boylermaker
06-23-2005, 06:01 PM
I was playing Risk recently, and it was one of those games with a whole lot of people around, and I had to leave and let someone else play for me for the first couple of turns, and ANYWAY, when I got back this retreat hr was firmly established: after the attacker rolls, the defender can choose to withdraw all his troops to an adjacent territory he controls, without taking casualties. The attacker then immediately moves into the territory.
It makes the game quite a bit more complex: the defender can retreat in ways that cut off attackers, and the attacker must move so as to cut off retreats.
Even though the complexity is within approved boundaries, I'm still condemning the rule. It gives the game too much inertia: it throws the advantage decidedly to the defender (he can choose to evade good attack roles) and the big guy (he can retreat more). The nice thing about Risk is its high tolerance for underdogs, which this rule eliminates.
It makes the game quite a bit more complex: the defender can retreat in ways that cut off attackers, and the attacker must move so as to cut off retreats.
Even though the complexity is within approved boundaries, I'm still condemning the rule. It gives the game too much inertia: it throws the advantage decidedly to the defender (he can choose to evade good attack roles) and the big guy (he can retreat more). The nice thing about Risk is its high tolerance for underdogs, which this rule eliminates.