This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting (i.e. voting for) it. Please make it clear for when I check the bets later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.
Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;
This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting on it. End your first post in this thread with the title of the game you're placing a bet on (i.e. voting for) so its clear to me when reading it later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. Counting expansions or not is entirely up to you just as playing with them or not is. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.
Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;
NO: "I distill the Axis & Allies-style conquest game down to its essence, stripping away all the extraneous process that detracts from the fun of rolling dice and destroying your opponents."
RISK: "I did the same thing before Axis & Allies was invented."
NO: "I use secret objectives to give players direction, as well as cut down on dogpiling and kingmaking, which makes things more immediate and competitive."
RISK: "Sort of like I did almost 20 years ago with Secret Mission Risk. You're welcome, by the way."
NO: "Oh yeah? Well, I have unit differentiation. I've got glow-in-the-dark giant bugs, rock monsters, outer space army guys..."
RISK: "And since I have none of those things, you can be seen with me in front of girls without being automatically condemned to a life of celibacy."
I really like the combat in NEXUS OPS--a lot. They did such an awesome job here. RISK is neat in that it doesn't seem like the combat should work at all, but it somehow does. But the unit differentiation, with their movement tricks, order of attack, and so forth make NEXUS OPS more interesting and swingy to me. RISK is so plodding and methodical. RISK REVISED is this, but less so. That's not a huge change.
I haven't had the opportunity to play any of the Revised versions, those arrows in the retail edition look frakkin stupid and I wouldn't play that one just for that, but the rule changes for all those versions sound well thought out so I'll still keep my eyes open for a Halo Wars edition. But until then, I love playing Nexus Ops ...
I'll take standard Risk with the rules we played as a kid -- maximum seven bonus armies per card set. Taking continents becomes ultra-important and waiting to trade in or attack is pointless. The game flows better. But . . . player elimination is quicker and more inevitable. I'm ok with that.
I agree this one is tough as both games are good, but my vote is for Risk.
I really like how combat works in Nexus Ops (each type of unit attacking in sequence) It makes big units vulnearble unless you protect them with other small units and adds interesting tactics to the game. Also, the game is VERY fast, and the fact you're getting all sorts of objectives to gain points makes the game much more interesting than just having to wipe your enemies out.
Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
