Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Tide of Iron» Forums » General

Subject: more poll questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
bill jaffe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
hey all i'am working on TOI Pacific and have a couple questions for you
nothing is set in stone yet

bill




Poll
TOI Pacific as stand alone from TOINNW
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
yes
45.6% 26
no
35.1% 20
do not care
19.3% 11
Voters 57
Japanese forces very different
  Your Answer   Vote Percent Vote Count
like
73.2% 41
dislike
10.7% 6
do not care
16.1% 9
Voters 56
This poll is now closed.   57 answers
Poll created by skinsfan
Closes: Fri Dec 5, 2014 6:00 am
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Please define "very" different, Bill. I know what you mean, but the general public may not.

Secondly, I believe the real question should be (as most will need little convincing that the Japanese indeed possessed several traits which clearly distinguished them from their brethren):

A: Do you want the special traits of the Japanese to be built in in the units' stats

or

B: Do you want the differences to be implemented in the tried and tested way of using op cards, scenario special rules and strategy decks?

As you know, Bill, my vote then goes to B.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Miller
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I vote option A for the second poll question because the Japanese armed forces were extremely different. Not only did they run on a different code (for simplicities sake we'll call it the bushido code) but they had a completely different style of fighting. Light tanks, extremely portable mortars, not a ton of vehicles, extremely versatile infantry, and the ability to defend and endure beyond human endurance.

I feel like they need both option A and B- extremely different styles of play. Don't expect a lot of tanks with the Japanese, but I do expect a lot of variety in my infantry...


And option B- they need their own, extremely unique op cards, decks, etc. The Japanese just fought differently. That needs to be reflected in both sides of the game. Additionally, maybe adding some rules that they win based off attrition? If you wipe out enough of the enemy you just win straight out, even if defending.

And they need some very special navy decks, since their navy played a huge roll in their conquests. And maybe everyone has a mortar....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
Thailand
Bangkok
Bangkok
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Please define "very" different.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Beckett
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:


A: Do you want the special traits of the Japanese to be built in in the units' stats

or

B: Do you want the differences to be implemented in the tried and tested way of using op cards, scenario special rules and strategy decks?


Willem has the verbiage correct.

“A” for sure on the second poll (but you guys already know that).

On the first poll I think We need more details.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Beckett
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
boersma8 wrote:
tried and tested



Cheater!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kandras 78
Hungary
flag msg tools
Avatar
Bill,

If a standalone expansion by your terms means that all (or at least the majority of) the scenarios included might be played without the need to have the core box or other expansions, likewise the new rules are not changing, transforming but complementing the existing rules, then, and only then I support your idea.

Standalone expansions are a good way attracting new players to the game, while introducing new units/terrain/miniatures and other stuff. These expansions also would be a fine addition to any veteran's existing collection. I think newbies buying one of these standalone expansions will than rather buy the core set, than vice verse. E.g.: Folks who are 'only' interested in the Pacific Theatre will buy the standalone expansion and hopefully later buy the core and other sets as well after they become fans of the ToI system.

And let me sidetrack a bit:
I would also suggest keeping the core rules untouched and implement optional advanced rules (vehicle facing, different armor values etc.) as a separate section in all future box-releases and/or campaign books. This method is enableing all players to set the level of reality and complexity as they see fit but basically playing by the same rules.

A Living rulebook containing all updates and errata on the 1A site is a must.

A free and userfriendly Scenario Editor with all the expansions is a must.

New short scenarios needed. If possible in a free download format.


These efforts will generate the buzz that 1A strives for and what the game of ToI deserves.



[Edit:Late night typos]
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bill jaffe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
well i have folks who want the Pacific but really do not want the Germans
the idea of a base set or core for the Pacific and then expansions built of that is not a bad thing long term i would like to release one new Pacific and Europe box set each year.

as for vastly different,I'm talking different ranges and firepower for the Japanese weapons, better movement in certain terrain and possibly an ability to self rally.

the main us army stats you are familiar with wouldn't change but i Marines would be different

also i can see different rules for moving along river's,swamp's and Jungle

I want to gauge how folks think before jumping in any one direction i see some useful feedback all ready

bill
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh J Jones
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think they should have some strategy decks that are nationality based like the UK, US,, GE reinforcements and US, GE Air Support decks. I don't know what one of these decks would be called (SNLF tactics deck?) but I figure Banzai charge should be one.

Perhaps knee mortars would be a strategy card, the same way sniper works now? Maybe a unit specialization token?

There are already existing ops cards that model some behavior, such as the one that prevents a unit from routing they can only ever be disrupted. I think it's the one called Desperate Defenders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Logs
United States
Wilmington
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My two cents for the Japanese traits: stay with the appropriate functionality of the units capability with only a simple note or so if defendable as "always" applicable (be careful to balance there). Watch out for how they could do more with less and yet do less with more. Use OPS cards or decks or scenarios to emphasize the more unique features.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
1stSarge wrote:
boersma8 wrote:
tried and tested



Cheater!:D


Guilty as charged! ;)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bill jaffe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to be really clear i'm not talking a different set of rules, 90% of the rules will be TOINW but i need to account for the fact that the Japanese basically conquered an area greater than China with an Army that was very 30's based and managed to hold off for almost 4 years a vastly superior US military while fighting with worse weapons and with worse supplies

bill
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hss Hss
Norway
flag msg tools
I voted for a stand alone, but I want the rules to be 100% interchangeable. So that you could create a scenario with Japanese versus English with days of the fox components.


I voted for very different. Whenever possible, you should try to describe the Japan using existing rules. But all other op-cards are op-cards which are dependent on scenario. The German may have 'no surrender' and may not have, dependent on the scenario. Traits which the Japan infantry always have may just as well be implemented in their core stats instead.

But what can be described using exiting rules should be done so. For example, an elite force is best described using, more elites. 100% elite force is better than other rules.

Now, with the core stats, there is not a ton of things you could do.
The regular infantry firepower versus both tanks and infantry cannot be changed to anything. The range versus tanks will have to stay the same. You could reduce the range for infantry fire from 4 to 3, but even that is a extreme modification. You could increase the speed from 4 too 5, but then Japan has to have had some extreme historical bonuses/penalties for both of these to apply.

You could change the stats of the mortar slightly. A mortar capable of fire & movement... With maybe slightly less range & firepower, might be doable. The MG isn't that flexible either, minor tweaks to infantry range could be added.

So, most basic stats are sett in stone and very hard to change.

But, all japanese infantry could get 'no surrender' rule added for all infantry.

What you could also include a rally ability.
I have an idea here:
Rally: As an action, roll a die
at 5+ on a die roll, remove the pinned token and then take another action or downgrade a disrupted token to a pinned. Then fatigue the unit.

If unsuccessful, fatigue the unit.
---
meaning, there is a 1/3 probability that the infantry will ignore the pinned token and do whatever it needs to be done regardless.
---


Elites could then give you +1 on a die roll, while a officer in the hex could give you +3 on that die roll.
---
This WILL make elite troops/officer almost immune to suppressive fire.
---
MG squads may get a rule which allows them to 'not be fatigued' if on op fire and pinned, and allowing them in the presence of a officer to fire op-fire at half firepower even if pinned.
---

Be careful however, as all this will do is to make the enemy switch from suppressive firepower to normal firepower.

You could make a op card which says: if you try to rally a unit, and roll a 1 on the die, you are forced to assault the nearest enemy enemy unit. (if you cannot, move as far as possible towards the enemy)

I'm for tweaking the core stats where possible, adding special rules like rally, no surrender etc. Cuz they were always part of the Japanese stats. For a well trained division, use more 'elites' than normal to describe what you want.

Other rules are more suited as OP-card rules. Minor movement modifications, which isn't necessarily for every single scenario, and use the ones you have where possible. Cross bridged for example.

You could also make Japanese specific specializations. Or Japanese flavor of existing specializations (Japanese engineer with a small flag in the corner)


So in sort to B)

Minor tweaks were applicable, some rally special for traits which where always part of the Japanese infantry.

But only where appropriate. Use OP-cards and specializations in addition to describe the Japanese.


As for the Marines; Do you plan on making them a separate model?
And come in regular/elite versions? Or the same model but different stats? The stats cannot be that different, cuz, there isn't much flexibility. Some special ability could be added however.





4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hss Hss
Norway
flag msg tools
If you could justify a standard range of 3 for infantry firing at infantry I'm all for it. But it seems extreme. Be very careful about that one.

Don't be afraid to include 'weak' specializations/restrictions, as these may add lots of flavor.

And please consider adding concussive firepower +2 where appropriate to Japanese vehicles instead of the +3 which is normal.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh J Jones
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Honestly I'd be a bit careful about modifying their base stats too much. If you look at the US, UK, Soviet and German infantry in the game they are all identical with one exception, the German machine gun is 4 attack instead of 3 vs infantry (the MG 34 and 42). Going by that logic, i'd say the Japanese should be the same as every one else except for their machine gun should be attack 3 vs infantry like the allies (the Type 92 HMG was certainly no MG34 or 42). Otherwise other traits and abilities should be handled by specialization tokens like every other faction is.

I could agree that the Japanese should have a No Surrender like effect at all times but other wise to simulate their tactics i'd rely on specialization tokens, camouflage tokens and new Pacific specific terrain features. Perhaps spider holes as an entrenchment, pillbox like terrain feature that only the Japanese can utilize?

As for simulating elite troops I always thought the experience tokens from Normandy should be included (bronze, silver, blue). In Normandy they are used to simulate experience accrued through the campaign. However I think they are underutilized, they could be used in single scenarios as well, Falschirmjagers? place bronze tokens on them. The Devils Brigade? Silver perhaps. I can see mid war and later USMC being all bronze. Plus by including them in a Pacific expansion you could include a campaign with advancement like in Normandy.

Basically I think what I'm saying is there is a lot already in the game that can help simulate the Japanese. I think it would be unnecessary to cause rule bloat and feature bloat. Before adding new things to simulate the Japanese I'd first look at which already exist within the game to utilize, then only when gaps are found within the existing frame work would I add completely new features and so forth. In this way adding features just to add new features could be overcome, and thus the truly never before seen features will shine so much more.

I apologize for the long post, I hope it is read though.



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Grand Stone wrote:
I voted for a stand alone, but I want the rules to be 100% interchangeable. So that you could create a scenario with Japanese versus English with days of the fox components.


I voted for very different. Whenever possible, you should try to describe the Japan using existing rules. But all other op-cards are op-cards which are dependent on scenario. The German may have 'no surrender' and may not have, dependent on the scenario. Traits which the Japan infantry always have may just as well be implemented in their core stats instead.

But what can be described using exiting rules should be done so. For example, an elite force is best described using, more elites. 100% elite force is better than other rules.

Now, with the core stats, there is not a ton of things you could do.
The regular infantry firepower versus both tanks and infantry cannot be changed to anything. The range versus tanks will have to stay the same. You could reduce the range for infantry fire from 4 to 3, but even that is a extreme modification. You could increase the speed from 4 too 5, but then Japan has to have had some extreme historical bonuses/penalties for both of these to apply.

You could change the stats of the mortar slightly. A mortar capable of fire & movement... With maybe slightly less range & firepower, might be doable. The MG isn't that flexible either, minor tweaks to infantry range could be added.

So, most basic stats are sett in stone and very hard to change.

But, all japanese infantry could get 'no surrender' rule added for all infantry.

What you could also include a rally ability.
I have an idea here:
Rally: As an action, roll a die
at 5+ on a die roll, remove the pinned token and then take another action or downgrade a disrupted token to a pinned. Then fatigue the unit.

If unsuccessful, fatigue the unit.
---
meaning, there is a 1/3 probability that the infantry will ignore the pinned token and do whatever it needs to be done regardless.
---


Elites could then give you +1 on a die roll, while a officer in the hex could give you +3 on that die roll.
---
This WILL make elite troops/officer almost immune to suppressive fire.
---
MG squads may get a rule which allows them to 'not be fatigued' if on op fire and pinned, and allowing them in the presence of a officer to fire op-fire at half firepower even if pinned.
---

Be careful however, as all this will do is to make the enemy switch from suppressive firepower to normal firepower.

You could make a op card which says: if you try to rally a unit, and roll a 1 on the die, you are forced to assault the nearest enemy enemy unit. (if you cannot, move as far as possible towards the enemy)

I'm for tweaking the core stats where possible, adding special rules like rally, no surrender etc. Cuz they were always part of the Japanese stats. For a well trained division, use more 'elites' than normal to describe what you want.

Other rules are more suited as OP-card rules. Minor movement modifications, which isn't necessarily for every single scenario, and use the ones you have where possible. Cross bridged for example.

You could also make Japanese specific specializations. Or Japanese flavor of existing specializations (Japanese engineer with a small flag in the corner)


So in sort to B)

Minor tweaks were applicable, some rally special for traits which where always part of the Japanese infantry.

But only where appropriate. Use OP-cards and specializations in addition to describe the Japanese.


As for the Marines; Do you plan on making them a separate model?
And come in regular/elite versions? Or the same model but different stats? The stats cannot be that different, cuz, there isn't much flexibility. Some special ability could be added however.







I almost entirely agree with you and funnily enough many of the possible modifications you mention are exactly those that are being discussed!

I also agree with your remark regarding changing the range of the Japanese against squads from 4 to 3. This could be built in and would be justifiable (The Arisaka rifle was very unwieldy which should perhaps be at the expense of firepower rather than range, but as you said, infantry fp cannot be reduced as it's already "just" "1").Regardless, this would indeed be a HUGE factor on scenario balance. Having said that;I do expect the Pacific maps to facilitate a lot of close combat, i.e. a lot of cover and LOS blocking terrain.

Finally, the fact that you mention that if the Japanese become (all but) immune to suppressive fire, will simply make the opponent switch to normal fire, which would mean that a huge part of what is TOI would be lost: the possibility to use suppressive fire. Personally I'd be in favor of indeed having a built in/ op card "no surrender effect", but that they could still be pinned or disrupted. Strategy decks and op cards could then be used to tinker with this; making it even stronger or perhaps sometimes weaker. If all this were standard, as I said, suppressive fire could almost be left out of the Pacific rule book...

Something I personally wonder about: It's well known the Japanese almost never surrendered. however, did they ever retreat? Two very different things of course and routed could also symbolize the latter, which is why having anything built in could have lots of undesired side effects. With op cards, strategy decks and scenario special rules that problem wouldn't exist.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sputnik Monroe wrote:
Honestly I'd be a bit careful about modifying their base stats too much. If you look at the US, UK, Soviet and German infantry in the game they are all identical with one exception, the German machine gun is 4 attack instead of 3 vs infantry (the MG 34 and 42). Going by that logic, i'd say the Japanese should be the same as every one else except for their machine gun should be attack 3 vs infantry like the allies (the Type 92 HMG was certainly no MG34 or 42). Otherwise other traits and abilities should be handled by specialization tokens like every other faction is.

I could agree that the Japanese should have a No Surrender like effect at all times but other wise to simulate their tactics i'd rely on specialization tokens, camouflage tokens and new Pacific specific terrain features. Perhaps spider holes as an entrenchment, pillbox like terrain feature that only the Japanese can utilize?

As for simulating elite troops I always thought the experience tokens from Normandy should be included (bronze, silver, blue). In Normandy they are used to simulate experience accrued through the campaign. However I think they are underutilized, they could be used in single scenarios as well, Falschirmjagers? place bronze tokens on them. The Devils Brigade? Silver perhaps. I can see mid war and later USMC being all bronze. Plus by including them in a Pacific expansion you could include a campaign with advancement like in Normandy.

Basically I think what I'm saying is there is a lot already in the game that can help simulate the Japanese. I think it would be unnecessary to cause rule bloat and feature bloat. Before adding new things to simulate the Japanese I'd first look at which already exist within the game to utilize, then only when gaps are found within the existing frame work would I add completely new features and so forth. In this way adding features just to add new features could be overcome, and thus the truly never before seen features will shine so much more.

I apologize for the long post, I hope it is read though.





Entirely agree (except for the "long post part"; it's really not that long! (-;)

This post also implies, of course, that the Pacific should NOT be a stand alone as the base game and other expansions already provide a lot of what is needed for the Pacific, as you clearly point out.

Of course certain (op) cards, tokens etc. could and should be reprinted and included in the Pacific set(s)as one cannot expect a new player to buy the Normandy expansion just to get the tokens and the naval bombardment card.

However, a complete stand-alone might also mean that all the strategy decks from the base game (command I, Morale 1, Ground support 1 etc.) would have to be reprinted and included. This would both up the cost as well as give existing players lots of doubles (triples if owning the FFG and the 1A Core sets). It would probably also mean that a new American army would have to be included which would up the cost severely as well. On the other hand, if these were unique sculpts representing the marine Corps I guess I wouldn't mind. Then again, SS troops, rangers, guards etc. have so far been represented by op cards and strategy decks and this works just fine.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hss Hss
Norway
flag msg tools
Note that in my version, regular infantry are far from immune to suppressive fire. In 2/3 of the cases, nothing will happen.

And suppressive fire may still be useful to silence the MG.

If you do consider making the Japanese regular infantry 3 in range versus infantry, the Japanese do deserve some kind of bonus versus suppressive fire. And also, the Japanese was a well trained army, at least from what I have learned, and thus a greater portion of elites should be justified.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hss Hss
Norway
flag msg tools
Question: what do you mean by stand alone?

My opinion is that it would be vice to offer the pacific as 'not dependent' on the base ToI to play. But should use 100% of the core ToI rules.

But, all rules should be interchangeable. If for example you decide to tweak command deck, call it command II.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bill jaffe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
The Japanese certainly retreated not often but they did
once again i have to say the community has done what i hoped they would and provide thought provoking answers.
if we make TOI Pacific stand alone from TOINW the decks in there would be reprinted, i believe those decks do not in most cases work in the Pacific some cards might but i feel players would like different decks to use

bill
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pat Hamill
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmb
A Pacific standalone is a must but any differences in the units should be handled with card decks, Operations cards and specializations. I don't see any point in changing the base stats. Keep in mind the fighting with the Soviets and the Japanese in very different terrain than jungles.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Logs
United States
Wilmington
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ncree wrote:
My two cents for the Japanese traits: stay with the appropriate functionality of the units capability with only a simple note or so if defendable as "always" applicable (be careful to balance there). Watch out for how they could do more with less and yet do less with more. Use OPS cards or decks or scenarios to emphasize the more unique features.


Never done this before, but, I re-iterate my own point. Keep the same basis and justify the inherent cpababilities for the units. Germans are different, just not by much. It has to be universal to the nationality at all times.

So: If the mortar, rifle, etc... was less effective - make it so, always. If the leader avoids suppression - make it so always, if the troops won't stop and take casualties (ie. like vehicles)- make it so always, if they can't move witout a leader or elite - make it so always. If they don't retreat after assault and take full casualties make it so,...

It's the same game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh J Jones
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to say, I'm definitely leaning hard towards expansion pack over stand alone now. There are lots of components in the base game (strategy cards, specialization tokens, status counters) that transfer well to the pacific. If the Pacific is made as it's own stand alone all those will need to be included and all that ends up doing is causing existing players to double up on components they already own.

The argument could be made that 100% all new strategy cards could be made with no duplicates in a stand alone, however I feel like by doing that a lot of wasted effort would be put into coming up with new decks and card abilities to fill an already existing decks place. For example, you don't have "Ground Support" as a deck anymore, but suddenly there is a void that needs to be filled that "Ground Support" filled in the base game so new cards are made and the deck has a name like "Infantry Tactics" or something and at the end of the day it's just filling the gap that "ground support" already filled. Essentially it's reinventing the wheel.

Even simple things like including fatigue, suppression counters and the basic specialization tokens comes as a waste, that's a sheet of cardboard that could have been a new two sided pacific map board or tropical overlay tiles.

Also consider things like the Sherman and M3 half track. They were both utilized in the pacific as well; not as common as in Europe but still they were. If it's an expansion no need to include those pieces. Instead things like M3 Stuarts and possibly LVTs and LVT-As.

I really feel strongly that Expansion pack is the way to go. Build off the base system don't divide the root.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Willem Boersma
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sputnik Monroe wrote:
I have to say, I'm definitely leaning hard towards expansion pack over stand alone now. There are lots of components in the base game (strategy cards, specialization tokens, status counters) that transfer well to the pacific. If the Pacific is made as it's own stand alone all those will need to be included and all that ends up doing is causing existing players to double up on components they already own.

The argument could be made that 100% all new strategy cards could be made with no duplicates in a stand alone, however I feel like by doing that a lot of wasted effort would be put into coming up with new decks and card abilities to fill an already existing decks place. For example, you don't have "Ground Support" as a deck anymore, but suddenly there is a void that needs to be filled that "Ground Support" filled in the base game so new cards are made and the deck has a name like "Infantry Tactics" or something and at the end of the day it's just filling the gap that "ground support" already filled. Essentially it's reinventing the wheel.

Even simple things like including fatigue, suppression counters and the basic specialization tokens comes as a waste, that's a sheet of cardboard that could have been a new two sided pacific map board or tropical overlay tiles.

Also consider things like the Sherman and M3 half track. They were both utilized in the pacific as well; not as common as in Europe but still they were. If it's an expansion no need to include those pieces. Instead things like M3 Stuarts and possibly LVTs and LVT-As.

I really feel strongly that Expansion pack is the way to go. Build off the base system don't divide the root.


Couldn't have said it any better!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giannis Chorinos
Greece
Alexandroupolis
Evros
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A standalone pacific theater is a very good idea for new come gamers but I would appreciate if become and a second upgrade version that it will be for those that they have TOINW basic or older FF version of TOI (pacific upgrade kit or something like that). In this way you don't need to make a game from the beginning and we will not have to have duplicated minis or cards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.