Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Risk Legacy» Forums » Rules

Subject: Some rules questions and a game concern. No spoilers except some mission cards rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Green
United Kingdom
Reading
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi folks,

We've played about four games now and it's been going really well, but a few awkward questions have come up.

1. When a mission card says "conquer", what does that actually mean? Does it mean -
a) control;
b) control, having not controlled before;
c) take from another player?
In our fourth game a player started in an area with many cities and expanded into them, immediately claiming a "conquer X cities" mission, but we had doubts about whether he had "conquered" them; the rulebook doesn't give a formal definition but it only uses the word in the context of attacks against other players. We couldn't decide on a fair interpretation after looking at the other cards - it seems unreasonable that a mission saying "conquer a continent" should be awarded to a player who already owned a continent when the card came up; but equally unreasonable a player who owned a single territory on a continent at the start of their turn couldn't conquer all provinces on the continent because the one they already held would not be "conquered" that turn. What's the reading here?

2. "Control 7+ .." means "7 or more", or "more than 7"?

3. In the five-player games we've been playing things seem to have started breaking down. At the moment almost every game has gone the same way, two groups of two players have gotten into ding-dong battles with each other over HQs, and the fifth player has been happily ignored and built up a huge force then swept the board. Moreover, that player has been the same person for 3 games and that's only making the situation worse - nobody wants to attack him when others are starting with Red Stars (and thus are much greater risks to let through to capture) while he has 3 missiles (and thus a number of attacks against him will be sure losses). I'm very familiar with this problem in multiplayer games ("whoever doesn't get ganged up on wins"), have others encountered it in Legacy? Can it be countered in any way?

4. Is there a graceful way for a player to resign?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) capture by conquest from another player.
2) 7 or more
3) gang up on the strong guy. missiles aren't that big a swing.
4) place all reinforcements in the hq territory and make no attacks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Green
United Kingdom
Reading
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, I'm not YET so worried about the dominant player (although I have heard this can be a problem if it's long-term and they get too many signatures). But the point is that even if we can beat him by ganging up on him it doesn't change the underlying problem that the way to win seems to be nothing to do with strategy or dice rolls and everything to do with how much other players target you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, yes, but that shouldn't be a shock. It's a "take that" game that generally favors the attacker. If the players collectively give one guy a free ride by not attacking him (but attacking everyone else in turn), then yeah, he's got a big advantage. But whatever strategy he's using to appear nonthreatening seems to be working out pretty well. I wouldn't discredit that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Green
United Kingdom
Reading
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
That's kind of the problem though - that we have the combination of:

a) the game favours the attacker
b) appearing nonthreatening is a winning strategy

B) almost completely cancels out a), since no amount of "favour" beats a win.

I don't know - maybe we're just not used to the strategy yet. For example, if someone takes your HQ is it better to try to get it back or to take weakly defended nearby territories with intent to take someone else's later on? The "nonthreatening" player was surprised when he realised the rulebook does not mandate you must control your own starting HQ to win. Is it normal that you wouldn't?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Rochelle
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the HQ, it'll depend on the factions, powers, board, and such.

I think the biggest question is relative progress towards the victory condition - if my HQ just became Joe's third star, retaking it (and dropping his score) is probably more important than me taking Paul's HQ elsewhere. If it's only his second, it's less pressing. That sort of valuation -- Joe has two stars but might be able to put 15 troops on the board next turn, and he's near two other HQs, while Paul has 3 stars but little chance of getting a fourth -- is key.

For some other factors, one of Khan's starting powers is that they get a bonus troop at the start of their turn in each HQ they control. If you as Khan have lost your HQ, regaining it immediately (as opposed to gaining several other territories) may be better so as to get your bonus. If the other player as Khan has taken your HQ, regaining it immediately may be better so as to deny his bonus. Or maybe the other guy just scarred your HQ with an Ammo Shortage when he attacked you, and you don't want to get into a war of attrition in that space any more, and so you move on. Or maybe continent bonuses work into things.

But special considerations aside, I wouldn't call it necessarily unusual to win without your HQ. I'm sure it's less common than winning with it, but in many cases your HQ won't have special significance to your faction relative to other HQs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.