Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
266 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [11] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2 - READY FOR PLAY rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After the discussion about format & rules, here's what we're going with this go 'round:

So we should get things rolling. Here's the rules:

1. 2,500 dust limit based on construction cost. Here's a snazzy spreadsheet that should help calcualte costs.

1a. No more than 3 doubletons per deck, and doubletons may only be class-specific cards.

1b. Just in case it somehow happens that Naraxxus is released before all decks are submitted - only basic and expert cards are permitted. No cards from the expansion.

2. So that everyone can build decks without customizing to match the other opponents, all deck contents should be submitted to me via geekmail no later than midnight Sunday, 6/29 Monday, 7/7 Central time. Actually, I'll accept anything before I start posting the deck contents, but wanted to sound officious. You'll just have to trust that I won't cheat.

3. I will post deck contents Tuesday as soon as I can get to it. Probably in the morning. Your deck is fixed and may not be changed once I post it.

4. The ladder is a round-robin format where everyone plays everyone else. Arrange times however you like, but all play should be completed by Thursday, July 31. Each match is three games, 2 out of 3 wins (to try to compensate for the inevitable crappy draws). Play all three games even if a winner is determined after two.

5. Post match results to this thread as you complete them.

6. Unless SG gives me a better scoring method, scores will be calculated as follows:
- You earn 1 point for every match you play. You always get all of these points.
- You earn 3 points for every match you win, but...
- ...your points for wins will be multiplied by your winning percentage. ETA: "Winning Percentage" here refers to your percentage winning games rather than matches.

Total points will be used to rank the ladder.

7. I'm kicking in 25GG for the prize pool and will add any tips this post receives to that. Winner gets 6 shares of the pool, 2nd 3 shares, 3rd 1 share.

8. In the event of a connection failure, discard the game that was in progress altogether unless one of the players concedes that they would have lost. Honesty and fair play are preferred, so if you know you were toast, please admit it. This sounds harsh, but some decks are designed to do massive damage in a single round, and 16+ is not hard to achieve, even with a 2,500 dust limit, so a disconnection or crash shouldn't be a penalty.
4 
 Thumb up
15.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
Scoring Spreadsheet and decklists can be found at this link.

Final list of participants and Battle.net tags:

bjlillo (bjlillo#1997)
fizzmore (Wants to keep private - GM me or find me on Battle.net for it)
Perfalbion (Perfalbion#1487)
Pintsizepete (Cersei#1200)
qzhdad (qzhdad#1686)
SabreRedleg (Sabre3#1811)
scifiantihero (DewMan#1194)
SpaceGhost (Fastkmeans#1907)
TheMessage (TheMessage#1296)
ThriftThopter (ThriftThopta#1254)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
So I figured I'd start with a poll to capture some thoughts:

Poll
How should we handle deck strength?
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
1000 dust max
22.2% 2
1500 dust max
0.0% 0
2000 dust max
0.0% 0
2500 dust max
22.2% 2
3000 dust max
22.2% 2
Other (I'll describe in a post)
33.3% 3
Voters 9
Should scoring be based on games played or a match system?
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
Games
11.1% 1
Matches
55.6% 5
Both (I'll describe in a post)
33.3% 3
Voters 9
We should encourage getting all match-ups completed by:
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
Baking completion into the scoring.
33.3% 3
Eliminating players that don't complete a set number of games/matches.
11.1% 1
Using an elimination system of some form.
0.0% 0
Creating a schedule that players need to adhere to (describe how you think this will work).
33.3% 3
Other (I'll describe in a post)
22.2% 2
Voters 9
The tournament should be a:
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
Round-robin affair like the first one.
44.4% 4
Round-robin for some portion that seeds a bracket.
11.1% 1
An elimination tournament using a bracket.
33.3% 3
Something else that I'll describe in a post.
11.1% 1
Voters 9
I'm not made of GG and will eventually run out of it if I keep staking prizes for tournaments. Assume that I'll stake this tournament with 25-50GG. Should we:
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
Require an entry fee of 5GG (non-refundable once the tournament starts).
11.1% 1
Require an entry fee of 10GG (non-refundable once the tournament starts).
22.2% 2
I don't give a damn about GG, I want to be able to brag on RSP about how I owned your ass.
66.7% 6
Voters 9
This poll is now closed.   9 answers
Poll created by perfalbion
Closes: Sat Jul 5, 2014 6:00 am


My thought on scoring is the "Bake completion into the scoring somehow." Here's my suggestion:

1. You earn 1 point for every game/match you play.
2. You earn 3 points for every game/match you win. This is in addition to #1.
3. You only earn points for the wins in #2 in proportion to your winning percentage. So if you play 5 matches, win 4, you get 5 + 16 * .8 = 12.8 points.

I took a look at how this would have impacted the standings for our first go, and it would have broken the tie for first that we ended up with. Fizzmore would have landed 20 points (5 matches at 100% victory nets 20 points), Osirus would have landed 17.7 (7 + 15 * 0.71), spoon 14.6 (5 + 12 * 0.8).

If we went this route, I'd nuke the prize for dead last we gave last time. I could see increasing the points for playing a match to maximize the incentive for participating, but I want to be a bit careful - we could continue to tweak in the future.

Anyway, the floor is open. Whadda you guys got?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
For deck strength I think upping it "a solid bump" to 1500 or 2000 is fine, but I'd also like to see some sort of wacky gimmick. Admittedly as mentioned elsewhere, I'm not entirely sure something like "only cards starting with vowels" or "only cards with odd casting costs" is going to be fairly balanced across classes, but I think wacky deckbuilding gimmicks make things more fun.

Scoring-wise, we could do games and matches, make each worth a point. Although actually, that may be needlessly complicated and maybe just games is fine -- presuming we still play X games and not just best of X. I much prefer round robin to elimination, since we're ostensibly all playing each other for fun, so it seems odd that you'd want half the players to be done after one match. Then again, I guess it'd be a lot less commitment for those of us who are matched against fizzmore.

I'm happier for the tourney to have no GG entry fee, as some folks just don't have lots of GG kicking around. That being said, if we *do* go the GG entry fee route, perhaps you get some of your entry returned to you at the end of the tourney if you showed up for at least two of the "encouraged playtime" slots throughout the tourney -- this would be a way to incentivize that without making it a strict requirement (as I realize some people just have busy schedules).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
I like the idea of a gimmick deck requirement. A big part of the fun for me is building a deck to meet restrictions, so as far as I'm concerned the more restrictive and wackier the better.

As for scoring, what if we just went off win percentage (of individual games)? Play whoever you want/can find, but you must complete X number of games to qualify. X being some multiple of the number of entrants. Ideally, everyone would play each other the same number of times, but if you just can't find a specific person it won't hold you back.

It might also be interesting to have everyone build multiple decks (with different heroes), and and figure a score based on the average performance off all decks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
My issue with win percentage is that it creates a way to game the system. I could hang back and wait for others to establish a pattern of wins & losses, then jump in and play just the minimum number of games against the weakest players. That doesn't really encourage participation, and allows the focus to shift away from getting in lots of games to min-maxing who you play & why.

I'm open to suggestions for "gimmicks." What do people have in mind? You must include a particular card or cards in your deck? For decks of class X you can/can't use certain cards?

It could also be interesting to permit some form of sideboarding. You have to play your published deck in the first game, but you are allowed to go to the sideboard for X number of substitutions (within cost limit) after that. Winner must declare their substitutions first or alternating announcements.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
I would be interested.

I also have a very nice ranking algorithm that is based on the full "network of wins and losses". It is very effective, prevents the problems you are concerned about and you can build in a "bonus parameter" fairly easily.

I would be glad to compile the rankings....details on the ranking model can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairwise_comparison

See under "probabilistic models"

I also had some success with ranking games here a few years ago:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/356968/rankings-based-on-pai...

Also, I have used it to win several college football pools over the last few years.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
SabreRedleg wrote:


It might also be interesting to have everyone build multiple decks (with different heroes), and and figure a score based on the average performance off all decks.


This is a really neat idea, multiple decks is a clunky feature made simplistic by the nature of the system so definitely deserves exploration at some point. You could even set it up to where each deck conforms to a different gimmick, so they'd have to do say something like "my mage deck is for gimmick 1, my warrior for gimmick 2 and the druid for gimmick 3" when submitting the lists.

Assorted poorly conceived gimmicks:

- No cards higher than an X mana cost (4 or 5ish, probably)

- Only minions in the deck, no spells or weapons.

- You have to use your hero power every turn in which it is available (so turn 2 or later, barring shaman mana debuffs. Coin or turn 1 innervate don't force it), failure to do so disqualifies you immediately.

- Can only attack with exactly two minions each turn, attacking with more or less immediately disqualifies you as above.

- Cannot play cards until turn 10, hero power allowed before then (although perhaps a whole tournament of "wait to see who drew their OTK combo might not be that great, I did say "poorly conceived").

- Pick a keyword. You can only include minions with that keyword.

- You must draft an arena deck and screenshot it to form your deck. Up to five substitutions can be made to accommodate collection deficiencies.

- You have to choose Horde or Alliance and can only pick heroes and cards that depict members of those factions. My knowledge of the lore is insufficient to gauge whether or not this is even possible with the given card pool, having never played WoW.


Some of those might be salvageable. I really like the playstyle rules as well, even if they would be slightly more clunky to keep track of.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
Clay, those are great ideas. I mean, some of them are terrible, but they are all great.

One simple gimmick would just be "No neutral cards".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
I wish there were more racial keywords besides murloc, beast, and pirate. The horde/alliance split might work though.

I was thinking something like:

- your deck must include X cards from this list, followed by a list of cards that are generally viewed as bad. For example: Angry chicken, Magma Rager, Wisp, etc.

- you may include a maximum of XX mana cost worth of class specific cards (or, alternately, a minimum).

I haven't thought at all about what these numbers should be.

I also thought of the "pick a keyword" idea, though I'd change it to you may only use 1 keyword in your deck. (So if you have any cards with Battlecry, then no cards with Deathrattle, Taunt, etc... But cards with no keyword are ok)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
SabreRedleg wrote:
I wish there were more racial keywords besides murloc, beast, and pirate. The horde/alliance split might work though.


There is also "dragon." I'm not sure I know the horde/alliance split well - is that broken out somewhere? I never signed up for WoW because it would probably become such a time sink it cost me my job.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
With regards to a gimmick, maybe we should outlaw "opposites." For example, if you have a card or cards with "Charge," you can't include any with "Taunt." If you have minions that "Heal/Restore" then you can't include any that do direct damage (like the fire elemental).

I do also like the idea of requiring each player to pass for X turns before anyone actually plays a card.

I'm less wild about "minions only" - that really makes some entire classes untenable. I'd prefer a multi-deck format to that where you can't include any card you use in one deck in the other.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
perfalbion wrote:
SabreRedleg wrote:
I wish there were more racial keywords besides murloc, beast, and pirate. The horde/alliance split might work though.


There is also "dragon." I'm not sure I know the horde/alliance split well - is that broken out somewhere? I never signed up for WoW because it would probably become such a time sink it cost me my job.


If you want to build a deck where your only minions are dragons, I'll be happy to play you . I guess demon is a keyword too, but only for warlocks.

Here's the horde/alliance split: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/game/race/

Many minion races can be determined from their name or art, but there are enough that aren't obvious that we'd probably need a list to make sure we're all on the same page. There probably is a list out there somewhere already...

I have no idea what ramifications a horde or alliance only card pool would have on deck construction, but it seems like it'd be interesting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
SabreRedleg wrote:


- your deck must include X cards from this list, followed by a list of cards that are generally viewed as bad. For example: Angry chicken, Magma Rager, Wisp, etc.



perfalbion wrote:


I'm less wild about "minions only" - that really makes some entire classes untenable. I'd prefer a multi-deck format to that where you can't include any card you use in one deck in the other.


These are gold. I especially love the idea of a three deck tournament where none of your decks can share cards, that would really cut down on the whole "eh, might as well throw in a Harvest Golem since there's a slot free" issue of standardized deck construction.

SabreRedleg wrote:

I also thought of the "pick a keyword" idea, though I'd change it to you may only use 1 keyword in your deck. (So if you have any cards with Battlecry, then no cards with Deathrattle, Taunt, etc... But cards with no keyword are ok)



That's what I was going for but the wording was a bit ambiguous. If two people thought of it independently it must be made reality at some point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
I'd like to be in this round, please.

My userid is qzhdad 1686.

I'll play any format. Are we limited to nine custom decks? So if we have "interesting" constraints, it will mean that our "normal" decks will have to give up slots, right?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
Yeah, there are only 9 deck slots. But if you record decks in a spreadsheet or document, they're very fast to recreate, so you really don't need to eat up more than a slot.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
Obvious gimmick that I can't believe I overlooked: singleton decks. That is, you may have no more than - copy of each card in your deck.

This probably makes legendaries relatively stronger, since they were already limited to one copy, so a dust limit or just no legendary restriction might be appropriate.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
perfalbion wrote:
Yeah, there are only 9 deck slots. But if you record decks in a spreadsheet or document, they're very fast to recreate, so you really don't need to eat up more than a slot.


Indeed, I have a wordpad file for just that purpose. You could also screenshot the deck list if you're in a hurry or don't feel like typing very much.

A more compelling point is that if you can't remember which cards were in a deck there's a pretty good chance they weren't particularly important to it in the first place. Unless you're netdecking I guess, but why would anyone do that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
The Message wrote:
Unless you're netdecking I guess, but why would anyone do that?


I find netdecking a good way to explore and experiment, myself. If a player can eke a great deal out of a deck that I suck with, there's something there for me to learn. So I'll frequently poke around to see what combinations people are trying that I might be overlooking.

To be honest, I don't know that I could recreate any deck I play purely from memory. But I record them in Excel to avoid worrying about it as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
SabreRedleg wrote:
Obvious gimmick that I can't believe I overlooked: singleton decks. That is, you may have no more than - copy of each card in your deck.

This probably makes legendaries relatively stronger, since they were already limited to one copy, so a dust limit or just no legendary restriction might be appropriate.


This can dramatically reduce synergies between cards, particularly if the card you're putting in is relatively unique in terms of ability (Acolyte of Pain or Unbound Elemental spring to mind). That may not be a bad thing, but one complaint some had was that the decks in the first tournament weren't heavily themed. I think this would reduce theme even more.

It might be interesting to go the other way - you can't put singletons in your deck or you can only put X singletons in your deck. That reduces the number of different cards available and reinforces theme.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
I like the no singletons rule. Throw in no legendary cards, and then you probably have pretty fair well-themed decks.

Ken - are all the results of the 1st tournament in the other thread (in terms of who played who and who one each match)? If so, I will put together a ranking with weights tonight to show you what it would look like....we can even extend the ranking over multiple rounds (tournaments). And, if we want to get really fancy, we can get a score for each person and each deck (as more and more rounds occur).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
SpaceGhost wrote:
I like the no singletons rule. Throw in no legendary cards,


No singletons will, perforce, mean no legendary cards. (For me, it will also be tight on rares and exceedingly tight on epics -- I think there may be all of one epic of which I have two copies, and it ain't neutral.)

I have to say, the more I think about it, the more I like my "No neutral cards" idea, if only because it'll make each class be entirely different from the others. If not for this tourney, perhaps a future one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay
United States
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
perfalbion wrote:
The Message wrote:
Unless you're netdecking I guess, but why would anyone do that?


I find netdecking a good way to explore and experiment, myself. If a player can eke a great deal out of a deck that I suck with, there's something there for me to learn. So I'll frequently poke around to see what combinations people are trying that I might be overlooking.


I could see the educational benefit of it but I have difficulty seeing the point for people that do it extensively. So if in your example you suddenly started to win reliably with StrifeCro's Aggro Paladin, or whatever, then there would no longer be much value in continuing to use it to learn, at that point you're just using it to win games because you can. That seems to be how most people approach netdecking, they just play the top ranked decks of the current metagame in order to get to the top of the ladder and... then it gets fuzzy. What do they get out of that? "Whoo I beat a bunch of people based on someone else's deck building legwork... yay?" In a game where careful deck construction is such a large centerpiece it practically ruins the point of the activity to circumvent that.

Huh, that turned into more of a rant than expected.

Quote:

To be honest, I don't know that I could recreate any deck I play purely from memory. But I record them in Excel to avoid worrying about it as well.


Perhaps not, but if you wanted to try to recreate it and started to put the pieces back don't you think it would likely fall into place? The line of reasoning is that you must have had some thought process to determine which cards made the cut, likely based upon them serving some purpose in the deck. If you set out to make a deck from the same card pool with the same goals and the same card-role-requirements it isn't terribly unlikely that you will create something that is functionally identical, if not genuinely. Any variations would have to be rather minor relative to the overall flow of the deck, that or your view of what the deck should accomplish must have shifted.

Very few cards go into any deck I make "just because," and those iffy ones are always the ones that get moved around to try out new stuff when tweaking it. I'm far from a master, obviously, but I can't imagine doing it any other way.

Hmm, perhaps this should have been used to revive the old general discussion thread instead.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
Clay, I think perhaps this holds true for you because you are a better player. But I know that absent a decklist, if I tried to reconstruct from scratch any of my 9 decks, I would absolutely fail.

As for net-decking, while I don't do it myself (nor like it because it's boring to play against cookie-cutter decks), I think the appeal is simple to understand: For some people, the game is about winning with the cards they own, and if they keep losing, they consult a guide to find out how to win with cards they own. I imagine for them it's not so different than looking online for a walkthrough for a single-player game to deal with a tricky level or tough boss, or reading forums for an MMO that talk about how one might build their character -- and this is something I certainly do.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Vincent
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: RSP Hearthstone - Bourgeouis Round 2
perfalbion wrote:
SabreRedleg wrote:
Obvious gimmick that I can't believe I overlooked: singleton decks. That is, you may have no more than - copy of each card in your deck.

This probably makes legendaries relatively stronger, since they were already limited to one copy, so a dust limit or just no legendary restriction might be appropriate.


This can dramatically reduce synergies between cards, particularly if the card you're putting in is relatively unique in terms of ability (Acolyte of Pain or Unbound Elemental spring to mind). That may not be a bad thing, but one complaint some had was that the decks in the first tournament weren't heavily themed. I think this would reduce theme even more.

It might be interesting to go the other way - you can't put singletons in your deck or you can only put X singletons in your deck. That reduces the number of different cards available and reinforces theme.


Reducing the synergy is kind of the point. It's tougher to make a deck that works consistently when you can't duplicate cards, so building an effective deck is more of a challenge.

I also agree with Osirus that a no-singletons rule would seriously restrict my option just because of the limits of my collection.

I'm not a fan if Osirus's no neutral card idea. There's little challenge to making a deck when essentially your whole card pool is in the deck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [11] | 
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.