Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Alhambra» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Why Do People Like This Game? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joe V
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like games that involve money, I like tile placement, and I like "building games" so you'd think I would like Alhambra, right? Well, Alhambra is the most infuriatingly awful game that I have ever played.

For those of you who have never played Alhambra, it goes like this: You are architects, seeing who can build the greatest palace. You get victory points for having certain numbers of certain color buildings and there are rules about how you can place them. You buy these tiles by spending the color of money that corresponds to the place on the auction board that the tile is located, NOT corresponding to the color of the tile. That is the game.

I can sum up why I did not like Alhambra with two points: Little to no player interaction and very limited ability to plan ahead.

I'll start with the first one. Say you're sitting across from someone at a table and you both have your hands on top of the table. You're touching the table. He's touching the table. But that doesn't mean you're touching each other. This is parallel to Alhambra. I was told by the people who introduced it to me that because all players purchased from the same place, that they were interacting. That's a load of bologna. I am interacting with a THING. The other players also happen to interact with that THING. That is absolutely different from interacting with each OTHER. There is absolutely nothing that I can do to or with another a player that is guaranteed to have an impact on him. Sure, I can try to buy tiles he wants. But tiles of the same color are just as likely to come out to replace the one I just bought. Alhambra is, quite simply, multiplayer solitaire. And to be honest, if I had a pack of cards with me, I would rather play REGULAR Solitaire than Alhambra.

As for limited ability to plan ahead, while it's difficult for your "opponents" to intentionally trip you up, the board is still probably going to change three or four times before your next turn. So you may not have the right amount or, more frequently, right color of currency to buy the tile you want or need. And that's pretty infuriating.

So basically, my complaint is that Alhambra takes the game out of board game. I play board games to interact with other people and to see plans come to fruition. I'm willing to sacrifice the latter on occasion, but certainly not both. I can say happily that I'm not the only one with these feelings at the place where I game. Every time two or three people are taught to play Alhambra, one of them will come over to my way of thinking. One even repeated my thoughts exactly, calling it "Solitaire-esque".

There's a good three or four of us that would rather do nothing but sit and talk than play this game because that would at least afford us an opportunity for better conversation.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Hackman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Your description of the gameplay is a bit misleading. You don't get points for having certain numbers of each color, you get points for having the majority in each color. That's obviously the main source of interaction - trying to stay ahead of your opponents in a color without overinvesting in that color.

There are two sources of "fun" that I see in Alhambra. The first comes from deciding whether to overpay or not for a tile. If you can pay the exact amount for a tile you often should unless the tile does absolutely nothing for you or you and an opponent are both waiting for the last purple or green tile to appear. The tricky part is deciding whether to overpay now to guarantee you get a certain tile, or take money and hope to get it on the next turn. Unfortunately, with 4-6 players much of this decision making is gone since you can't expect anything on the board to last another time around the table. With more players you basically just need to buy what you want as soon as it is available.

The other "game" is designing your alhambra. There might be a tile you need to give you majority in a color but it will also close off a side of your palace. Do you take it and hope you can fix it later? Or do you buy another tile that doesn't help you as much but allows you to open up new placement opportunities? In addition, the walls in your palace score points so careful planning here can be worth points. There's little interaction in this part of the game, but it is a mental challenge that some people find engaging.

Certainly with higher player counts Alhambra is a pretty random activity. With 2 or 3 players there is time to make plans and interact more often through blocking. Still, in neither case is the game particularly deep or interactive.
29 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Robert Yu
Philippines
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah you must not like euros then ( or is it just this specific one?)...as I see you are more of an RPG player?

If so then you'd be disappointed with a lot of other eurogames, which are Great ONLY if they meet your expectations. Otherwise, there are a ton of other games out therenwhich can meet what you are expecting.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Howell
United States
Lenexa
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is one of my favorite games, however, I only play with 2 players. As already mentioned, the lower number of players the less randomness in the game, and your plans for your next move don't get thwarted as easily.

I disagree on the game having no interaction. When my opponent takes the tile I really want, or when I am able to pull off getting a color majority and reducing my opponent to second place in points - to me this is interaction.

I do think if played with more than 3 players the OP might have a point. But as a 2 player game, it's great.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A. B. West
United States
Beech Grove
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Why aren't you PLAYING a game?
mbmbmbmbmb
I like this game because it delivers. Sometimes one needs a nice weight to a game and this one is right in the gateway range for me. It's a solid Euro, easy to teach, easy to play and quite fun. It gets off the table in the right about of time. And it supports in my opinion a nice range of players.

But dude, it's fine if you don't like it. I know others that feel the same way.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe V
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not about not liking Euros. Not at all. If you read my session reports you'll see that Euros comprise the vast majority of what I play. Part of it is that I like hard-core strategy and Alhambra just doesn't cut it hard-core. But there are plenty of "light" games that I enjoy. Alhambra is simply not one of them. My conception of Euros is different. When I think "Euro" I think of games like Parthenon, Imperial, Puerto Rico. Resource management. It's okay for a game to take a while and it's okay for a game to be light on the strategy, but it shouldn't do both. If I'm playing a game for an hour or sometimes an hour and a half or more (depending), it had damn well better have some deep strategic elements if for no other reason than to keep me from getting bored. Like I am totally willing to shell out three, four, or even FIVE HOURS for Dune because I enjoy every minute of it and it never gets boring.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe V
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rogerramjet3361 wrote:
This is one of my favorite games, however, I only play with 2 players. As already mentioned, the lower number of players the less randomness in the game, and your plans for your next move don't get thwarted as easily.

I disagree on the game having no interaction. When my opponent takes the tile I really want, or when I am able to pull off getting a color majority and reducing my opponent to second place in points - to me this is interaction.

I do think if played with more than 3 players the OP might have a point. But as a 2 player game, it's great.

But here is my problem, by definition that is not what interaction is. When I trade goods with someone in Parthenon or Mare Nostrum: That's interaction. In Imperial 2030 when my country blows up another country's tank: That's interaction. What you're saying is akin to me saying that players interact in Monopoly because they get money from the same bank. Now there are plenty of better examples of player interaction in Monopoly, but that's almost analagous to what you're saying. Your situation is a little different because what you do at least impacts them. But it's still not interaction. If I leave a glass of water out on a table and someone spills it then I've IMPACTED them... but I'm not interacting with them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Hackman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:
rogerramjet3361 wrote:
This is one of my favorite games, however, I only play with 2 players. As already mentioned, the lower number of players the less randomness in the game, and your plans for your next move don't get thwarted as easily.

I disagree on the game having no interaction. When my opponent takes the tile I really want, or when I am able to pull off getting a color majority and reducing my opponent to second place in points - to me this is interaction.

I do think if played with more than 3 players the OP might have a point. But as a 2 player game, it's great.

But here is my problem, by definition that is not what interaction is. When I trade goods with someone in Parthenon or Mare Nostrum: That's interaction. In Imperial 2030 when my country blows up another country's tank: That's interaction. What you're saying is akin to me saying that players interact in Monopoly because they get money from the same bank. Now there are plenty of better examples of player interaction in Monopoly, but that's almost analagous to what you're saying. Your situation is a little different because what you do at least impacts them. But it's still not interaction. If I leave a glass of water out on a table and someone spills it then I've IMPACTED them... but I'm not interacting with them.


The point is that there are things you can do in Alhambra that affect other players so the description of "solitaire-esque" seems debatable.

I agree that by your definition, Alhambra doesn't allow you to directly interact with people and I also agree that the sort of interaction you describe can be the main reason many people play games. Many games don't allow such interaction and are still considered far from awful.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Robert Yu
Philippines
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:
It's not about not liking Euros. Not at all. If you read my session reports you'll see that Euros comprise the vast majority of what I play. Part of it is that I like hard-core strategy and Alhambra just doesn't cut it hard-core. But there are plenty of "light" games that I enjoy. Alhambra is simply not one of them. My conception of Euros is different. When I think "Euro" I think of games like Parthenon, Imperial, Puerto Rico. Resource management. It's okay for a game to take a while and it's okay for a game to be light on the strategy, but it shouldn't do both. If I'm playing a game for an hour or sometimes an hour and a half or more (depending), it had damn well better have some deep strategic elements if for no other reason than to keep me from getting bored. Like I am totally willing to shell out three, four, or even FIVE HOURS for Dune because I enjoy every minute of it and it never gets boring.


Fair enough. Sounds like it maybe something for me to avoid as well then...but I'm willing to try out everything first of course.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Seattle
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In Alhambra, if you surpass someone in a color, you just had a direct impact on them. If you're playing multiplayer solitaire, ignoring other players, then you won't know which colors are worth fighting for, and which aren't. And you will lose to players who don't do that.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Runcible Spoon
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:
Little to no player interaction and very limited ability to plan ahead.


You are correct if you play with 4p, 5p or 6p.

You are wrong if you play with 2p or 3p.

Most games provide very different experiences based on player count. Since your "review" doesn't take player count into consideration it isn't on a solid foundation and should be taken with large grains of salt.

In fact this "review" is not much of a review at all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There's one piece of cake left in the fridge.

I can wait until you grab it, then kick you in the balls, stomp on your face, and take the cake from you.

Or, I can run ahead of you, take the cake before you get it, yell neener neener or Ha Ha! at you.

Both are interaction. They're just different.
29 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe V
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Runcible Spoon wrote:
terminus467 wrote:
Little to no player interaction and very limited ability to plan ahead.


You are correct if you play with 4p, 5p or 6p.

You are wrong if you play with 2p or 3p.

Most games provide very different experiences based on player count. Since your "review" doesn't take player count into consideration it isn't on a solid foundation and should be taken with large grains of salt.

In fact this "review" is not much of a review at all.

I was working under the radical assumption that a game should be at least halfway decent no matter the player count. Oops. Fine, because you place so much emphasis on this we will say that it was a four player game that I was talking about. It IS a review. I am reviewing the game by talking about my experience and my opinion on it. Just because you disagree doesn't make it any less a review. I didn't have the opportunity to play it with two or three people and, quite frankly, I won't have the opportunity because the game was distasteful enough to make me not want to play it. The idea that I have to play a game with every number of players it accomodates to properly review it is, well, ridiculous. If every game had to be played with two, three, four, five, and six people in separate sittings to be reviewed we wouldn't have ANY reviews by your standards. That's just a ludicrous idea.

A review of a board game is a gamer relating an experience for other gamers. I'm not DiceTower and I never claimed to be. I'm not saying that everyone else will feel this way, but when I played the game I just couldn't stand it.

I know Alhambra is a sacred cow to a lot of gamers, but this is just how I feel.

And for the rest of you: Obviously it's not actually solitaire. The phrase "Multiplayer Solitaire" is self-contradictory. Solitaire literally means being alone. It was meant to get how I felt across and, quite honestly, as I mentioned before I am not the only person to use the word "Solitaire" to describe how Alhambra feels. Another person where I game approached me and said that without ever before hearing me describe the game as such.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe V
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
There's one piece of cake left in the fridge.

I can wait until you grab it, then kick you in the balls, stomp on your face, and take the cake from you.

Or, I can run ahead of you, take the cake before you get it, yell neener neener or Ha Ha! at you.

Both are interaction. They're just different.

Well... no, in the second one the only way you're interacting with me is by talking to me. You didn't shove me out of the way or trip me or anything. You have provided an excellent example that seems to be counter to your argument.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Hughes
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Like the OP, I strongly dislike this game. Everything the OP said is valid. Admittedly, I only played one game of Alhambra, but I consider that to be a greater investment of time than this game merits.

Due to the unpredictability of the tile draws, this game creates the illusion of strategy rather that actually rewarding thoughtful play. The fact that you get extra plays when you pay with exact change can give a lucky player a lead that the others will be hard pressed to overcome. You can make a play for majority of a color and then never get another chance to take that color again. Additionally, lucky or unlucky card draws will make or break you far more than any choices you make in the game.

The posters trying to make a case that Alhambra features player interaction are grasping at straws. The absence of knowledge of what the other players are holding as well as what will be drawn to replace your choice confounds any real ability to block one another, except by luck. Player interaction in this game is indirect at best, and even then, less consequential and strategic than in other games featuring indirect player interaction, such as 'agricola' or 'seven wonders'

Although I enjoy euros, I appreciate at least a rudimentary theme, and Alhambra's theme, such as it is, makes no sense. Four different currencies? Double moves for paying with exact change? What sort of builder's union am I dealing with here? I never felt like I was building a palace, or a town, or whatever it is that the tiles are supposed to be. The artwork was passable, but nothing to wet your pants over.

To cap it all off, Alhambra is BORING. I found it to be a tedious excercise, devoid of any real sense of suspense or excitement.

Alhambra has a lot of expansions, and who knows, maybe they make the game better.

They certainly couldn't make it any worse.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Hackman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:

A review of a board game is a gamer relating an experience for other gamers.

I know Alhambra is a sacred cow to a lot of gamers, but this is just how I feel.

And for the rest of you: Obviously it's not actually solitaire. The phrase "Multiplayer Solitaire" is self-contradictory. Solitaire literally means being alone. It was meant to get how I felt across and, quite honestly, as I mentioned before I am not the only person to use the word "Solitaire" to describe how Alhambra feels. Another person where I game approached me and said that without ever before hearing me describe the game as such.


I think you related how you felt about your experience very clearly. And it would be a useful warning to others planning to play a 4p game of Alhambra with people who like direct interaction.

Other people are sharing their experiences with 2 or 3 players for the same reason and explaining how your definition of interaction might not be the same one used by everyone.

I'd be shocked if Alhambra was anyone's sacred cow. I have all the expansions and I agree with many of your critiques.

I don't think anyone commenting has claimed that you can only use the term solitaire to describe literally playing alone. Several people have pointed out that while we perfectly understand what you mean by multiplayer solitaire, our experiences with the game don't seem to agree with yours since just concentrating on your board won't get you very far when most of the strategic decisions in the game require you to evaluate how many buildings and money cards your opponents have.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Hackman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
themanfromsaturn wrote:
Like the OP, I strongly dislike this game. Everything the OP said is valid. Admittedly, I only played one incomplete game of Alhambra, but I consider that to be a greater investment of time than this game merits. Due to the unpredictability of the tile draws, this game creates the illusion of strategy rather that actually rewarding strategic play. The fact that you get extra plays when you pay with exact change can give a lucky player a lead that the others will be hard pressed to overcome.


I'm not sure it even gives the illusion of strategy. I mean, there's no "purple strategy" that you can try to execute. It's a light, tactical family game that won Spiel des Jahres because its mechanisms were simple yet innovative at the time.

It's possible to play well or play poorly, especially with 2 or 3 players, but luck can play a significant role in victory.

I agree with the OP and I agree with you about the limitations of the game, but it's still fun with the right group that wants that type of game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Heynes
South Africa
Cape Town
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There might be a few expansions in the Alhambra Big Box that might increase the player interaction you are looking for.

I only have the base game but I really enjoy it. The game is much better with lower player counts though. In the 5 player game I played there seemed to be a lot less control. 3 player is the sweet spot.

I would suggest you give it another shot with 3 players and see if things improve.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Hughes
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
'I agree with the OP and I agree with you about the limitations of the game, but it's still fun with the right group that wants that type of game.'

Cheers, Paul, but isn't that statement true of any game? For me, that just begs the question "Who is this game for?" It resembles a Euro, but fans of hardcore strategy will be disappointed, and it's lightweight, but I don't see where the appeal is for casual players, who generally see games as a social activity, and value fun and interaction.

'It's possible to play well or play poorly, especially with 2 or 3 players, but luck can play a significant role in victory.'

Is it possible to play well or poorly with four or more? There were four players the time I played, and I got the sense that it wasn't. The posters on this thread seem to be in agreement that player count is the deciding factor in this game, ant that's as may be. At least some of the tiles might be the same when it gets back around to you, but if you wanted them, why didn't you take them last turn? Because of the various denominations on the money cards, and the fact that the value of a money draw can vary by such a huge margin means that drawing money cards is also no guarantee that you'll even be able to take what you want the next time around.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
themanfromsaturn wrote:
Due to the unpredictability of the tile draws, this game creates the illusion of strategy rather that actually rewarding thoughtful play. The fact that you get extra plays when you pay with exact change can give a lucky player a lead that the others will be hard pressed to overcome. You can make a play for majority of a color and then never get another chance to take that color again. Additionally, lucky or unlucky card draws will make or break you far more than any choices you make in the game.
That is exactly what I thought when someone explained the rules to me BEFORE playing it, "what a silly game, you may always have the wrong money color, you don't control the tiles coming out...". Then we played and the two experienced players ended 1st and 2nd, while I ended 5th far behind. I couldn't see where, but I realized there must be a strategy in the game. Several years later I got the game on a trade and I confirm, in our group there is no random winner, the same players that seem to be better at it always end up 1st or 2nd. But I understand your first reaction.

BTW, among the loooong list of expansions I only use one, the Vizier, that allows you to play during someone else's turn. It makes 5-6 player games work as well as 2-4 ones. And you don't need to buy it, use the second player token (the one you put on your Alhambra) as the Vizier.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snowball
Belgium
n/a
flag msg tools
Gender: pot*ato. My opinion is an opinion.
mbmbmbmbmb
Don't give up. I disliked at first too, but I gave it another chance, and now I kind of like it; I felt like you, the game seemed random and pointless. I played a few times and each time my daughter crushed me and others; then all of the sudden it all fell into place and today our games are cutthroath.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:
I can sum up why I did not like Alhambra with two points: Little to no player interaction and very limited ability to plan ahead.

I play board games to interact with other people and to see plans come to fruition.
You are not interacting with their tiles, rather you are interacting with their majority status.

(but if you feel the need to steal tiles from an opponent's board, then no, this game is not for you. That's fine.)


Plan ahead by seeing which tile colors offered in the market will best let you take/keep a majority. Plan ahead by accumulating the appropriate money colors for tiles on offer. Plan ahead by seeking to maximize exact-cost purchases ("free extra turn"). Plan ahead by knowing the implications of how many tiles exist in each color - and how the ownership is currently distributed among players.

(but if you don't wish to react to continously changing of offerings or ownership, then no, this game is not for you. That's fine.)

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Seattle
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Runcible Spoon wrote:
You are correct if you play with 4p, 5p or 6p.

You are wrong if you play with 2p or 3p.

Actually, I prefer it with 4 or 5. With 2 or 3, the strategy is, "get as many tiles as possible". With more players you have to be more choosy, pay a premium for the tiles you need, take more risks, etc. But with 6 you need the 1st expansion (or just borrow the rule from it) that allows interruption.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Hackman
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
themanfromsaturn wrote:
'I agree with the OP and I agree with you about the limitations of the game, but it's still fun with the right group that wants that type of game.'

Cheers, Paul, but isn't that statement true of any game? For me, that just begs the question "Who is this game for?" It resembles a Euro, but fans of hardcore strategy will be disappointed, and it's lightweight, but I don't see where the appeal is for casual players, who generally see games as a social activity, and value fun and interaction.



Yes, that statement is true for any game. Which, I think, is the strength and weakness of the original review. The OP made it clear he plays games for the interaction and that he didn't like Alhambra because it didn't have the sort of interaction he craves. That was helpful for those who identify with his tastes. However, he then goes on to say that the game is awful and he can't imagine why anyone would enjoy it and doesn't mention the player count of his game. Then a bunch of us chimed in and explained why our groups have enjoyed it and the type of interaction it does offer.

Yes, this is not a party game for the super casual gamer who would generally prefer to watch TV, nor a deep Euro. But I have found there is a fairly large group of gamers who enjoy exercising their minds a little but don't care for the medium to heavy games after a day of work. My wife loves Alhambra. The rules are easy to remember so she doesn't have to relearn them each time we play. Setup is pretty quick. There's enough luck involved that she can hold her own against more serious gamers. It's the same general audience that loves Ticket to Ride (though liking TTR doesn't necessarily mean you'll like Alhambra).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
terminus467 wrote:
rogerramjet3361 wrote:
This is one of my favorite games, however, I only play with 2 players. As already mentioned, the lower number of players the less randomness in the game, and your plans for your next move don't get thwarted as easily.

I disagree on the game having no interaction. When my opponent takes the tile I really want, or when I am able to pull off getting a color majority and reducing my opponent to second place in points - to me this is interaction.

I do think if played with more than 3 players the OP might have a point. But as a 2 player game, it's great.

But here is my problem, by definition that is not what interaction is. When I trade goods with someone in Parthenon or Mare Nostrum: That's interaction. In Imperial 2030 when my country blows up another country's tank: That's interaction. What you're saying is akin to me saying that players interact in Monopoly because they get money from the same bank. Now there are plenty of better examples of player interaction in Monopoly, but that's almost analagous to what you're saying. Your situation is a little different because what you do at least impacts them. But it's still not interaction. If I leave a glass of water out on a table and someone spills it then I've IMPACTED them... but I'm not interacting with them.


There's direct interaction and indirect interaction. Your premise seems to be that only direct interaction is interaction and indirect interaction is not interaction.

That's fine if that's what you think but you can keep saying it over and over until you are blue in the face but you are going to have a tough time convincing most people that the definition of interaction should be limited solely to direct interaction and that indirect interaction shouldn't be considered interaction at all.
8 
 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.