must a player have a minimum of two cards to turn in for troops?

We believe a player can turn in any number of cards (including just one), but as the rules use the word 'set' and 'cards', we wanted to make certain.

Thanks for the confirmation.


My interpretation: the minimum resources turned in must be 2 (meaning two resource coins). If they are both on one card, you are still good to go.

When it comes to recruiting, the minimum applies to resources, not cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Bow
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, the rules state "You may turn in 2 to 10 Resource icons." That's how we played it. We allowed one player to turn in a single card with 2 resource icons.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Stenstroem
Sweden
flag msg tools
Rolling less dice?
Does the paragraph "The defender chooses how many troops will defend- 1 or 2 troops." actually mean that a defender can choose to roll less then 2 dice even though he has 2 or more troops in the territory?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Big Head Zach
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Tobnac wrote:
Rolling less dice?
Does the paragraph "The defender chooses how many troops will defend- 1 or 2 troops." actually mean that a defender can choose to roll less then 2 dice even though he has 2 or more troops in the territory?



Indeed he can! His odds of beating the offense's highest die are less favorable, but it also removes the possibility of losing two troops at a time. In certain situations this can give the defender an advantage where there are modifiers affecting the roll.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe O'Donnell
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bhz1 wrote:
Tobnac wrote:
Rolling less dice?
Does the paragraph "The defender chooses how many troops will defend- 1 or 2 troops." actually mean that a defender can choose to roll less then 2 dice even though he has 2 or more troops in the territory?



Indeed he can! His odds of beating the offense's highest die are less favorable, but it also removes the possibility of losing two troops at a time. In certain situations this can give the defender an advantage where there are modifiers affecting the roll.


Usually just done to piss the attacker off.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Butler
United States
Garden Grove
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmb
oldpear wrote:
bhz1 wrote:
Tobnac wrote:
Rolling less dice?
Does the paragraph "The defender chooses how many troops will defend- 1 or 2 troops." actually mean that a defender can choose to roll less then 2 dice even though he has 2 or more troops in the territory?



Indeed he can! His odds of beating the offense's highest die are less favorable, but it also removes the possibility of losing two troops at a time. In certain situations this can give the defender an advantage where there are modifiers affecting the roll.


Usually just done to piss the attacker off.


Although I think the odds are better for the defender to roll one die if he has a +2 to his roll (IE, a fortified bunker).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Butler
United States
Garden Grove
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmb
RE: HQ with no troops.

That's interesting. Last game this came up because the last troops on an HQ were removed due to [redacted]. So since we considered it an expansion to take it back, and it was on a major city, it stayed empty for several turns. Controlling access to it was as good as controlling the territory itself until an extra red star was required for victory.

As it is, had I known it would count as an attack, and grant cards, I might have played things very differently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
6 59 4 14 3 64
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
bhz1 wrote:
In certain situations this can give the defender an advantage where there are modifiers affecting the roll.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that in all cases the defender increases his expected wins by rolling both dice -- though there's new stuff in the 3 Missiles pack that I haven't fully gamed out yet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
6 59 4 14 3 64
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
deinol wrote:
RE: HQ with no troops.
...
As it is, had I known it would count as an attack, and grant cards, I might have played things very differently.
Note that all we have is supposition at this point; the rules support neither interpretation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Bow
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
lomn wrote:
deinol wrote:
RE: HQ with no troops.
As it is, had I known it would count as an attack, and grant cards, I might have played things very differently.
Note that all we have is supposition at this point; the rules support neither interpretation.


Correct, what Stephen says is only my interpretation, that's why I wrote "This is only my opinion."

Maybe this can be cleared up by one of the designers.
Yes Rob answered this below.

RobDaviau wrote:
A HQ and NO city is an expansion with no troop loss.

Otherwise you would expand and lose troops as per the standard rules for an empty city.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Bass
United States
Rockford
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would like to get a clarification of the answer to a question that was asked earlier in the thread, if I may.

Is a player who has been knocked out but has not yet had a chance to respawn permitted to use a missile, or are you required to have at least one unit on the board to do this? For example, I am third in a three player game. Player 1 wipes me off the board, but there are plenty of places to respawn. Can I use my missile during player 2's turn to modify their combat with player 1, or must I wait until I have had my turn and respawned some units onto my new starting location before that missile is once again available to me?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
6 59 4 14 3 64
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules never state, and to my reading, never even suggest, that a KOed player can't play missiles (or scars, or other effects that may present themselves).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Daviau
United States
Unspecified
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Hadn't thought of that. Good question.

I would say, yes. A person who is knocked out (but not eliminated) can use missiles to affect combat. Technically, he/she is still playing the game at that point.

And what a delicious way to exact revenge. Or justice. Or vengeance. Whatever you want to call it.


9 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Yang
United States
NYC
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually bhz1, deinol as lomn states there is no point at which you have better odds to reduce losses by rolling fewer dice as a defender. In all situations (that are in the game), you reduce the ratio of your losses as the defender to that of the attacker by rolling 2 dice instead of 1.

The standard results with (no bonus)

Using a single die/troop to defend.
Defender wins 441/1296: 34%
Attacker wins 855/1296: 66%

Defender expected losses per attack 0.66 troops.
Attacker expected losses per attack 0.33 troops.
Ratio 1.94 (Defender Losses to Attacker Losses)

Using 2 dice to defend
Defender wins 2275/7776: 29.3%
Attacker wins 2890/7776: 37.2%
Both lose 2611/7776: 33.6%

Defender expected losses per attack 1.08 troops.
Attacker expected losses per attack 0.92 troops.
Ratio 1.17 (Defender Losses to Attacker Losses)

And with the +2 bonus from a Fortified Bunker territory.

Using a single die/troop to defend.
Defender wins 864/1296: 66.6%
Attacker wins 432/1296: 33.3%

Defender expected losses per attack 0.333 troops.
Attacker expected losses per attack 0.666 troops.
Ratio 0.5 (Defender Losses to Attacker Losses)

Using 2 dice to defend
Defender wins:4750/7776: 61.1%
Attacker wins: 590/7776: 07.6%
Both lose one:2436/7776: 31.3%

Defender expected losses per attack 0.37 troops.
Attacker expected losses per attack 1.63 troops.
Ratio 0.303 (Defender Losses to Attacker Losses)

Note: Previously I had the numbers slightly wrong for Bunker + Fortification. I was adding +2 to both the high and low dice, when I should have been adding +1 and +2. I have corrected the calculations.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bart Levty
msg tools
mbmbmb
lomn wrote:
deinol wrote:
RE: HQ with no troops.
...
As it is, had I known it would count as an attack, and grant cards, I might have played things very differently.
Note that all we have is supposition at this point; the rules support neither interpretation.


I became interested in this issue as well and after carefully checking the rules it seem you are you are right lomn, you can neither expand into nor attack an HQ.

Attacking requires enemy troops to be present and if one wants to expand he must choose an unoccupied territory but a present HQ makes it occupied.

There is third option though - maneuvering. If you are connected to a territory with an empty HQ you can move some of your soldiers into it - the rules seem to state that only the territory you start from has to be yours.
It is kind of funny because the rules as written allow you to move into enemy territory, just not through it. That's probably an oversight though.

I really wonder what's the official take on this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Daviau
United States
Unspecified
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Moving into an empty territory with an HQ is an expansion with no troop loss.
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Yang
United States
NYC
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
RobDaviau wrote:
Moving into an empty territory with an HQ is an expansion with no troop loss.
DigDug's reasoning seems sound though. I guess it is really hard to write perfect rules.

Who would have thought that defining a territory as occupied because it has a plastic piece in it (HQ), would have prevented Expansion since you can only expand into unoccupied territories.

I guess no amount of proofreading will catch everything.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Daviau
United States
Unspecified
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
CapNClassic wrote:
I guess no amount of proofreading will catch everything.


The issue is usually that proofreading/playtesting tends to involves two sets of people:

Veterans of the game who know it inside out but don't notice the holes in the rulebook because they know what is supposed to happen.

New players who miss subtleties because they don't have enough time to play the game to find them.

Of course, another 2, 3, 6 months would solve the problem but no one is ever going to get that time.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr Punter
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Though the "occupied" statement is key when refering to a lone HQ for Join the War purposes as if the territory wasn't counted as "occupied" we'd be having the debate about whether you could legally join the war in a lone HQ location.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Habib Allafif
msg tools
In the section on Event cards, it mentions that negative effects overwrite positive effects. My interpretation was that this only applies to Event cards (haven't unlocked any yet), but others in my group took it as a general rule.

Specifically, they thought that an Ammo Shortage would overwrite Die Mechaniker's HQ defense ability. I thought they would just combine for a total mod of +0/+1.

Was this rule intended for Event cards only?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
6 59 4 14 3 64
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
It is a general rule for mutually contradictory options (e.g. "you can maneuver twice" vs "you cannot maneuver"). Things like dice modifiers are not contradictory; as you have noted, they are additive. Thus, a fort with an ammo shortage leaves the defender's higher die unchanged.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Bow
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
RobDaviau wrote:
A HQ and NO city is an expansion with no troop loss.

Otherwise you would expand and lose troops as per the standard rules for an empty city.


Thanks Rob for answering this question.goo
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  Next »  [13] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.