I hate playing boards with more than six people. The majority of the time winning a board like that comes down to luck more than anything else. All it takes is for one guy to give up or make a horrendously bad move to cause a chain reaction of eliminations exploited by someone who is simply in the right place at the right time. I'm not saying there shouldn't be big games like that, I just want to know if anyone else out there avoids them for this same reason? Or, if i'm completely wrong on my assumption?

Yep. I avoid those matches for exactly that reason

The actions of other players, which you can't really control directly, do play a larger role in games with >6 players. However, that does not mean everything comes down to random luck. I think there is a distinct skill involved in playing such games well -- it involves diplomacy and Machiavellian thinking more than number-crunching, however. A big piece of it is just staying alive and in position through the early part of the game when eliminations are likely. Then it's positioning yourself to take advantage of any elimination possibility that arises. I find that I can nearly always make it to the late mid-game or end-game of a large (8+ players) map with some patience and good judgement. The final thing you have to keep in mind is that it's hard to win a map with lots of players. If everyone were equal, of course, you'd expect to win only 1 in 10 of your 10-player games. That can be frustrating if you don't keep it in perspective.

It also depends a lot on the card scale, the only way to get that big cascade is usually if cards are worth a lot.  If you get a map with rotating or fixed card scale it is not as likely.l

I agree with your sentiment APOCALYPSE. I find myself thinking "Seriously???" to the large games started on Risk-sized maps. Of course, I still join the luckfests from time to time :)

That said, I agree with the others - 7 players on a large enough map is fun, and the cascades and continent dynamics can be more in your control than on a smaller map.

+1 What Kjeld said.  Looks a lot like luck, if you're not watching carefully.

I agree Kjeld that what you're saying works out if everyone plays with a cool head. My issue is that often times I'll see someone decide "i'm screwed" and just randomly all out attack to get themselves eliminated. When that happens it is frustrating to see the person following that guy finish the game off in one turn due to card scale escalating and elimination bonuses.

I think the only fair way to do games like this is based off what some of you have said already:

1.keep card scales low

2.either remove elimination bonuses or keep them very small

I'm not sure I agree with that.  In my experience, games with many players are also more likely to stalemate, and having a decent elimination & card bonus can help make it worth taking out another player.  Since luck is always a factor, I'd rather lose some games due to bad luck, then have more games which eventually vote to terminate.

AP0CALYP5E wrote:

I agree Kjeld that what you're saying works out if everyone plays with a cool head. My issue is that often times I'll see someone decide "i'm screwed" and just randomly all out attack to get themselves eliminated. When that happens it is frustrating to see the person following that guy finish the game off in one turn due to card scale escalating and elimination bonuses.

Auto (Bot) play is an alternative that some would probably choose if it were available.  There's a thread or two out there covering this topic.

BlackDog wrote:

Yes, Scaling cards and elimination bonuses make for dynamic games.  I entirely disagree that this somehow produces a scenario with more luck, and there is absolutely nothing "fair" or "unfair" about these rules.

I think "dynamic" in this instance is synonymous with random. Perhaps "fair" was a poor choice of words but I do think that escalating cards scales and elimination bonuses in games where people sabotage create a frustrating effect. So perhaps my issue comes down to how some players who give up in a game can be more frustrating in a large format.

Yeah, it's perfectly fair because we are all equally subject to the whims of the other players. 

Given your preferences, I highly recommend focusing more on board selection. For example, Colossal Crusade is a large map that can accommodate many players, but you don't get cascades because cards are 5,5,5,5,5... It (usually) doesn't stalemate because of the aggressive continent bonuses, the fog, and the bottlenecks. If you play the Risk map (Wargear Warfare), start games with 4-5 players. You'll still get the occasional kamikaze, but the cascades aren't as drastic. Also, this site features some great (GREAT!) duelling maps. You have only the dice, the cards, the initial position, and (only as a last resort) yourself to blame when you lose a duel.