Card for Bombarding?

[yeti_c]

Allow me to give a viewpoint which I hope, is simple and plain enough to understand by all.

I'm of the opinion that a successful bombardment should yield a card in cards games.

I find it to be unfair should I not receive a card after a successful bombardment because another player who happens to be beside the bombarded territory which has only 1 neutral army now, can easily attacked and owned it thus gaining a card in the process from my sweat and toil.

But that's still the case - in fact you get a card for turning a territory neutral - then the guy camped next to it simplay waltzes in and gets an easy card as well?!

I think this could be argued either way - but a decision needs to be made - whichever way - and documented!!

C.

[WidowMakers]

This is from the rules section of this site:

What's a set of bonus cards? You earn a card at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a territory. These cards each represent a territory on the map and can be blue, green or red. If you acquire 3 cards of any one colour, or one of each, you now have a "set" of cards which you may exchange for additional armies at this time. The value of these cards depends on which Bonus Cards game option was chosen: escalating or flat-rate. You also get a 2 army bonus on any territory that you own if it is represented in the set.

Here is what conquer means: (webster)

1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2 : to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
vanquish implies a complete overpowering <vanquished the enemy and ended the war>
3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition <conquered the mountain>

Based on these definitions, conquer mean to acquire by force (1) or to gain mastery over (3). Bombard attack does not result in this = NO card

Definition (2), to overcome by force, implies completely overpowering the enemy (vanquish). Bombard attack CAN result in this if that was the last army of an enemy = CARD (if last enemy)

Final Rule based on Definition: IMHO
-If the bombard attack eliminates an enemy from the game, then a card should be given.
-If the bombard attack kills enemies but does not eliminate an enemy from the game, then a card should NOT be given.

[yeti_c]

I agree with the above except for the killing people off - I bet that would lead to too much confusion...

Of course - that leads to the next question - if you bombard someone to death - do you get the kill?

That's one to test?!

C.

[WidowMakers]

I agree with the above except for the killing people off - I bet that would lead to too much confusion...

Of course - that leads to the next question - if you bombard someone to death - do you get the kill?

That's one to test?!

C.

If player A has 3 armies in a territory I can bombard and I eliminate him/her, I would get the kill.

Or

If another players army count drops to zero on your turn because of your attack, you get the kill and their cards.

WM

[MOBAJOBG]

If that is the case, I may decide not to play any games on maps with bombardment as I find this no territory = no card to be restrictive.

Anyway, I've not bombarded any(thing) or territory yet as far as I'm aware of.

Well I understand most of you from the map making fraternity are saying but I would like to suggest that after a successful bombardment, replace the bombarded target with 3 neutral armies instead of 1 neutral army if I don't get to receive a card. I don't agree letting an opportunist to get an Ez card which I've just explained in a few posts earlier.

[benjikat]

Most of the opinion in this thread seems to be against gaining a card from a successful bombardment, but I think it is fine as currently stands, and would definitely reconsider card games on Pearl Harbor if it got changed.

The rules page however clearly needs to be rewritten to say "successful destroy all enemy armies" or similar instead of "conquer"

BTW yes you do eliminate someone if you bombard their last territory.

[MOBAJOBG]

If that is the case, I may decide not to play any games on maps with bombardment as I find this no territory = no card to be restrictive.

Anyway, I've not bombarded any(thing) or territory yet as far as I'm aware of.

Well I understand most of you from the map making fraternity are saying but I would like to suggest that after a successful bombardment, replace the bombarded target with 3 neutral armies instead of 1 neutral army if I don't get to receive a card. I don't agree letting an opportunist to get an Ez card which I've just explained in a few posts earlier.

An improvement; I should be allowed to choose the number of armies available where I'd attacked from and assigned to the bombarded target as neutral armies. Therefore, no more Ez cards for opportunist.

[yeti_c]

If that is the case, I may decide not to play any games on maps with bombardment as I find this no territory = no card to be restrictive.

Anyway, I've not bombarded any(thing) or territory yet as far as I'm aware of.

Well I understand most of you from the map making fraternity are saying but I would like to suggest that after a successful bombardment, replace the bombarded target with 3 neutral armies instead of 1 neutral army if I don't get to receive a card. I don't agree letting an opportunist to get an Ez card which I've just explained in a few posts earlier.

Now that I don't like - AT ALL!! - it's your choice to bombard the target - it's your choice to leave the territory at neutral 1... if it leaves an easy card for someone else who you don't want to give an easy card to - then don't do it... Tactics & Strategy.

C.

[MOBAJOBG]

Who came up with the bombardment feature? I would certainly like to hear what he has to say about how this should actually be played out.

Seriously speaking, I would just play no cards games on maps with the bombardment feature.

[cairnswk]

Below are two of the rules from the original RISK Game (1959).

[cairnswk]

1. "He gets no cards if he has not captured a territory on that turn."

2. "When an attacker has caused the last army of an opponent to be removed from a territory, he captures that territory."

For bombardment, these two rules clash. On the one hand you eliminate the opponent, but you don't take over the territory.

IMHO...it doesn't matter which way you look at these original rules.
The Bombardment feature is not mentioned in these original rules, and therefore I beleive we should have a RULE on CC for this feature.

I think a card should be given for successful bombardment as this play is the same as attacking a position and killing all the oppponents but not occupying it because it may not suit your strategy at the time. You do put your armies "at risk" by attacking as pointed out in a previous post.
You do succesfully eliminate the oppponents from that territory which is the equivalent of the original rules. It simply means that territory cannot attack you back until some other opponent occupies that space on the map, in which case they get a card for taking over that terit.

Just my thoughts as a mapmaker....and yes Lackattack needs to clarify this in the rules section.

[Clive]

1. "He gets no cards if he has not captured a territory on that turn."

2. "When an attacker has caused the last army of an opponent to be removed from a territory, he captures that territory."

For bombardment, these two rules clash. On the one hand you eliminate the opponent, but you don't take over the territory.

IMHO...it doesn't matter which way you look at these original rules.
The Bombardment feature is not mentioned in these original rules, and therefore I beleive we should have a RULE on CC for this feature.

I think a card should be given for successful bombardment as this play is the same as attacking a position and killing all the oppponents but not occupying it because it may not suit your strategy at the time. You do put your armies "at risk" by attacking as pointed out in a previous post.
You do succesfully eliminate the oppponents from that territory which is the equivalent of the original rules. It simply means that territory cannot attack you back until some other opponent occupies that space on the map, in which case they get a card for taking over that terit.

Just my thoughts as a mapmaker....and yes Lackattack needs to clarify this in the rules section.

I agree with this.