Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
37 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Thunderbolt Apache Leader» Forums » General

Subject: A rating of 1??? Oh. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dave Medeiros
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Tastes vary, I suppose. This game is highly rated (very rightly so, in my opinion; it's the best game I own, and just seems to get better with replay, as I come to understand more of the nuances and improve my feel for how to tackle it).

So I was browsing the ratings, curious about the handful of low ratings. Some people seem to take issue with calling it a "close air support" game if there are no friendly ground units represented. Others complain about record-keeping. Still others seem to have formed a bad impression without giving the game a decent try at all; a real shame.

And then there are two ratings of "1", one from user "rabid schnauzer". This rating makes more sense in context of other ratings by this user (screencap here):



Geez.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate K
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Huh. 576 games rated as a 1. That's, um... I am completely confident that I have not even played 576 different games in my life.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Taylor
United States
Lake Forest
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, that's unfortunate. Some people have an attitude like this:

13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Walters
United States
Hercules
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Whatever.

There's no criteria for being allowed to rate a game. I know people who won't rate a game until they've played it three times. I don't get to play most games three times, but I won't rate what I haven't played. Other people set up bogus account so they can vote multiple times. One person I respect only ever rates games 0, 5, or 10, and they have a pretty good reason for this.

All this taken together means that the ratings are only the loosest possible guide.

I also wrestle with the 8.0 threshold. If you rate a game 8.0 or above that tells the recommendation software that you like it, and it will then recommend games other people who liked that game >= 8.0 also rated an >= 8.0. So if I like a game, but don't want to hear about others like it, I rate it 7.9. Which probably defeats the system, but I'm easily confused.

The point is, if you pay as much attention to the rating system as I just did, you're probably wasting your time.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Medeiros
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
First I've heard about the 8.0+ recommendation mechanic, very interesting. Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arrigo Velicogna
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
It does not deserve a 1... but it is a pretty poor game anyway, a step back from the original.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Harrison
United States
Fisher
Illinois
flag msg tools
So long ...
badge
... and thanks for all the fish.
Avatar
mb
Mad Archeologist wrote:
It does not deserve a 1... but it is a pretty poor game anyway, a step back from the original.

I haven't played my copy yet. Why do you feel this way?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Medeiros
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Arrigo, thanks for weighing in. Your rating was also among the lowest, but you gave quite coherent reasons for it (rather than R.S.'s obvious trollery).
Would you mind expanding a bit on your comments? -- no ill will here at all, just genuinely curious why this one rubbed you so wrong.

I never played the old original version of this, so I have no context for that comparison. I certainly don't consider myself a 'trendy, stupid, ignorant "modern wargamer"' - I cut my teeth on old hex and counter games like Squad Leader (never joined the ASL cult though), even played GMT's monster Fire in the East back in the day. Trendy is one thing; elegant game design quite another.
You say:
"aircraft costs are so high that you cannot field a proper unit due to cost. It would be effective if you are just selecting aircrafts for a single package, but managing a squadron with the limitations imposed is ludicrous."

When I first started playing, I definitely had the feeling that I had nowhere near enough aircraft -- maybe 3-6, depending on whether you go for big-ticket items or cheap helos. Especially after the large squadrons in Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations, it felt very constrained and small.
But if you play a few campaigns, you see just how devastatingly effective these aircraft are; you rarely need more than 2 or 3 on a mission to wipe out the enemy battalion. What seems stingy on a first impression turns out, in practice, to be beautifully balanced. It works out to be just enough to stave off the advancing hordes, if you play right, but you'll have always have some tense moments and tough decisions.
It hits the sweet spot for me, at least. All I can ask.
Anyway, very interested to hear more from your perspective, thanks.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Walters
United States
Hercules
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I liked the original and played it often. I even made a "giant" set with miniatures and 2" tiles to duplicate the hit tokens to play group games at convention. But I had to downrate it to 9.9 when the new one came out. The old one ultimately, became manageable - I could win nearly every raid. The new one is tougher. Not impossible, but tougher. The increase in difficulty was such that the first couple games I thought it might be unplayable, unwinnable. Ditto the new Hornet Leader. But if you're willing to go through the grinder a couple of times it's a more challenging, more satisfying game that flows better and includes more stuff. There was some dross in the old one, like the friendly battalions. The new one is more distilled, it's all about the tough decisions.

I sold my old one, and I loved that game. Now I gotta make new damage tiles...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arrigo Velicogna
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Smeagollum wrote:
Hi Arrigo, thanks for weighing in. Your rating was also among the lowest, but you gave quite coherent reasons for it (rather than R.S.'s obvious trollery).
Would you mind expanding a bit on your comments? -- no ill will here at all, just genuinely curious why this one rubbed you so wrong.

I never played the old original version of this, so I have no context for that comparison. I certainly don't consider myself a 'trendy, stupid, ignorant "modern wargamer"' - I cut my teeth on old hex and counter games like Squad Leader (never joined the ASL cult though), even played GMT's monster Fire in the East back in the day. Trendy is one thing; elegant game design quite another.
You say:
"aircraft costs are so high that you cannot field a proper unit due to cost. It would be effective if you are just selecting aircrafts for a single package, but managing a squadron with the limitations imposed is ludicrous."

When I first started playing, I definitely had the feeling that I had nowhere near enough aircraft -- maybe 3-6, depending on whether you go for big-ticket items or cheap helos. Especially after the large squadrons in Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations, it felt very constrained and small.
But if you play a few campaigns, you see just how devastatingly effective these aircraft are; you rarely need more than 2 or 3 on a mission to wipe out the enemy battalion. What seems stingy on a first impression turns out, in practice, to be beautifully balanced. It works out to be just enough to stave off the advancing hordes, if you play right, but you'll have always have some tense moments and tough decisions.
It hits the sweet spot for me, at least. All I can ask.
Anyway, very interested to hear more from your perspective, thanks.



The reference on modern wargamers came from another discussion (not even remember if it was here or in some other places) where someone was telling that older player were dumb and unable to understand the elegance of modern designs and that we (ok I think I am still young anyway) are unable to look past details and so on... TAL looked me just a souped up package with a lot of bell and whistles and few research. Well, the planes are effective in the game, but 2-3 A10 mangling a battalion in place is absurd. If the bad guys are on the move it is almost acceptable, but the game did not portray the realities of ground attacks. Even the super claims made in Desert Storm have being revised to much lower numbers. Air attacks created problems but it seems the bulk of the tank formations were more or less intact at the start of the ground offensive.

Then you have the problem on what your group represents. Well it is not a squadron and you do not have any of the same consideration of a squadron commander (also in HL the mix and match nature of the planes is suspicious. Your flying is suspicious (no element, no wingmen, no formation). In the end I was unable to relate the game to what I know on the subject.

The removal of the allied ground forces made the thins eerie, it looks you are working in the middle of nowhere just you alone, instead of being part of a campaign. The old version had more planes per unit, primary and secondary missions, ground forces. I was so disappointed I even gave up my attempt to correct the errors (the pilot art was also putting me off) and gave my copy to Phil Sabin when I had to move last year... The more I was playing the ore I was feeling a sense of dullness around me. Lot of stuff in the box but not soul and no real design intent IMHO (and I wrote a depressing review for Battles). You have plenty of pilot with a lot of different experience level then you realize that if you are lucky you get on promotion per game, and then you starto to think how fast a pilot can improve in one or two weeks... At that point better characterizations of the pilot could have been more welcome. The art is dumb and there is little difference between the pilots. Well the original had even a feamle pilots and you were able to see she was a woman from the pictures... the current ones... well they were looking a bit dumb...

I was writing such a bad and depressing review that my mother told me to go to leisure games and get a new game to cheer up...

OTOH I like both Phantom Leader and HAL (ok I am thinking to do new cards for them, I do not like the Plane+Pilot on the same card approach, it spoils my immersion, plus it does not create the airframe/crews mechanic of a real squadron, again it seems that Vance had removed a lot of very good mechanics from these new versions).

I do not think that the new one is more 'distilled'. Actually it is more removed from the reality of air operations. If you are willing to put up the the fact that the game has no connection with real air operations in any way except having counters with real plane drawings and real weapons drawings but that did not work like their real life counterparts... I think that some of the redesigns have made the game more themed games than proper wargames, IMHO not a giant leap forward.

Well I have reinstated pair flying on both PL and HL, and I am thinking to port back the old wingmen rules.

Still it is not 1... anyway... I 'investigated' the 1 rater... seems he had some axes to grind on several games... I found this comment on battletech:

'Cool art. Cool theme. A major force in gaming in the 80s.
Yet this is a relic from the days when people thought complex games serving to keep the gaming community insular were the way things should be designed.

But hey, if your idea of fun is to track hundreds of different hitboxes over dozens of subsystems, go for it. '

Well one of my colleagues swear by Battletech. I can agree or disagree on liking the game, but the idea that a game is designed to keep the community insular... the other 1... from someone who appears ot be crusading against wargames in general... there are people who rates games 1 without even owning or playing them just for the topic...
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Train gamer, Euro gamer and War gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mad Archeologist wrote:
Then you have the problem on what your group represents. Well it is not a squadron and you do not have any of the same consideration of a squadron commander (also in HL the mix and match nature of the planes is suspicious. Your flying is suspicious (no element, no wingmen, no formation). In the end I was unable to relate the game to what I know on the subject.
...If you are willing to put up the the fact that the game has no connection with real air operations in any way except having counters with real plane drawings and real weapons drawings but that did not work like their real life counterparts...

Unfortunately I am one who has no knowlege of real life air operations or battle situations at all, so the 'feel' of the game does not bother me at all.

Quote:
You have plenty of pilot with a lot of different experience level then you realize that if you are lucky you get on promotion per game, and then you starto to think how fast a pilot can improve in one or two weeks... At that point better characterizations of the pilot could have been more welcome. The art is dumb and there is little difference between the pilots.

This is one thing that does bug me. There's a lot of cards in that box, most of which I'll probably never get to use. One thing I may try is having my pilot stats carry over from campaign to campaign (there are rules for this) so that I'll actually get to see promoted pilots.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hal Martin
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Love my Oilers!
badge
I miss my boy :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SD40 wrote:


Quote:
You have plenty of pilot with a lot of different experience level then you realize that if you are lucky you get on promotion per game, and then you starto to think how fast a pilot can improve in one or two weeks... At that point better characterizations of the pilot could have been more welcome. The art is dumb and there is little difference between the pilots.

This is one thing that does bug me. There's a lot of cards in that box, most of which I'll probably never get to use. One thing I may try is having my pilot stats carry over from campaign to campaign (there are rules for this) so that I'll actually get to see promoted pilots.


I have to disagree on this point. Only on short day (2-3) campaigns will you get little to n o promotion.

The campaigns that last 5+ days you will see SEVERAL promotions. Example: I generally level most my pilots up at game start by taking one at Skilled, and lowering the backup pilot to Green. In my Cut-Off campaign last night, I had 4 pilots to Ace by my last day 5. That's almost a promotion per day. Your pilots get 3 XP per day if they completely wipe the battalion, which I rarely have problems with.

You just have to make sure you aren't blowing your starting SO's on aircraft alone. I always anticipate repairs, but always grab 2 Scout's and run no more than 2 missions a day. I also don't buy the newer Apaches or Thunderbolts; linked and +1 to hit aren't worth an extra SO each, IMO. Thunderbolts take Mk.20's only and carpet bombed EVERYTHING, while Apaches take LAUs and clean up. I rarely take more than 4 aircraft as well. Usually 1 A-10, 2 AH-64s, and something else, a F-16 or a Harrier. Thats it, leave the rest for repairs AND to spend on Priority R&R if you need it, that way those same pilots can keep flying and get the XPs that lead to promotions.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Train gamer, Euro gamer and War gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Longbombed wrote:
I have to disagree on this point. Only on short day (2-3) campaigns will you get little to n o promotion.

Indeed I've only completed 3 campaigns so far, so my experience is limited. I have yet to play a longer campaign. My last play was Libya 1984 - Holding Action, ending in failure upon negative SO points after enemy battalion movement at end of day 3.

Thanks for the tips.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hal Martin
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Love my Oilers!
badge
I miss my boy :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For sure.

And this game does take some experience and tuning to find what works best for you in most situation. You should really try a long campaign though. So much fun. Be aware, as per previous discussions, depending on your speed, games with many days can take a long long time, so don't start one at 11pm if you work the next day, lol.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I learn something new every time I play this game. Strategies fail, I tweak and keep going. Pilots definitely get promoted. Sometimes I will push a pilot to the limit early, flying him 2 days straight or more to get those stats up.

One question for the post with only a few aircraft. It is a tightrope walk getting two teams out each day, my personal goal. What is yours?

How many missions does everyone try to take on every day?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
Train gamer, Euro gamer and War gamer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
asmodeos wrote:
I learn something new every time I play this game. Strategies fail, I tweak and keep going. Pilots definitely get promoted. Sometimes I will push a pilot to the limit early, flying him 2 days straight or more to get those stats up.

One question for the post with only a few aircraft. It is a tightrope walk getting two teams out each day, my personal goal. What is yours?

How many missions does everyone try to take on every day?

In my 3 campaigns so far, I'm typically doing 2 missions per day; 2 aircraft per mission.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hal Martin
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Love my Oilers!
badge
I miss my boy :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Generally 2 missions per day, 2 aircraft per mission as well. My pilots aren't allowed to rest unless they're babbling egg salad recipes, only then do they sit.

I usually have a weak squad and a beasty squad. The weaklings get really simple target battalions though. Last night's Cut-Off campaign I ran my first AC-130, what a beast. Day 2 second mission of his I gave him an Apache with a Average rated pilot who sat hiding in the corner, hovering for 4 loiter turns while he cleaned up the beefy targets, just to give him "free" Xp, lol.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Ainsworth
United Kingdom
Manchester
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always go with random aircraft during setup, with random pilots. I keep my experience levels from campaign to campaign too. I just find it more fun that way - you never know what combination of stuff you're going to get and for me it keeps the game fresh.

Edit: Oh and yeah, depending on what aircraft I have and what targets are on the board, I'll typically go with 2 missions per day, with the very occasional single, high priority mission and the very rare 3.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arrigo Velicogna
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Longbombed wrote:
SD40 wrote:


Quote:
You have plenty of pilot with a lot of different experience level then you realize that if you are lucky you get on promotion per game, and then you starto to think how fast a pilot can improve in one or two weeks... At that point better characterizations of the pilot could have been more welcome. The art is dumb and there is little difference between the pilots.

This is one thing that does bug me. There's a lot of cards in that box, most of which I'll probably never get to use. One thing I may try is having my pilot stats carry over from campaign to campaign (there are rules for this) so that I'll actually get to see promoted pilots.


I have to disagree on this point. Only on short day (2-3) campaigns will you get little to n o promotion.

The campaigns that last 5+ days you will see SEVERAL promotions. Example: I generally level most my pilots up at game start by taking one at Skilled, and lowering the backup pilot to Green. In my Cut-Off campaign last night, I had 4 pilots to Ace by my last day 5. That's almost a promotion per day. Your pilots get 3 XP per day if they completely wipe the battalion, which I rarely have problems with.

You just have to make sure you aren't blowing your starting SO's on aircraft alone. I always anticipate repairs, but always grab 2 Scout's and run no more than 2 missions a day. I also don't buy the newer Apaches or Thunderbolts; linked and +1 to hit aren't worth an extra SO each, IMO. Thunderbolts take Mk.20's only and carpet bombed EVERYTHING, while Apaches take LAUs and clean up. I rarely take more than 4 aircraft as well. Usually 1 A-10, 2 AH-64s, and something else, a F-16 or a Harrier. Thats it, leave the rest for repairs AND to spend on Priority R&R if you need it, that way those same pilots can keep flying and get the XPs that lead to promotions.


you missed my point, in such a small timeframe is absurd to have pilots getting 'promotions'. The mechanic is artificial and, while it made sense on Phantom Leader (longer operations and you read of newbie pilots learning their trade), marginal in HL, it is quite bogus in TAL. You can tell me how great the mechanics are, no problem, but they are barely related to real world both in the process and in the effect (like the way TOW missiles are implemented). This is the reason why I rate it so low compared to the original or its half brethren.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Even if critical evaluation decides this game is 'fluff', I would still stand behind it. It is FUN! It is one of the few games I leave set up, so I can sit down with 30-60 minutes and blow up some tanks, record my progress and go back to whatever.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hal Martin
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Love my Oilers!
badge
I miss my boy :(
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
asmodeos wrote:
It is FUN!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arrigo Velicogna
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
asmodeos wrote:
Even if critical evaluation decides this game is 'fluff', I would still stand behind it. It is FUN! It is one of the few games I leave set up, so I can sit down with 30-60 minutes and blow up some tanks, record my progress and go back to whatever.


and this is why it is nice when people who rate negatively. The thread is not so much on how great or awful TAL is, but why some people rated it 1 with no reason? I always wrote why I consider a game a 1... and in one case 'Eagle and the Sun' I think the definition of game is an overstatement...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Taylor
United States
Lake Forest
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep. I try to rate by the BGG definitions and a "1" is pretty much not a game. It takes something that is seriously broken to rate a "1" and TAL isn't even close to broken.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Walters
United States
Hercules
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Let me muddy the waters a little bit. I like TAL, I think it is very evocative, even if I know that some of the simulation is fudged.

Yes, "squadrons" should be homogenous. Yes, pilots should fly in elements (the original Hornet Leader rules were great). Yes, it's silly to have someone improve their skills measurably twice in a seven day campaign. Yes, it's strange to have the enemy battalions advancing toward you with no friendly ground forces in sight (original TAL had a neat subsystem there!).

On the other hand, the wingman and element rules in O-HL were a little tedious to execute, and the ground forces combat in O-TAL distracted from the CAS game. I don't know about all of you, but I got good at weakening enemy battalions so the friendly ground forces could finish them off, and generally, like I'm supposed to, used these side rules to my advantage, taking some pressure off the CAS missions.

So new TAL is distilled: no elements, no friendly ground-pounders, just CAS. More of the fun flavor in less space. Same with promotions: The pilots are getting the equivalent of weeks of experience each day. That's inauthentic, but if you had to play a ninety day campaign to see pilot promotions would that be a better game? In the sense of verisimilitude, yes, but I wouldn't play that game. I couldn't play that game. I can play this game.

And if I just keep in the back of my head that the friendly ground forces are there, just not represented explicitly, and that each aircraft is "really" a pair of aircraft, and that time is compressed so that pilots can increase in skills, and that whatever my squadron is doing there are a few others duplicating so that my squadron is not really taking on a whole war by itself, then I can have the great pretend commander experience that is TAL.

If you really want an actual commander's experience there's a lot of other boring stuff you'll want included in the game. People who can't work together. Maintenance issues. Preparing endless contingency plans. The rules should require you to assign your pilots and weapons and then submit that plan for approval, roll on a table, and either start over or make arbitrary changes based on higher command's input. Then roll on the weather chart and scrap the whole day's operations and proceed to the next day. Scheduling the preparedness of pilots and planes, the use of the runway, the availability of tankers, etc, is a bit of a chore, too, that shouldn't be left out. Everything isn't ready at the right times unless you make it so. A lot of all this is just abstracted into "SO", but it ain't so in real life.

I'm sure we've all read a lot of books. A little reflection will lead to the conclusion that no wargame really simulates a commander's position. They just feel like they do, and they very much focus on the fun parts, big surprise there. The choices of what to include and exclude are the choices of a film's director or a book's author, not the skills of an engineer or statistician. I like the choices that were made in TAL and HL:CAO. Certainly the omissions are "inaccuracies", but great movies leave out some material, too.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Dalley
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been following this thread since the beginning and I figured I'd finally jump in and give my opinion.

I love all the modern Leader games. I own everyone published so far. Over the years I've heard lots of complaints, the one that pops to mind right now is that in reality there isn't a squadron that consists of seven hornets, two intruders, and a tomcat. Each type of aircraft has their own squadron in real life. Sure people gaining experience in seven days is ridiculous.

I grew up playing war games, Gettysburg, Starship Troopers, etc. Lots of counters, lots of rules, long hours of gaming. I enjoy those games a lot, but I don't play them as much now I'm an adult.

What I love about the leader games is that they give me the taste of those war games but without the long rulebooks and massive tables of data. The Leader games feel like those war games, but they are simpler. I bought a solo game about airship combat. I'm a steampunk fan and thought I'd enjoy an airship game. After I read through the forty or so page rulebook I pushed the game aside and pulled out TAL. My only thought after reading the rules was: "I wish Dan had an Airship Leader game." I love the fact that the Leader games use simple mechanics to create a game that I can play over and over again.

Now, I haven't played the original TAL, but my guess from the comments above is that Dan simplified TAL a bit to create the modern game. And I for one appreciate it!
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 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.