$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 110.32

6,811 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
42.9% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
37 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » General

Subject: 3 players and only 3 players rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Ramsey
Canada
North Delta
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place.
mbmbmbmbmb
Let me start by saying that I am a big Star Trek fan. I am a big fan of Gale Force 9 games. I could not wait to get Ascendancy when it was announced. This was the game I have been waiting for.

We played for the first time yesterday. I loved the game. The way you build the map, wow! The interaction between factions, beautiful! It's pretty much everything I've been looking for in a Star Trek game. Well done GF9!

However...

I have a big problem with the hard 3-player requirement in the base game. I understand that expansions are coming, but it really feels to me like the base game (at this price point) should have come with 4 races to give you the option to do a 3 or 4 player game out of the box.

I don't know about the rest of you, but rarely do my game nights have exactly 3 players present to play a game like this. It sucks to think that we would have to pass Ascendancy over just because an extra person showed up to make a group of 4. This is a game that I can tell I'm going to want to play... A LOT. To have to spend another $30 just to get an expansion that, honestly, should have come in the base game, is a slap in the face. I'd be surprised if I'm the only one who feels this way.

One other thing...

I really wish that the exploration cards had a longer-lasting effect on the game. As they are now it seems to be little more than, "Cool, these are the guys from that episode in the original series", and then the card goes into the discard pile and... well, that's pretty much it, isn't it? 2 turns later, are you really going to remember any of that flash-in-the pan theme, or exactly which planet those cool aliens were on? I doubt it, because it really has no long-term effect on the game.

Don't get me wrong, this is a really great game. I'm sure our group is going to have tons of fun with it. It's just that, for me, there are a few shortcomings in the base game that are very close to unforgiveable. GF9, you are obviously aware that this (the 3-player thing) was a calculated risk and, although it's a squeaker, I have to concede - albeit reluctantly, you won the die toss. I'm hooked.

Yes, I'll buy at least one or two expansions, but I honestly doubt that I'll go all-in with the (presumed) 7 race expansions that are to come. This is because I feel that you played some dirty pool with the launch.

There are probably some out there who'll disagree with me, and point out that this is a luxury item that I was not forced into buying. Yes, that is true. Doesn't change my opinion though. Bottom line is, yep, I really like this game, but I'm a bit pissed off too, for the reasons I've outlined.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The only thing I disagree with is your contention that GF9 played "dirty pool" with the launch. I interpret "dirty pool" as meaning they deceived customers, which I don't think they did. Like paying a popular YouTube reviewer to give rave reviews of a game without disclosing the paid endorsement. Or promising a product that never materializes. I've seen this happen over and over. GF9 has been very transparent in their marketing.

I suspect the price point is largely driven by licensing fees. If this was themed with an in house sci-fi theme, the product would likely have been cheaper or contained 4 players. Having "Star Trek" as the theme costs money. You love Star Trek so think of it as your Star Trek tax.

What I'm intrigued by is that GF9 seemed to pair a solidly designed game with a popular theme. You don't see this often. Toy and game companies usually slap popular licenses on crap games which they then foist upon the public en masse. It's clearly a successful business model or companies wouldn't do it all the time.

I give GF9 props for putting the work in to make a game so many clearly enjoy. They didn't take the easy road. So I am comfortable giving them my hard earned dollars. I hope they stick around. I'd like to see what they do next.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Ramsey
Canada
North Delta
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place.
mbmbmbmbmb
I interpret "dirty pool" as an underhanded tactic. Yes, I understand how licensing works, but I don't buy the argument that it would have cost GF9 considerably more in production, or licensing, to throw one more race in the base game.

The underhanded tactic is (again, in my opinion) putting a product out to market knowing that pretty much every customer is going to pay full retail + 1/3 to get something that, honestly, should have been included in the base game. I have no problem with game companies selling expansions, but this particular example seems specifically designed to fleece loyal customers out of $30 for something that should have come in the base game. My copy of Ascendancy (I presume all copies) included a flyer announcing the Cardassian expansion as "Available Now!". So obviously, it was designed, playtested and printed at the same time as the base game. Cleverly(?), it was held back from market for a little while - just long enough for us to forget that we just dropped $100 on the base game.

Like I said, I'll probably pick up one or two expansions, but I stand by my assertion that the 4th race should have been included and the base game should have been 3-4 players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

VanMark wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you, but rarely do my game nights have exactly 3 players present to play a game like this.

Well, if you want to know about the rest of us, rarely do my game nights have exactly 4 players present. We are a group of only three (I know, sad, right)? So this game is perfect for us.

Thanks for asking.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, but you get to choose what race is your fourth player. If you hate Cardassians, you can get another race.

This is giving the consumer more choices. Isn't that a good thing?

Pre-orders from online retailers have much lower prices than MSRP. If you are paying full retail price, you are supporting your FLGS. Those are good choices too, right?

People pay $1,000s for a designer purse. I don't like designer purses. I do like good games. In that sense, I'm saving hundreds on something I like.

I guess it's perspective.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Ramsey
Canada
North Delta
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place.
mbmbmbmbmb
I honestly didn't think it would be this hard to find anyone to agree with my argument. I hope the car companies aren't reading this thread because I can see it now, they'll start selling Civics with one seat. Because that's all you need right? I mean, it works fine with just one seat, so why shouldn't they charge extra if you want seats for your friends & family?

Hyperbole? Yes. But I think the point is the same. 3 is the minimum number of players required to play this game. So that's all they're giving you. The only reason they didn't add more races with the base game is because they figured they could sell them at a premium later. If all games did this, It would hurt the industry. They are only getting away with it because of the IP.

And Barry, just since you brought it up, I often have 2 players at game night (nothing sad about that). Other times we have 4. Occasionally 5. Rarely, we'll have 3 players. It's weird to have a game, clearly designed for more players (there are 10 initiative cards in the base game), but limited to 3 players just because that's how many pieces they put in the box.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.


...Anybody want to buy the even numbered discs from my Game of Thrones box set?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
the truth is that there are so many possible player combinations that its impossible for designers to create a game that can easily accomodate all numbers.

the theme of the game can influence this as well as the degree of interaction the game requires.

here, while clearly the game is designed to be played by more players (eventually), not just 3, the main reason why the 4th isnt in the box is because they wanted the game to be ready by the star trek 50th birthday.
this also adds the fact that they wanted to have a game to live up to that 50th birthday hallmark which in turn is the reason why there is so much stuff in the box already and the game design is good.

so combined, they probably didnt have enough time to produce a 4th race properly to fit it into the box right away, certainly not at a price of 100$, as to be able to deliver on time, while still retaining a very enjoyable game and definitely expandable in the coming months/years.

i find these discussions about player count issues moot, regardless what your ideal player count is, a different count would have meant sacrifices in some way, and lastly any group that wants to accomodate more/less players will eventually come up with their own houserules to make that count possible anyway.

I dont see this as a design flaw, they simply had to make a choice to make it fit.

at least, here there is no hard limit on the player count as the map isnt fixed in any way so what you make of it is your choice.
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Scholes
United Kingdom
York
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
VanMark wrote:
I honestly didn't think it would be this hard to find anyone to agree with my argument. I hope the car companies aren't reading this thread because I can see it now, they'll start selling Civics with one seat. Because that's all you need right? I mean, it works fine with just one seat, so why shouldn't they charge extra if you want seats for your friends & family?

Hyperbole? Yes. But I think the point is the same. 3 is the minimum number of players required to play this game. So that's all they're giving you. The only reason they didn't add more races with the base game is because they figured they could sell them at a premium later. If all games did this, It would hurt the industry. They are only getting away with it because of the IP.


I wouldn't be too surprised that you're not getting too much support. While the price point is quite high I don't think it is excessive by current standards (and I live in the UK so will be paying a fair bit more than the US). I think that had they released the game with an extra race the base price would have gone up and possibly put people off getting into the game at all. This way people have the choice whether or not to buy into the extra components of the system.

I also think that your contention that 'the only reason they didn't add more races to the base game is because they figured they could sell them at a premium later' is open to debate, they may feel that allowing the game to be more configurable later is a selling point. However, even if your assertion is correct games firms need to make a profit to stay in business and selling game expansions is a valid business model and not an uncommon one in the board game industry.

It is unfortunate that the base game components make it difficult to work with your group, you will fairly quickly have the chance to add on the extra faction albeit at a slightly higher price than you might have had to pay if you had received four races in the base game. Having said that buying the expansion would still only bring the cost up to the level of some of the base games sold by another company producing games based on another well known SF franchise.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Monk
United States
Leesburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmb
I can agree with your argument in that I wish there were more civilizations in the base game. I wish there were 7. And I wish that it cost $10. But I like the game very much for what it is.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Igor Horvat
Croatia
California
flag msg tools
I agree with the OP.

GF9 should have put Cardassians in the core set.

No disscusion.

If the expansion is 30$, they should have upped the core price by 20$ and put them in.

10$ could have been shaven off the price by avoiding double packaging, double shippments and less work hours to pack 2 instead of 1 box.

I realy hope that we could see "collectors pack" real soon with 5 races at a reasonable price.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shelby Babb
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Horwath wrote:
I agree with the OP.

GF9 should have put Cardassians in the core set.


A core box set with the Federation, Klingons, and Romulans captures a good "generic" Star Trek feel. I like me some Cardassians, but they don't really belong in an OS/NG feeling game.

Adding even $20 to the base game may have been too much; there are real psychological barriers that some people have that say "$100 now and $30 later I can stomach, but $120 now is just too much!" And it's not just as the consumer level, retailers also consider such barriers. I mean, you and I may be like "wow, $120 now is better than $130 total", but this is a niche product and I suspect we'd be niche spenders on top of that. Besides, if anyone is arguing about MSRPs of $100 and $30 they're paying too much anyway. MSRP is either a pipe dream or a subsidy you -choose- to pay to your FLGS.

Finally there may have been real licensing restrictions involved that -required- GF9 to release the game the way they did. Maybe they had to make a base game with -just- the three iconic factions. Maybe they had to release X number of expansions in a certain time frame, and pulling Cardassians and Ferengi out of the core was how they decided to do it (I doubt it, but it's possible).

Horwath wrote:

No disscusion.


Yes discussion.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Summers
msg tools
Since when is $120 not a very expensive game? Plus, to include the Cardassians, you'd have to delay release for months. Very happy with my 3-player-soon-to-be-more game thank you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tommy Roman
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand the OP's feelings towards the initial release of three ST races. I cannot claim to have any insider knowledge about the (presumably reasonable) factors that were behind that marketing decision. By almost all accounts, the game has been quite successful.

I was a little surprised that the GenCon releases suffered from absent dice (although they were given out separately- but NOT to everyone who payed $100 for the privilege of missing components). Still waiting for my pre-order, but hopefully it will come with dice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grish
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
"Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life." ♯ ♩ ♫ ♪ - Beethoven
badge
--------ViSiT--------- ---------------------- DockingBay416.com ---------------------- ------for some------ ---------------------- -------STAR--------- -------WARS-------- --------------------- ------l-o-v-e--------
mbmbmbmbmb
Who knows VanMark, you might be right. I'm not going to dismiss what you say, I just don't think there is any way for us to know.

I'm no expert for board games, but I think the best way of looking at this question is to compare this $100 game to other $100 games.

If I compare Star Trek Ascendancy to Rebellion, it definitely feels like a lighter game. There are less sculpts, and they are of much poorer quality. There is less art and the cards are on the flimsy side.

However, we don't know the licensing fee cost, and even if the fee is less than Star Wars, maybe GF9 is less efficiently run, or can't get as good deals for part sourcing? I mean, there are so many variables, there is no way for us to know what is going on unless an insider comes forward and spills the beans.

Sadly, I don't think any of those phantom "Russian Hackers" Hilary is so worried about are going to hack into GF9 and do an email dump for us

Would be nice to be a fly on the wall at GF9 though, wouldn't it?

As it stands, I feel the game is good, and that I'm not being completely gouged. However, if the base game had 4 factions, I'd be raving at the value and ecstatic with the purchase.

I am worried that prices for games are going up, but is that inflation? Is that a shift in philosophy to get more money out of us, like they have been doing with video games (dlc/micro transaction garbage)? Again, I don't have enough info to make that judgement, but I won't outright dismiss what you are saying VanMark.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
VanMark wrote:
I interpret "dirty pool" as an underhanded tactic. Yes, I understand how licensing works, but I don't buy the argument that it would have cost GF9 considerably more in production, or licensing, to throw one more race in the base game.

It would have increased the production cost by about 33% (about $5-$10 per copy of the game), which would have been passed on to the consumer, raising the retail price by about $10-$20. And people already complain about the price. Also, holding off on release until another faction is ready would have further delayed the release.

If you like, you can pretend that the base game has four factions by not buying it until the Cardassian expansion is out, so you're waiting an extra month or two, and paying $40 extra. I, however, am perfectly happy to play with the 3-player version of the game until additional factions are available. I have the expansions on pre-order, but I don't need them in order to play it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Price
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
Member of the San Francisco Game Group since 2005
badge
This is a customized Bane Tower from the game Man o' War
mb
Yea, I also respectfully disagree. Boardgames are expensive these days. The licensing fees certainly add to this cost, though I also have no idea what they run. I think the price is fair for what you get, even if the in-box player count is low.

I want to see GF9 make a healthy profit on this game. Their games tend to be good, and I'd like to see them use that Star Trek license often and well!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
mbmbmbmbmb
I hope you did a little research before buying the game, and you knew there were 3 factions in it, with additional ones coming out later. This was widely advertised information.

I don't understand the reasoning behind knowing exactly what's in the game, then making a decision to buy the game, then complaining that you don't like what's in the game.


Like a previous post stated, I'd love it if 7 factions came in the base game. But they didn't. You knew that. Yet you're still complaining.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Ramsey
Canada
North Delta
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Screws fall out all the time. The world is an imperfect place.
mbmbmbmbmb
cbs42 wrote:
I hope you did a little research before buying the game, and you knew there were 3 factions in it, with additional ones coming out later. This was widely advertised information.

I don't understand the reasoning behind knowing exactly what's in the game, then making a decision to buy the game, then complaining that you don't like what's in the game.


Like a previous post stated, I'd love it if 7 factions came in the base game. But they didn't. You knew that. Yet you're still complaining.


Look at other licensed games by GF9. Spartacus, Firefly, Sons of Anarchy. They all have a built-in ability to accommodate varying numbers of players. Yes, I'm aware that those games have expansions too, but they all had a built-in player range. Ascendancy is GF9s priciest offering to date, I stand by my assertion that for $100, this should have been a 3-4 player game. They know, from previous experience, that they'll be able to sell expansions. Expansions are fine - that's not my complaint.

This is about perceived value. Yes, I was aware of the 3 player limit before I bought the game. Now that I've played the game, I have an opinion about what I got for my money. It feels, to me, like I got an incomplete product.

I guess I'm the only one to have ever purchased something and not be 100% satisfied with what I got... I wonder why all those stores have return counters then?

Wait!?!? are they all there...

Just

For

ME????
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
You can take my game… when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the board!
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if playtime was a factor as well. Start people with 3 player/less downtime as they learn the game, and then hopefully people know the game enough when adding expansions that playtime/downtime doesn't get to be too much. Long downtime could make for a bad first impression.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zenvious
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
VanMark wrote:
I honestly didn't think it would be this hard to find anyone to agree with my argument.


Well sorry but welcome to the internet where opinions are varied and people have various views and are happy to share them in the hopes of educating each other to help overcome problems and questions asked by others.

Honestly if you wanted "sympathetic agreement" over "intellectual analysis and discussion", I'd suggest state clearly that your post is a rant to vent frustration with no intent to gain a productive response. Say what you want, and you've got a better chance of getting it.

Frankly reading your posts (and I'm not saying this to be aggressive - simply observing what you have said and being baffled by it), its hard to tell if you're being sincere or attempting trolling (if its the latter, its not very clear).

VanMark wrote:
I hope the car companies aren't reading this thread because I can see it now, they'll start selling Civics with one seat. Because that's all you need right? I mean, it works fine with just one seat, so why shouldn't they charge extra if you want seats for your friends & family?


See stuff like that just makes me wonder how serious you are in wanting information. You are clearly well read and educated by your use of words, but it seems your intent and goal of this thread is fuzzy at best.

Also - they do have one-seated cars. Heck they even reduced the number of wheels those cars use by half. They're called Motorcyles, or even scooters, and they appeal to a different group of people who have a different want and need for their lifestyle.

And on that note, I return to your original complaint. A game with a min-max of 3 players out of the core box. Ok you dislike it, and others do too, but that doesn't mean thats the ONLY way its seen or valued. I'm buying/ awaiting my copy knowing full well its exactly that as advertised and have no issue with it at all. Thats me. Others share my view. Others disagree with it. There is no right or wrong - only variation of preference.

So you then follow on to say you'd like the game to be a 3-4 player game along the line of what Spartacus was (I own it, and I know your headspace). Yes it would be nice if that were the case, and yes there would be a degree of appeal. I won't disagree there either.

But I do feel the "make your game" element of choosing what expansions you take is something worthwhile. I have a friend who HATES the Cardassian's. He is fine fighting them, but would refuse to play AS them. If they were an auto-include in the game, he'd be put off from the game somewhat. If he were the one buying our group's copy, its likely we'd never see the spoon heads ever as he would forgoe that expansion to go for the Ferengi instead.

I find that element appealing. You get a basic, functioning model to start. Then you choose to customise it as you choose. Heck maybe some groups would prefer to just stick with the base 3! I mean - there aren't extra factions in RISK and it remains popular.

Is the player number that big an issue? I say no. What happens if you were wanting to play Netrunner which is purely 1v1, but your friend brings along a friend. Its your same issue. And it can be applied to a game of Chess (2 player min/max).

Finally the price. I disagree here again. Have you SEEN how much plastic comes with this game? Spartacus was comparatively cheap as the majority of the omponets were card and cardboard. Same again with Firefly (a LOT of carboard and cards there!).

If this game were to have the 4th race inbuilt in the set, the price of the core box would be very close to that of Star Wars Rebellion which is not cheap at all! I'd say it would even discourage their sales and, in the end, GF9 is a company. Their goal is to make money (If they produce a great game along the way, that helps maintain constant sales).

I respect your frustration but I will say it - this IS a Luxury item. It clearly said 3 players when you purchased it. If anything I suspect your frustration is that you hoped for more, didn't get what you wanted despite having all the necessary information, and you probably feel a bit foolish from it - which may be exacerbated on the grounds you aren't receiving what you were hoping to receive again from this thread.

In the end, I'm sorry. I sympathize on your emotion, but I won't be the one to say "You're right" because I feel your whole argument is very short sighted, emotionally driven, and based on a sense of feeling foolish regret. In those cases I say get out of your own way and either accept what has to be done to get what you want (i.e.: pay for what you knew youd'd HAVE to pay for anyway when you made the initial purchase), or sell up on this one and walk away - withe result would end your annoyance and that is the best advice I can offer you from what I've read.

Hopefully there is something produtive and beneficial for you in this purely honest and education intended responce.

Enjoy your day!
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

VanMark wrote:
I stand by my assertion that for $100, this should have been a 3-4 player game.

When Star Trek Fleet Captains released, it was also listed for @$100, yet it was for only two players (or four with a bastardized team play system).
Perhaps there is something behind the costs of a Star Trek license?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald Jensen

Arizona
msg tools
VanMark wrote:
Let me start ...
<-snip->
but I'm a bit pissed off too, for the reasons I've outlined.

Well I do have to point out that the three player issue has been known for quite some time now. Just check the forums here and it is heavily discussed. This and the $100 price tag are old news. You still bought the game knowing about both these issues, so are you really pissed at the right people?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Loren Cadelinia
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it's more simple than that - it was designed as a 3-player game (balance, symmetry, gametime) that is expandable beyond that player count if you so choose.

If you've read through some reviews and other threads you'd find:
- 3-player gametime is already long
- downtime between turns is already high
- price point is among other similar strategy games (licensing?)

Increasing all of those by adding a fourth race would likely turn several potential buyers off.

I won't play Le Havre and Nations with four players due to those first 2 reasons respectively, and I'd gladly take a reduced price point if pieces for a fourth player were removed. You might say that having that the 4th player is a nice option for those 2 games, however, the damage is done and those 2 games have not seen the table much after our 4 player experiences.

It seems as though the game has provided you with a great experience. You were able to play it with 3; although that may not be your preferred player count, you might find 3-players a more popular player count if you continue to enjoy this game.

The expansions will allow you indulge in higher player counts with the added length and downtime, or simply add variety to the current 3-player count.

Of those who are upset that STA did not have 4 players, how many decided to pass completely? We will never know. You seem pretty adamant about the player count, but you aren't one of them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Lemick
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
I have two friends who I regularly game with so we're always on the lookout for good 3-player games. Let's face it: there are thousands of 2 and 4-player games out there, but relatively few that play well with 3. The fact that Ascendance is one of them is a huge point in its favor for me. In fact, even after the expansions come out most of my games will be 3-player with us just changing up the particular races being player.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grish
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
"Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life." ♯ ♩ ♫ ♪ - Beethoven
badge
--------ViSiT--------- ---------------------- DockingBay416.com ---------------------- ------for some------ ---------------------- -------STAR--------- -------WARS-------- --------------------- ------l-o-v-e--------
mbmbmbmbmb
If you really think about it, are three player games really so bad?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.