My son just opened up his Christmas presents and he got Risk. I’m reading over the rules and where it says you can turn in cards for bonus troops it doesn’t say anything about losing the territories that you’re turning in. So do you lose them or do you get to keep them? Thanks!
I always understood it that you got the extra armies because you controlled those territories, and you went on controlling them. That’s certainly how I’ve always played it - I wonder who gets the territories if you ‘lose them’? Wouldn’t you just use your extra ‘turn in’ armies to occupy them again?
The cards don’t represent territories you hold (except in one of the ways of determining starting territories - but you don’t keep the cards you draw in that).
You draw a card at the end of each turn. The territory on that card may or may not be a territory you control, but that doesn’t affect anything during the game. The only part of the card that matters is the troop type shown, for purposes of making sets to turn in.
Thanks, I understand now!
So when you’re attacking a territory with three troops and the person defending takes out two of your troops leaving it at one attacking and two defending can the attacker bring in two more troops from the attacking territory to replace the two troops that were defeated?
The rules have changed in newer (revised edition) versions so I might be wrong since I played once post changes. Generally the old player turn cycle went - place new armies, attack, move troops. You weren’t moving troops till after all attacks were done so you couldn’t reinforce in the middle of attacking. I don’t seem to recall that change being in the new rules. Look closely for something describing a sequence of the player turn to see if there’s limits.
You are also required, or at least you were, to actually put the “bonus armies” on the country depicted on the card.
Also, just for reference. I was playing in a game once where an individual barely escaped extinction just before his turn, had three cards and tried to turn in a set consisting of one regular card and two “wild” cards. This provoked much controversy and, after much argument and beer, he was allowed to do so. However it was decided, since the rules did not adress this long-shot scenario, that we would write to Parker Brothers and request clarification. We did so and they replied that only one wild card may be used as part of a set.
Personally, I was fine with the ruling even though I had argued the opposing viewpoint. I also think that a wild card should entitle you to two bonus armies to be placed on any country you own other that those depicted on the other cards comprising the set, but that’s just me.
Oh, right, I forgot that rule. :smack:
For clarity’s sake, the bonus armies E-Dub are referring to are not the ones you get for turning in the set - those can be deployed anywhere. But if you turn in a set that has a card for a territory you control, you get 2 extra armies that you have to put there. (So I was misremembering when I said the territories on the card didn’t affect anything. Mea Culpa.)
So, let’s say you get lucky and own all of Europe before the first set is turned in (possible, but unlikely). You turn in Great Britain, France, and Germany. (I’m not sure if those make a valid set, but I’m trying to come up with an example without digging out my copy of the game.)
You get 10 armies, total. 2 must be put on GB, 2 on France, and 2 on Germany, but the other 4 can be put in any territory you control.
“Risk” was always my groups equivalent to the “Friday night poker game” so I’ve played a lot over the years/decades.
Here are some of the more interesting “house rules” we’ve used.
The “extended free move”: Basically you can, if you choose to move, at the end of your turn, armies through any single country you own. You’re not allowed to split, pick up from the transited country or leave any behind. Basically it’s “through one to one”.
“Theater Risk”. Introduces the concept of the “theater of battle”, which consists of the attacking country, the defending country, and all countries adjacent to them. After attacker finishes an attack defender may “counter-attack” from any country in the “theater of battle”. Our thought was that this would better simulate real world combat conditions. After all, if you attack “Western United States”, “Eastern United States” isn’t going to sit there with it’s metaphorical thumb up its’ ass. A counter-attack can only be conducted against the attacking country. If a lost country is recovered during a counter-attack, the attacker, whose turn it still is, can keep attacking it (assuming he has armies to do so) or must look elsewhere to get his card. That made for some wild games, I can tell you.
Another idea I’ve wanted to try would be to have set value be a function of which cards you’re turning in. The value would not escalate, but would be based on the set consisting of three infantrymen, three calvary (which would be worth more), three cannons, (worth the most) or one of each (somewhere in the middle). Don’t remember the exact values though!
Nope. IIRC, you don’t get 2 extra armies for each country you own in the set you turn in, you get 2 extra armies period, whether you own 1, 2, or 3 of the countries indicated on the cards. And those 2 armies must be placed together on one of those countries depicted on the cards. So if you are trading in a set that nets you 4 armies, and that set consists of GB, France, and Germany all of which you own, you get 6 armies total, 2 of which have to be placed together on either GB, France, or Germany.
Also, the rules for turning in originally were:
3 cards with the same picture (including wild card), or…
3 cards with a different picture (including wild card), or…
if you collected 5 (or was it 6?) cards you had to trade in any 3.
The last one was to prevent people from hoarding cards.
The whole 2 extra armies period thing may be one of the rules changes spoken of earlier. Too lazy to dig out my old board but we always played 2 per owned country depicted on the cards.
Might also have been a house rule your group and mine both used.
Not any 3-- They still had to form a set (all the same or all different). But with 5 or more cards, you were guaranteed to be able to make at least one set.
You could still end up with more than 5, by eliminating someone else and claiming all their cards. This could even lead to you turning in multiple sets at once.
I disagree that you would only get two extra armies. Here are the rules (from my game purchased in the 1970s, bolding and typo in the original):
While I can kind of understand your interpretation, you can’t say that getting two armies on each card is wrong. Since it says “on that particular territory”, not “on one of those territories”, I’d argue that you’d have to consider each card separately.
Also, in reference to the question about using two wild cards, it does seem pretty clear that’s not allowed. They could easily have said that a wild card can count as any of the three types, if they meant for using two wild cards to be allowed.
It also says once you have five cards, you have to turn them in at the beginning of your next turn. But it is ambiguous about what happens if you conquer someone and end up with five cards. It says if you end up with six or more, you must immediately turn them in until you have four or fewer, but it doesn’t say what to do if you have five.
Checking, the current official rules (pdf warning) do clarify that Hoopy Frood’s interpretation is what is currently intended. My set is freaking old (it was my parents’), so presumably has the same, less specific rulebook you quote.
Interesting. Those rules look to be a complete re-write, not just an update. They also clarified that if you have five cards after capturing someone, you would turn them in at the start of your next turn.
FWIW, my rules have copyright years of 1959, 1963, and 1975.
My copy of the rules have the same turn-in rules as ZenBean’s
The copyright on my version of the game is 1959, 1963 1975, 1980, 1990, & 1993.
I don’t like that newer version.