ok i vote we get to chose whether we defend or are defeated

Sorry to destroy your suggestion, looking at it first off it has merit.

But there are some loopholes:


- Trapping Stacks:

eg. You trap a player's 8 stack aurrounded by 1 stacks, he surrenders one land and releases his eight stack...

- Unpredictable Stacking:

eg. connect 8 lands, and surrender 7 of them before the restack, so you have a perfect 8 stack after the first turn.


Im sure there are others,

if you can dissolve these problems i think its a good idea, but would be exploited

http://aplayr.com/kdice/kdice/ideas/ability%20to%20give%20up%20own%20pieces%20of%20lands%20%28grey%20it%29%20to%20allow%20restacking%20on%20more%20strategic%20areas/

You guys can support it here.

- Trapping Stacks:

eg. You trap a player's 8 stack aurrounded by 1 stacks, he surrenders one land and releases his eight stack...

Isnt it a strategic move? It makes this game rely less on lucks and more on strategies. It is supposed to be like Risk right....

I guess, i prefer the idea of using positional stacks to your advantage,

i think if you eliminate that you're just playing a game of rolling dice.

no

I would like to request a no attacking integral clause.

I vote YES for the integral cause

Someone suggested a really easy way to do this, you can implement without "trapping stacks" or "unpredictable stacking."

Select a territory to freeze, can only freeze one land at a time. Three end turns later it becomes neutral and you can break through it.

There's other ways to go about this, but this is a very simple and easy way to start.

and if you really want add in an option to integrate a land and no one can attack it until everyone's happy now?