Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Road to Enlightenment» Forums » General

Subject: RtE v2 - Rules DRAFT rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dirk Knemeyer
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Everyone,

Over the last six months I've had the pleasure of working with an outstanding developer on Road to Enlightenment, Rob Seater:

Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Rob has taken the reins with a broad mandate to evolve the current game in the context of its (largely) current components to a more refined state. He introduced a bunch of interesting ideas that he and I worked thru. Rob, then, tested and refined those ideas finally culminating in this new draft of rules for the game.

http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/102279/road-to-enlightenme...

These do assume that you have the new wooden pieces we've had made - they are still in China and not broken into sets but the wood is cut and coloured - but otherwise require no additional components. Here is our plan for them:

1. Get feedback from players
2. Evolve the new vision for the game as appropriate
3. Finalize the v2 rules
4. Have the v2 rules laid out in a rulebook
5. Make that rulebook available via PDF and possibly get it printed as well

Big thanks to Rob for the great work and we both look forward to your feedback.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should add that you can easily try out these rules with the current version, without the discs. The 8 discs will be for marking conquered cities/territories, and the blocks will be used just for track progress. However, only 4 of the blocks will be used, so players not being particularly militaristic will be fine just using blocks for marking cities. Aggressive players can use a substitute without too much issue. All other components are already in the box!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We’re interested in any feedback you have. Responses after a playtest are best, but a knee-jerk reaction by someone who only played the original game once is still very helpful to us. We’re interested in thoughts you have on interest, clarity, and balance of the new rules. Don’t hold back just because you aren’t an expert at the game – first impressions of new players are important and very indicative!

Clarity. Do you understand the rules? If you read the rulebook carefully, do you think you could play and teach the game? Are there important corner cases that have been missed?

Interest. Do the rules interest you strategically? Do they feel satisfying thematically? Do you feel like you have interesting tradeoffs without being overwhelmed by options?

Balance. Do the different paths to gaining points (Prestige) seem equally viable to you? Do some cards stand out as being too strong or too weak? Do you feel like you could pursue different paths to victory?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob and Dirk,

I'm liking the changes. It definitely makes the game more strategic and less luck based as in the original. Couple rules questions:

1. When drawing your 5 initial lesser luminaries, can you choose one of the faceups or must they come from the draw decks. It looks like you mean to have them come from the deck since you state that the face up lums are to be in play "after the first turn" but it might be good to more explicitly state this if that is the case.

Also, is there a limit to how many of each luminary type you can draw at the beginning (ie can I take all military lessers at the start)?

2. Turn order in the 3rd action slot. Is this determined using the same luminaries that were used to gain income?

3. The section on track bumping seems like it could be shorter and more clear. I guess I would put the sentence about moving up (but not down) locks your marker at the beginning of the paragraph, then follow up with what locking does rather than the other way around.

4. Russia clarification. When does the +1 prestige happen for "committed to progress"? Is this at the very end of the game or for each round that you are leading?

I'm excited for these changes and will see if I can get my game group to try them out this week. Will report back if I succeed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rowse
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looks like some really compelling changes, and I'm looking forward to trying them out!

Track bumping and wrapping looks like it should work well.

'Boarder' -> 'border'

By my reading, it doesn't seem possible to thin your deck in a games with 2 players - you're obliged to take at least 2 lumes, and if you've removed lumes during the turn then you have to keep on taking new ones until you've gained as many as you lost.

That means that you have to remove lumes every turn if you want to keep your deck thin, because once you've had a turn of removing none, you will have increased your deck size by at least 2, with no way of ever getting back to the original size.

Am I missing something?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Andrew,

Unlike other deck building type games, RtE doesn't really do thinning of the deck. In this iteration of the rules, you will be drawing at least 1-2 new luminaries at the end of each turn, IN ADDITION to replacing each luminary removed during your turn. So your deck is not really ever going to get smaller, only bigger.

And really with such a small starting deck, if they didn't add more luminaries each turn via the draft, you would be drawing pretty much the same hand every turn which would be boring.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rowse
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm. That doesn't sound like an appealing feature at all. In 1st edition rules, your civilisation went through different phases as you used 'remove' lumes and replaced them.

This new rule seems like it will lead to deck bloat, decreasing your ability to change focus.

I'll reserve judgement until I've given it a try, but my initial reaction is pretty wary...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The deck starts thin and gets thicker. There are couple of mitigations to that, which are hopefully sufficient.

(1) Newly gained luminaries go directly to your hand, so you get to use them without waiting to get through your deck.

(2) You can take a reorganize action to dig through your deck faster (viewing 5, and keeping 1). Actions can be precious, but it's a nice thing to do when you've dumped all your luminaries into another stack (for a big attack or cultural census), and have an extra action slot.

(3) You can trade luminaries with an ally during the Diplomacy action if you do a 'gift' -- the one you give away comes out of your discard and the one you gain goes straight to your hand. The gift also gives both players points right away, but it requires luminaries with the right stats (hopefully driving more interesting diplomatic paths to victory).

That said, deck bloat was something we worried about. With those mitigations, and the fact that deck building is not the dominant element to the game, we though it would be ok. The deck building element is more tactical, while other elements are more strategic. We also wanted to make sure that players had to deal with the weaker luminaries they recruited now that recruitment offers more control, and that it wasn't too easy to ditch them. Of course, we'd love hear ideas for how to keep the deck thin while still making players have to work with what they've got (along with any further thoughts you have after playing it!).

(edit: formatting)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KAndrw wrote:
'Boarder' -> 'border'

Doh! I know my grammar/spelling, but I'm a terrible typist. blushyuk
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wario83 wrote:

1. When drawing your 5 initial lesser luminaries, can you choose one of the faceups or must they come from the draw decks. It looks like you mean to have them come from the deck since you state that the face up lums are to be in play "after the first turn" but it might be good to more explicitly state this if that is the case.

They are random from the deck. I found in the testing I did that the initial randomness wasn't a big factor, and the extra pre-game drafting was frustrating to players and slow. That said, I can't say for sure it was the right trade-off.

Quote:
Also, is there a limit to how many of each luminary type you can draw at the beginning (ie can I take all military lessers at the start)?

You will get 1 of each lesser luminary type, plus your starting favorites. However, military attacks have become easier, so you don't need as much dedication in order to pull off attacks.

Similarly, it's hard to stockpile a lot of Science lumes right away, but the Science census is more forgiving because even losers get to advance a bit (1 per 5 points of support they provide, in addition to the first and second place advancement rewards). Overall, we tried to make the different strategies produce more tense fighting and less one sided dominance, which we (tried to) achieve by making it harder to get lots of one luminary type, but for it to be viable to make good progress even with just a few.

Quote:
2. Turn order in the 3rd action slot. Is this determined using the same luminaries that were used to gain income?

Yep -- those luminaries do double duty, and the same luminary might contribute to both income and turn order. I thought that was terribly clever, but feel free to correct me.

Quote:
3. The section on track bumping seems like it could be shorter and more clear. I guess I would put the sentence about moving up (but not down) locks your marker at the beginning of the paragraph, then follow up with what locking does rather than the other way around.

We'll take another look at that when we revise.

Quote:
4. Russia clarification. When does the +1 prestige happen for "committed to progress"? Is this at the very end of the game or for each round that you are leading?

That was meant to occur during each scoring round. SO, once per game in the short game, and twice in the full game. Should be clarified!

Quote:
I'm excited for these changes and will see if I can get my game group to try them out this week. Will report back if I succeed.

Awesome! Tell them not to hold back!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rowse
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just thinking through the options - in a two player game, your deck will grow by 2 cards each turn, and there's no way around that - so at the start of the 9th turn, you'll be drawing no more than 4 cards (assuming that each player has two of the medals, drew all of their favourites, and only gained two new lumes straight to hand at the end of the previous turn) from a deck of 19.

(Note - in 1e RtE, I twice tried deliberately running my nation into the ground on the first turn, leaving me owing 3 coins when it came round to upkeep - this meant that I lost three lumes without replacement, leaving me with a seven card deck, and allowing me complete control over what I drew every turn, and allowing me to very easily change focus by cycling lumes into different colours. Both times, it was really effective.)

If each player used four remove cards during their turn, they'll only be drawing two cards.

On the other hand, in a 6+ player game, any player who uses more than three remove lumes per turn is likely to find their deck dwindling, as there are only two lumes per player in the pool.

That gameplay discrepancy between small games and big games doesn't appeal to me very much.

I suspect that when I try the new rules, I'll feel that the pool and the associated rules are unecessary, and I'll prefer the simple elegance of 'remove a lume = gain a face-down lume from the deck of your choice, into your discard pile'. I like the move to a Dominion-style discard-draw dynamic (cf 1e rules, where the deck is shuffled every turn).

Reorganise's ability to dig through the deck is nice, but feels like it might be a bit weak. Perhaps it could be expanded a bit:
"Draw five cards, choose one to put in your hand, and you may choose one to remove (immediately replace as usual), then discard the rest and gain up to two new lumes"

Discarding rather than putting to the bottom of the deck because it's a simpler step, and it lets players churn through the deck to get to cards they want to re-use.

I'd also make the initial decks consist of TWO cards from each relevant deck, and have the player draw from their decks as usual. As well as beginning the game with a bit of a deck buffer to prevent turns from being too samey, it makes the first few turns quite exciting - what's coming up next?

The new rules don't seem to include the old rule that unresolved piles can be resacked to provide defenders/reactions - is that gone? That was a very good rule, and omitting it seems to overpower military actions a little (if you have used up your hand, I should choose you to attack, because you don't have any defenders!)

Obviously, I haven't played the new rules yet, so I'm definitely reserving judgement. I'll give them a shot as written, then hopefully manage a game with my preferred revisions as well. Whichever one works out best, I'll still be delighted, because it really feels like RtE has taken a great step forward!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just played a 3 player game last night with the v2.0 rules. Me and 2 others that had never played before. Some thoughts:

1. One thing that was not well received was the forced deck dilution from having to draft 2 new luminaries each round. Especially if having to replace removed luminaries, you could very well not get to draw at all (which happened to one guy).

Possible Changes:
-removed luminary replacements can be placed in hand or discard
-increasing hand refill size to 8 base instead of 7
-reducing draft round to 1 luminary instead of 2 (at all player counts)

2. The starting diplomatic condition was ok and was really needed from the base game. However, with Poland only able to have 1 ally, how come they start allied to 3 countries? Does this mean they cannot make alliances the whole game or they have to drop their starting ones?

3. This might be because it was only 3 players, but the diplomatic gift action never came into play (or any diplo action actually). The cost for gifting can be prohibitive (5 diplo, 5 ideas AND 5 money is alot). Especially since one player is paying all the cost but both are benefiting. Hence I can only see this applicable in a larger game (6-7 players) and really only by the leader helping out someone who is so far behind it won't matter. Maybe someone else can tell me how else they've seen it done.

4. The reorganization action is too weak. Actions are so precious that you cannot afford to "waste" them to essentially just draw one card. I believe this was used once in our game and only because that player had messed up their planning phase and couldn't do what they wanted.

Maybe make it a free action that you can pay (2-4 coins?) for once a turn to draw 3 and keep 1. This will keep it in and maybe more useful. It would also help out on the deck bloat that you experience as you draft more luminaries to allow you to sift through the trash. Also could be useful mid round to draw a military card to help on the defense.

5. The turn order bidding process seemed to be a difficult thing to integrate. Since the taxes/upkeep already has one count going for money (wealth and politics), it was rather difficult to also include other luminaries to bid for player order (military and culture). Having to put in lums with wealth, politics, culture AND military made for a tall order; especially since these are usually the leftover cards anyway. Oftentimes we kept the same relative player order throughout. Perhaps just have the person who gained the most money (or least?) be the new first player? Then you don't have to worry about 2 other values for a single stack. Seems easier that way.

6. Rules are still a bit of a bear to teach. Since this game isn't really like others, it can be difficult to teach quickly and efficiently. Not sure there is anything to be done for that though.

That's my thoughts for now. I'm sure I can come up with more. Hate to sound like I'm bashing it because I'm not. I still love this game but just want to make sure it is as awesome as it can be to reach a wider audience.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wario83 wrote:
That's my thoughts for now.

That's terrific feedback & suggestions! Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Silverman
United States
Halfway between Castro and Mickey Mouse
Florida (FL)
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Has scoring been changed? I did not play the original game, and one of the main things (if not the main thing) that moved me from "wow, this game looks awesome" to "aw, this game looks like another underdeveloped Kickstarter bust" was the very low scoring that I heard about. IMO, overly scarce VP make things too delicate for an involved game like this.

At any rate, I am psyched to see that you're still working to make this the great game that it should be. If I have time I will take a deeper look at the revised rules.

Best of luck!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Seater
United States
Ashland
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
I help designers improve their games.
badge
Feed me...games...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DJ Kuul A wrote:
Has scoring been changed? I did not play the original game, and one of the main things (if not the main thing) that moved me from "wow, this game looks awesome" to "aw, this game looks like another underdeveloped Kickstarter bust" was the very low scoring that I heard about. IMO, overly scarce VP make things too delicate for an involved game like this.

At any rate, I am psyched to see that you're still working to make this the great game that it should be. If I have time I will take a deeper look at the revised rules.

Best of luck!

Scoring has been changed. There are more opportunities to score, and turn order on the last turn is nowhere near as influential. There are also cooperative scoring paths, making for less militaristic strategies. Hopefully the update helps you enjoy the game more!

(edit: I also didn't enjoy the game much pre-edits, which is why I was so interested in helping the designer do a revision.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitch Willis
United States
Kathleen
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Have there been any rule changes since April? And is a second edition still in the plans? Thanks...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Knemeyer
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
otha62 wrote:
Have there been any rule changes since April? And is a second edition still in the plans? Thanks...


We are not getting feedback and play of the new rules. So unless something really changes a second edition does not seem viable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Silverman
United States
Halfway between Castro and Mickey Mouse
Florida (FL)
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is there a VASSAL module for the game? I don't think anyone I know locally owns it, and I don't have time to construct playtest kits, but I'd be willing to download the new rules and give it a try if I could just fire up an electronic test kit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Eckman
United States
Oviedo
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dknemeyer wrote:
otha62 wrote:
Have there been any rule changes since April? And is a second edition still in the plans? Thanks...


We are not getting feedback and play of the new rules. So unless something really changes a second edition does not seem viable.

I was waiting on a Final version of the new rules to play again. I know that doesn't help you, but thought I would add that there is some interest.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mitch Willis
United States
Kathleen
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dknemeyer wrote:
otha62 wrote:
Have there been any rule changes since April? And is a second edition still in the plans? Thanks...


We are not getting feedback and play of the new rules. So unless something really changes a second edition does not seem viable.


I can understand that; if a second edition is not economically viable, no use in pursuing it...

In retrospect, I wish RtE hadn't been the first of your games to be Kickstarted as you've seemed to learn more after each game. Of the ones you've done thus far, the theme/uniqueness of this one caught my imagination more so than the others; RtE was the first Kickstarter in which I pledged. I still think the idea has a lot of promise; it's just a shame that potential probably won't be realized...

Good luck in your future endeavors!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Knemeyer
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
otha62 wrote:
dknemeyer wrote:
otha62 wrote:
Have there been any rule changes since April? And is a second edition still in the plans? Thanks...


We are not getting feedback and play of the new rules. So unless something really changes a second edition does not seem viable.


I can understand that; if a second edition is not economically viable, no use in pursuing it...

In retrospect, I wish RtE hadn't been the first of your games to be Kickstarted as you've seemed to learn more after each game. Of the ones you've done thus far, the theme/uniqueness of this one caught my imagination more so than the others; RtE was the first Kickstarter in which I pledged. I still think the idea has a lot of promise; it's just a shame that potential probably won't be realized...

Good luck in your future endeavors!


Thanks Mitch.

I still think my most interesting ideas were in Road. I just didn't have a clue as to what I was doing. That said, most groups who are taught the game instead of trying to learn via the rules seem to like it.

You're right that I get better at this with each new game. It gets tighter and tighter. The biggest lesson I've learned is the big value of a team of resources on the final quality of a game. It gives me a new respect for publishers. GMT, one of my favorites, has a stable of excellent designers. But the impact they have in development and publishing makes such a huge difference. As someone who is into this to design and not to publish - doing the latter since it is just the publisher, not the designer, who can make a living wage in this business - I am constantly trying to improve the dev and pub sides to maximize my designs and hopefully be recognized at a GMT level of quality.

Have appreciated your support throughout and look forward to returning to this...someday!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rowse
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My group ran through the rules a few weeks ago, and had plans to get a game under our belts - then surgery, childbirth and work deadlines all hit at once!

But we're still planning to give it a shot, though possibly with a few tweaks to address some of the things we're not completely sold on...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Flynn
United States
Orland Park
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gentlemen,

Yesterday we played a four player game using the new Version 2 rules. We have played the original version with 4 and 5 players three times. The general consensus was very negative. That is,overall we prefer the original rules(Rob, Mike & Kurt please correct me if I give the wrong impression and/or add your opinions.). More specifically some of our dislikes were: At start random Favorite distribution (prefer original pass around draft), end of round luminary draft(adds to play time and too much deck growth), hand size too limiting (7 vs 10), new battle system too predictable, turn order bidding, track wrapping points (5 too much). On a positive note, we like the flexibility of not using the old action cards (attack, diplomacy, reorganize)

We started off going for the long game but called the game at the short mark because we didn't want to continue into a second session due to our dislike of the new rules.

On the rules, we couldn't find the starting position of the religious block and therefore used the original position. Also it wasn't initially clear that a player would have a draw deck and an exhausted deck.

Personally, I really like the concept of the game which is why I did the kickstarter. Speaking for myself, I like the game as published with a couple of reservations: 1. As has been previously mentioned, the rules were not well written. 2. Winning battles was very hard to do. (I am a notoriously bad die roller but other players had almost as bad results as me.) The table talk suggests making success on a 5 or 6 (which might be too easy). In any case, I like rolling dice as the attacker.

I applaud your effort to improve the game. The earlier concept of an expansion with added luminaries and events seemed to me the most exciting possibility.

Thanks
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Knemeyer
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rflynn46 wrote:
Gentlemen,

Yesterday we played a four player game using the new Version 2 rules. We have played the original version with 4 and 5 players three times. The general consensus was very negative. That is,overall we prefer the original rules(Rob, Mike & Kurt please correct me if I give the wrong impression and/or add your opinions.). More specifically some of our dislikes were: At start random Favorite distribution (prefer original pass around draft), end of round luminary draft(adds to play time and too much deck growth), hand size too limiting (7 vs 10), new battle system too predictable, turn order bidding, track wrapping points (5 too much). On a positive note, we like the flexibility of not using the old action cards (attack, diplomacy, reorganize)

We started off going for the long game but called the game at the short mark because we didn't want to continue into a second session due to our dislike of the new rules.

On the rules, we couldn't find the starting position of the religious block and therefore used the original position. Also it wasn't initially clear that a player would have a draw deck and an exhausted deck.

Personally, I really like the concept of the game which is why I did the kickstarter. Speaking for myself, I like the game as published with a couple of reservations: 1. As has been previously mentioned, the rules were not well written. 2. Winning battles was very hard to do. (I am a notoriously bad die roller but other players had almost as bad results as me.) The table talk suggests making success on a 5 or 6 (which might be too easy). In any case, I like rolling dice as the attacker.

I applaud your effort to improve the game. The earlier concept of an expansion with added luminaries and events seemed to me the most exciting possibility.

Thanks


Thanks for the feedback here Richard!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Silverman
United States
Halfway between Castro and Mickey Mouse
Florida (FL)
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rflynn46 wrote:
2. Winning battles was very hard to do. (I am a notoriously bad die roller but other players had almost as bad results as me.) The table talk suggests making success on a 5 or 6 (which might be too easy). In any case, I like rolling dice as the attacker.


Maybe roll d8s and hit on a 7 or 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.