This isn't really an ethics question, it's more that you and Player 2 haven't agreed on which game you're playing.
You want to play a game that involves loose alliances and table talk.
Player 2 wants to play a game with strict solo play and no talk.
There's not much you can do here apart from agree, in advance, which version of the game you're playing. If ...
You can only get one card per turn so you would never move from 4 to six in one turn.
Not true. The rules of Risk state that you get the cards held by an opponent if you eliminate them from the game. There is the additional condition: When you get enough cards from an opponent that brings you to six or more cards you must immediately turn in sets until you ...
As per the rules (1993 standard Risk) on page 7 (emphasis mine):
You are trying to collect sets of 3 cards in any of the following combinations:
3 cards of same design (Infantry, Cavalry, or Artillery)
1 each of 3 designs
any 2 plus a “wild” card
This is verified in the rules you posted:
A set is made up of 3 cards with the same Insignia..., OR 3 cards ...
There can't be definitive answer to this question, as ethics generally doesn't provide hard guidelines. But I can suggest several points to consider:
Think about Player 3 first in isolation from "you vs Player 2" shenanigans. Was suggested move directly helpful to them? Haven't you tried to play the game for them? It's about whole group, not just you and ...
This particular question will have 2 different answers depending of the time period & the rule books that you are using throughout the evolution of the game.
In the Parker Brothers/Hasbro rule books of 1959, 1963, 1975, 1980, 1993, 1999 & 2016 you will find the following:
If during your turn you eliminate an opponent by defeating their last ...
I would veer away from having to paying money to raise armies, which, depending on implementation, might be perceived badly (as either being able to pay money to buy huge armies, or requiring money to even make it to the end by having to pay ever-increasing amounts of money just to play.)
Instead, I would suggest allowing players to pay money to re-roll the ...
Be careful. Usually tinkering with houserules, if you overlook something, you can make it up on the spot. If there is real money at stake, suddenly the game becomes much more serious and the ability to quickly tweak something which might be in one player's favor or another is gone.
From your initial idea, I see several dramatic flaws. First is that Risk is ...
Most certainly not!
You will still receive armies and be able to attack in a future turn, as the rules make clear (see page 6: Getting and Placing New Armies - Territories) that every player with at least one territory receives at least three armies each turn for territories, even if owning fewer than 9 territories.
In order to not be a target of other ...
You gain bonus troops at the start of your turn for controlling an entire continent so as long as you still control Eastern Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Western Australia at the start of your next turn you will get the two bonus troops. It doesn't matter if you lose and regain control of all area's in a continent but if you have that control at the ...
You're asking the wrong question here. It doesn't matter whether a bunch of people on the internet think that suggesting moves is good or bad etiquette - the problem is that player 2 'explodes'.
The real issue here has nothing to do with gaming etiquette, and everything to do with dealing with interpersonal conflict.
The solution is, to have a calm ...
Disclaimer: I have some programming background but haven't ever actually tried to make a Risk AI, so this isn't 100% definitive.
Although making a "perfect" Risk AI might be, it seems like it wouldn't in theory. At the end of the day, Risk is a resource management game, and that's something a computer can do.
For starters, the combat mechanism is fairly ...
I think the answer to your question is 'no', but it all depends on the timeline which you haven't clearly explained.
At the beginning of your turn you calculate the bonus armies you receive. In addition to bonus armies for the number of territories you occupy, you receive bonus armies for any complete continents you control. Because this is calculated at ...
Yes, depending on how your group places their stickers.
Initially, the game makes the Australia problem worse, not better. This happens because a player wins when they have 4 Victory Points instead of when they remove all opposition. It is relatively easy to sit back and consolidate your forces in Australia, then attack to get 2-3 Victory Points in a single ...
From these rules:
The player who completes his or her mission first-and reveals the Mission
card to prove it-wins.
The rules make no mention of ordering, or of only being able to win at a specific time. If both players achieve a mission at exactly the same time, and both reveal their completed missions, then they have both fulfilled the win condition. ...
They initially choose to attack me. At this point I speak up
Separately from whether alliance-forming should be part of the game, I think it's also worth considering whether negotiating with someone after they've declared their move, in an attempt to talk them down and make them withdraw that move and replace it with another, should be part of the game. ...
Per the rules
You gain bonus troops for each of your turns you start while in control of the continent
In addition, at the beginning of your turn you will receive
armies for each continent you control.
Yes, you get the base count, plus any continent bonus, plus the value of the cards you trade in, plus 2 bonus troops for trading in a ...
This is not explicit in the rules. But common sense kicks in.
The rules mention a trade in, no discard or remove from game.
The rules mention that each set has a higher unit value and there is no end mentioned of the set.
So reusing is more logical than the set ending. So you can safely assume that you can reuse the traded in cards.
I have since confirmed the rules. My scenarios for 'Battle 2' and 'Battle 3' are incorrect. Once a die has been used in a battle, it cannot be used in that battle again. The only reason for a player having more dice than their opponent is to increase their chance of rolling a higher number.
This is purely based on your group and the people you play with.
This form of "prompting" is often als called meta-gaming. You game outside the game. With the people I frequently play with, this is abundant. It adds a new layer of depth to the game. You get shifting alliances, backstabbing, and politics during the game.
Another observation is that this ...
If you are online, the easiest way to determine whether you have a good chance of winning a battle is to use this calculator:
It emphasizes a non-trivial conclusion: if you have the choice, always attack the big guys first in your sequence!
For instance, if you have 6 on a territory, and want to attack a 2 and a 1 (and you ...
There are cases where cards can be turned in during a turn; for example, if conquering another player results in the victor having more than four cards. In this case, the rules say the cards should be redeemed immediately, the new armies placed, and the turn continued.
I think if someone has started their turn and failed to redeem cards they were required ...
Meta suggestion: Playtest: I strongly suggest that you do a dry run with whatever combination of rule modifications you come up with. Maybe give a few Risk-loving friends allocations (different allocations, since different people will have different amounts of money they are willing to spend) of poker chips, and try some of the rule ideas that get ...
In my opinion, the question if prompting moves to other players is welcome or not depends on the intention of the helping player. I think it's always nice to help players, e.g. to avoid bad mistakes, especially if they are new to a game and as long as this does not directly help or harm any other players.
If you prompt alternate moves because they would fit ...
Have you considered playing better other games? Catan and Risk are pretty much designed to be explosive in exactly the way you mention. Communication itself isn't the problem, so much as ease of manipulating an other player's strategy into your own.
For fully cooperative games there's Pandemic, Forbidden Island/Desert, and many others.
There's competitive ...
Based on the implications in the rules, in order to conquer a territory it needs to be occupied.
Conquering is only referred to on page 12 of the rules, which indicates that it is the action taken after successfully Attacking an occupied territory.
Occupying an empty territory is referred to as Expanding by the rulebook on page 10.
It's possible the iPad version is using different rules, but the official rules for the classic Risk Game are as follows:
Eliminating an opponent.
If during your turn you eliminate an
opponent by defeating his or her last army on the game board, you win any
RISK cards that player has collected.
So you get all of the ...