Fencing and Risk

[Elbethil]

I was playing Risk recently, and I had an idea for a fencing variation of Risk: you play the board game as usual, with the exception being attacks. Rather than roll dice, you have a little dry bout instead. If an attacker was going to use three dice, then you bout to three points; two dice means you go to two points; etc. The defender picks which weapon is to be used.

It would take longer than a normal game of Risk, but I think it would be fun to try. Fencing here doesn't start up until the end of september, so I thought I'd share this now before I forget my idea.

[ChrisBrasel]

Yea, it would take longer, but a good game of Risk already takes 2 weeks to play.

[T. Mock]

The problem with using fencing instead of dice means that the emphasis turns away from strategy and the better fencer has a very distinct advantage. Dice create a level playing field and only through strategy and the odds of the roll on your side can you gain an advantage. I guess that the fencing skill of a person could be thought of as the strength/training/commanders which the other force just has to deal with. I think it might be interesting to try but I don't know if I could do an entire game like that. Then again, no one in my RISK group fences so I don't really have the option anyway.

*Editted for spelling*

[IU_Epee]

This wouldn't scale too well late in the game. You turn in a book and get 50 new troops, then send them all to attack the thirty troops your friend has in Kamchatka, and have to fence maybe 20 or 30 3-point bouts before the game can continue.

[TrainingDummy]

Sounds like me, I always have a ****load of cannons on Iceland and like one little dude in all my other countries.

[Phaeton]

This wouldn't scale too well late in the game. You turn in a book and get 50 new troops, then send them all to attack the thirty troops your friend has in Kamchatka, and have to fence maybe 20 or 30 3-point bouts before the game can continue.

That's the best part.

Just hope the 30th bout isn't sabre....

[Mauler]

Can I be the referee?

[Black Jeebus]

Watch this- I'll make Mauler cry...
No. You don't have the special RISK Referree rating... you have to find someone to give you a copy of the handbook, and then administer the written test, then a few months later you have to find them again to give you the practical.

[Mauler]

Isn't there some RISK-centric area I could relocate to instead? That way I could drastically accelerate the process, say over pizza with the said rules rep?

[RITFencing]

Isn't there some RISK-centric area I could relocate to instead? That way I could drastically accelerate the process, say over pizza with the said rules rep?

Or what about a bbq?

[Mauler]

RIT-Q!!!!!

[RITFencing]

RIT-Q!!!!!

Hey, the last RIT-Q gave me a bunch of rep... and there's another on saturday... too bad you're so far away, Jay

[Moses]

Sounds a bit like chessboxing, only less thinking and more poking.

Like all things in life should be.

-Da Mose

[Sciurus-Rex]

Yea, it would take longer, but a good game of Risk already takes 2 weeks to play.

??? You're obviously not playing it correctly. Our games take three or four weeks.

[MikeHarm]

That would work. Chess might be interesting too, maybe you could have the pieces relate to the rating of the fencer if you had enough fencers for it.

[die Fechterin]

The problem with using fencing instead of dice means that the emphasis turns away from strategy and the better fencer has a very distinct advantage.
*Editted for spelling*

Funny how that parallels real life, eh? I don't know of any war that was won or lost because dice allowed for an equal playing field. Sounds like fun to me. I'll still build up in Aulstral-Asia!

[T. Mock]

Funny how that parallels real life, eh? I don't know of any war that was won or lost because dice allowed for an equal playing field. Sounds like fun to me. I'll still build up in Aulstral-Asia!

The point I was making is that being a good fencer does not directly relate to your ability to strategize and to be a good commander. Therefore, the advantage of higher quality of a fencer should affect the game in a way that the better strategizer is going to lose. If you think of all the playing pieces have equal skill level and the winner is the person using the pieces better, dice is best way to reproduce this. Fencing for for it becomes messy because you can create very unlikely situations much more often than is statistically probable. Also, where are you going to find an unbiased ref?

[RoninX]

Also, where are you going to find an unbiased ref?

Find a "Diplomacy(TM)" player. They could care less who wins your silly little game of luck

[T. Mock]

If you play RISK with the advanced player variations or 2210 which uses command cards the luck is even more outweighed by teh strategy that you have to come up. Which I guess if you are a good fencer then part of your strategy could be to convince your game-mates to play without dice. I personally would not trust a non-RISKer to ref my matches. Those other board gamers are an odd lot.

[Chafunkta]

It would take longer than a normal game of Risk, but

Oh dear God...

Seems like the game would shift to the side of the better fencer... So would it really be a risk, then? (If you were the better fencer)