Recommend
15 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Race for the Galaxy» Forums » Sessions

Subject: First time at Race for the Galaxy rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Larry Baxter
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To end our latest game night, Matt whipped out "Race for the Galaxy". He only had a few minutes so he agreed to teach us the rules. Muhahaha! Ten minutes later we were playing! Though Matt had been beating up nicely on students, none of the rest of us had played. I started with "New Sparta", Jeff with "Alpha Centaurii", with Eridani and Old Earth going to Dave and Matt. The first thing that struck us was the number of symbols and icons on the cards (whoa!) - it sure didn't look like anything we had played before. Being familiar with San Juan and big fans of Puerto Rico, we soon picked up the rules and mechanics and basic approaches of building or shipping. (More comments on comparison to San Juan later)

The cards I got at the start certainly suggested a military approach. I soon had a green '4' military world and means to get +3 for military worlds by playing a card. That was immediately helpful when I got a '7' military rebel world. The Galactic Imperium came almost right after that. (Too bad order was not switched, as the latter is +4 for getting rebel worlds) Jeff was having a particularly tough time figuring out the cards. I would have been even worse except the military approach is pretty basic, and I had no cards whatsoever that would let me consume for victory points. David and Matt were shipping/consuming quite aggressively. Dave was also building well and Matt was scoring some nice 6-pt buildings. I jumped out in the lead in VP and number of buildings, but I failed to apply a key principle - pure builders need to do all they can to end the game quickly. I let it linger on a round or two where I should have, chasing some special yellow world. Even worse, Matt pulled out a combination build and settle to hit 12 cards and end the game just before I could play mine.

When we counted up I had 27 pts for buildings plus... zero. Jeff had a total of 26. Dave had 34 and Matt had... 34! Tie-breaker rules were looked up and Dave had an edge in goods/cards, claiming the victory. Matt seemed almost relieved to have finally been beaten. Overall it was a quick and fun game with multiple approaches and things to think about - very nice!



Before playing we had heard a bit of the hype, and I wanted to try it but expected it to fall flat. I'm not a San Juan fan (though I love Puerto Rico) and I'm definitely not a sci-fi fan. Yet on this first play, I liked Race for the Galaxy. The symbols that at first confuse actually turn out to be quite helpful, and avoid a key gripe I have about sci-fi games: "Hmm, now what does the alphameryonic thruster do again?" The theme was pasted on, yet it fit well. There was more a sense of exploration and colonization than in SJ/PR. Second, while it had a lot in common with San Juan (in fact, we had quite a few references like "oh, that's the prospector role"), it came across as richer, more choices, more depth. San Juan (for me... just an opinion) is just too light and too dependent on the card draws and a few key combos. I've never played a game that didn't leave me feeling like I wish we had played Puerto Rico instead. I like the aspect of simultaneous role selection, which requires you to think about what roles others will play (in fact, this is about the only form of player interaction). I also liked the asymmetric home world, although that may have been a recommended beginner setup. Another plus is that the play time is short and there's almost no downtime. thumbsup
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Bridgham
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey Larry, nice session report.

I personally thought that the ability to consume goods added some more elements of Puerto Rico to the game. I loved the sense that there were multiple potential paths to victory, depending on what cards you received and how you choose to play them you could build up VP in different sorts of ways. In San Juan, you're just looking for big VP buildings or building combinations. I felt that the different paths in the game gave it a much more interesting feel than San Juan. Hopefully we can play again fairly soon.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Champion Eternal
Malaysia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, I am with you. I dislike PR and think SJ is broken. I approached RftG with the same attitude as you (exception: I like sci-fi), and I was surprised.

Brilliant game!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Forrest
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
ltbaxter wrote:
The symbols that at first confuse actually turn out to be quite helpful, and avoid a key gripe I have about sci-fi games: "Hmm, now what does the alphameryonic thruster do again?"

This was our exact feeling as well.

I've read some haters here on the 'geek that continue to insist the symbols are terrible. Maybe they're being sincere, but I've found the symbols to be very helpful for quickly teaching/learning the game, once the initial "Yikes!" reaction passes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
W4st wrote:


I've read some haters here on the 'geek that continue to insist the symbols are terrible. Maybe they're being sincere, but I've found the symbols to be very helpful for quickly teaching/learning the game, once the initial "Yikes!" reaction passes.


I am sincere, they are truly terrible. What idiot puts black type, on grey against a black background, and then makes it small to accomodate a large and irrelevent graphic?
Someone who didn't test it with players who hadn't yet learned the system that's who! yuk

Not quite as bad as Phoenicia and Louis IV, but nearly there. Played twice and still not happy. Disappointing for a professional game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry Baxter
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Second game was with Gary, just 2 players. We missed the 'take two actions' rule at the start but caught it a few rounds in. I was too slow at the start (with Epsilon Eridani) while Gary had a smoother start and earlier trading, able to focus on rare earths (brown) for some nice bonuses. I was very late going for yellow with the Rosetta Stone and while building and bonus points were nearly a tie, he had almost a dozen more shipping points than I did. Final score: 43 to 33. It was a fun one - he picked it up rather quickly and thought it was a nice game too. Both of us would put it in the 'would accept a game but don't feel the need to run out and buy it'
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
misteralan wrote:
Someone who didn't test it with players who hadn't yet learned the system that's who!


I'm still trying to figure out how this is possible.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
John Coltrane - Both Directions At Once: The Lost Album
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jdludlow wrote:
misteralan wrote:
Someone who didn't test it with players who hadn't yet learned the system that's who!


I'm still trying to figure out how this is possible.


Anybody who has played a couple of game will realize how silly that notion is. You don't produce a game like this without a long and serious play test effort.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sphere wrote:
jdludlow wrote:
misteralan wrote:
Someone who didn't test it with players who hadn't yet learned the system that's who!


I'm still trying to figure out how this is possible.


Anybody who has played a couple of game will realize how silly that notion is. You don't produce a game like this without a long and serious play test effort.


And anyone who saw the face of a UK playtester when he saw the finalised graphics, as I happen to have done, would perhaps realise that playtest materials do not necessarily match the finished product.
The fact remains, the published graphics detract from ease of play and are an indulgence of prettyness over function. Most games get it right. This one doesn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wei-Hwa Huang
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
What idiot puts black type, on grey against a black background, and then makes it small to accomodate a large and irrelevent graphic?


A professional designer who believes that the graphic is more relevant than the title of the card. And in any case, I would say that the really important components of the card, namely the cost/defense, score, and powers, are all visually stronger than both the graphic and the title, and so that's good enough for me. Why is it so important to you to be able to read the card's title? Does it really matter whether it says "Comet Zone" or "Mining World"?

misteralan wrote:
The fact remains, the published graphics detract from ease of play and are an indulgence of prettyness over function. Most games get it right. This one doesn't.


Although I agree with portions of your statement, I certainly would not agree that it is a "fact".

Valuing prettiness over function is not an indulgence; if anything, it is a n investment. Do you think that the game would be more costly to produce if there was no artwork and only the prototype graphics on the playtest materials? Pouring out money into game artwork is not something I think is done because the publisher just has extra money lying around and wants to spend it needlessly. No, it's because games are purchased by people other than game geeks who ignore artwork and component quality after their first play.

Me, personally, I am precisely such a game geek, and yes, a lot of the prototype playtest materials was designed specifically to maximize ease of play. If I had to answer the question, "In comparing the two, would you agree that the published versions incorporate elements that detract from ease-of-play?" I would say "Yes, but's that's only for me and is my personal opinion. For any other player things may very well be different." I certainly know of players who couldn't find the game engaging at all during the prototype phase, but who have picked up interest now that they see the game in a real box and printed on real cards.

Are there small ease-of-play difference between the prototype and the finished product? Absolutely; there's one change in the action cards, for example, that I still haven't adjusted to yet. But I'm willing to sacrifice small ease-of-play differences if it means that more people get attracted to and discover this wonderful game.

From my personal point of view, there are many things that could be changed about the published game that might make me like it more... but I already like the game enough, and a lot of these things would probably make a lot of other people like it less. Seeing from how the game is being received here and how sales are doing, I think that for the most part RGG has been doing a good job here of balancing the "prettiness" vs. "function" -- I myself am too biased to judge it directly myself.

But I do encourage you to mail your complaints on the visual aspects of the game to the publisher. If there are future reprintings (and it does seem likely that there will be) some of these might be addressable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
onigame wrote:
Quote:
What idiot puts black type, on grey against a black background, and then makes it small to accomodate a large and irrelevent graphic?


A professional designer who believes that the graphic is more relevant than the title of the card. And in any case, I would say that the really important components of the card, namely the cost/defense, score, and powers, are all visually stronger than both the graphic and the title, and so that's good enough for me. Why is it so important to you to be able to read the card's title? Does it really matter whether it says "Comet Zone" or "Mining World"?

misteralan wrote:
The fact remains, the published graphics detract from ease of play and are an indulgence of prettyness over function. Most games get it right. This one doesn't.


Although I agree with portions of your statement, I certainly would not agree that it is a "fact"........

But I do encourage you to mail your complaints on the visual aspects of the game to the publisher. If there are future reprintings (and it does seem likely that there will be) some of these might be addressable.


If you read my original comment carefully, you would see that I was referring to the tiny type on the cards showing their functions. In the worst cases you have black, on grey, on graphic 'bleeding' through the background. FACT

Regarding marketing, the basic graphics of Puerto Rico haven't (as far as I know) interfered with appreciation of the game - box art sells games, the game then drives fanbase.
(I know, huge generalisation)
PR's small tiles manage a readable typeface and font size. Comparing the buildings tiles of PR with a RftG card I notice that the rules inset of the card is smaller than the tile (!), which forces the smaller typeface. Function has been compromised to accommodate the graphic. Space could have been saved in the Title/Cost area at the top of the cards, because they need only be read up close by the owner and that info is pretty much needed once. The function of the card will have to be referred to more often, especially when learning. It is impossible to make out anything much at all across the table and that can matter. Please accept that I found it torturous under artificial light. This isn't true of most other games. I speak as a player of 40 odd years sitting.

My case stands.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wei-Hwa Huang
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
misteralan wrote:
If you read my original comment carefully, you would see that I was referring to the tiny type on the cards showing their functions.


I thought I had read your original comment carefully. But, since you suspected I didn't, I went back and read it carefully again. And just now, I have read it carefully again. I don't see any evidence that you were referring to the abbreviated text descriptions for the Special Powers on the cards (which is what I assume you mean from "tiny type on the cards showing their functions").

In fact, your original comment pretty much just mentions black text on gray background on black background, which not only can describe the Special Power text descriptions (which are not on all cards, by the way), and card titles (not all of which are black text, by the way), but can also describe the Special Power phase numbers, as well as the cost on non-military non-windfall non-production worlds.

Two other things I learned from rereading your comment carefully. The first is that you use an objection about the text on the cards to substantiate a claim that the symbols on the cards are terrible. Specifically, W4st wrote that some people think the symbols are terrible, you then wrote "they are terrible", and then proceeded to complain about the text, as if the grey background was an explanation for why the symbols were terrible. Is your problem with the symbols, or the text? If it's with the symbols, then how come you haven't mentioned them? If it's with the text, then why are you hijacking a statement that is talking about how some people dislike the symbols?

The other thing I learned after rereading your comment carefully, is that you don't seem to have a problem with insinuating that someone you have never met is an idiot based on just one decision.

I am sorry to say that reading your original comment carefully three times makes me believe that you seem to think you are more precise than you actually are.

Quote:
PR's small tiles manage a readable typeface and font size. Comparing the buildings tiles of PR with a RftG card I notice that the rules inset of the card is smaller than the tile (!), which forces the smaller typeface. Function has been compromised to accommodate the graphic. Space could have been saved in the Title/Cost area at the top of the cards, because they need only be read up close by the owner and that info is pretty much needed once. The function of the card will have to be referred to more often, especially when learning. It is impossible to make out anything much at all across the table and that can matter.


In my opinion, you seem to be under the impression that the Special Power text description that appears at the bottom of some cards is (1) a complete description of the function of the card, (2) the only place where that information appears in text, and (3) will be referred to very often in the course of playing a game.

None of those is the case.

In earlier versions of the playtest, the cards were a more PR/SJ-style where the entire functionality of the card was described in text. Then icons were added to complement the text, which generally seemed to help ease-of-play. Then there was an attempt to remove the text entirely, which would hurt ease-of-play but would help internationalization and actually leave room for artwork. (For instance, Mining Conglomerate had so much text it filled the whole card!) After a lot of playtesting (mostly because many experienced players were already keying off the icons and therefore their ease-of-play wasn't impacted much) there was a compromise -- powers were divided into "standard" powers, which would only be represented by icons, and "special" powers, which would be represented by icons plus a text reminder. The included icon summary sheet includes the text reminders for all the standard powers, and rulebook lists the full details of all the powers. For the great majority of experienced players, the icons by themselves were sufficient, but the text reminders were necessary for the players who had played maybe 5 to 10 games and just needed to be reminded what the icon meant. And for beginning players, they would mostly be referring to the rulebook (which I'll note has black text on white background for the card powers).

In other words, part of the reason that text is small and unobstrusive is that it is mostly designed to be a reminder, and not the main function of the card. (It's not that different from Puerto Rico, unless you insist that "your own ship" is a comprehensive explanation of what the Wharf does!)

Quote:
Please accept that I found it torturous under artificial light. This isn't true of most other games. I speak as a player of 40 odd years sitting.


I sympathize with your difficulty in trying to appreciate this game. However, very few games can satisfy 100% of the population, and RftG doesn't have the audacity to claim that. Every time one makes a change in game design, you lose some players and gain some players, and in the end you can just hope that you've gotten the most you can get while keeping the game true to its nature.

I'm confident that if you are like the majority of the playtesters, after 20 games or so it will be completely irrelevant that that text is hard to read under dark lighting conditions, as you won't ever find yourself reading it. But if you are like the other playtesters instead (mostly types who find recognizing icons a difficult task), then the game as is will probably require better lighting conditions, unfortunately. Again, you could write to the publisher and encourage them to lighten the background on those special power text reminder boxes in future printing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
onigame wrote:
misteralan wrote:
If you read my original comment carefully, you would see that I was referring to the tiny type on the cards showing their functions.


I thought I had read your original comment carefully. But, since you suspected I didn't, I went back and read it carefully again. And just now, I have read it carefully again. I don't see any evidence that you were referring to the abbreviated text descriptions for the Special Powers on the cards (which is what I assume you mean from "tiny type on the cards showing their functions").


Calm down, it's only a dialogue.

The card Titles are not in tiny type. That is the evidence I wasn't referring to them. Moving on.

Quote:
In fact, your original comment pretty much just mentions black text on gray background on black background, which not only can describe the Special Power text descriptions (which are not on all cards, by the way), and card titles (not all of which are black text, by the way), but can also describe the Special Power phase numbers, as well as the cost on non-military non-windfall non-production worlds.

I was not aiming for a full review, so I didn't feel the need to run through the deck outlining each and every irritation, nor to praise the least poor cards. If I had meant all the cards however I would have said all the cards. I didn't say so, you shouldn't infer it.

Quote:
Two other things I learned from rereading your comment carefully. The first is that you use an objection about the text on the cards to substantiate a claim that the symbols on the cards are terrible. Specifically, W4st wrote that some people think the symbols are terrible, you then wrote "they are terrible", and then proceeded to complain about the text, as if the grey background was an explanation for why the symbols were terrible. Is your problem with the symbols, or the text? If it's with the symbols, then how come you haven't mentioned them? If it's with the text, then why are you hijacking a statement that is talking about how some people dislike the symbols?


The claim is my own, I am not borrowing anyone else's comment. I am presumably 'one of the haters' of the graphics referred to, which is what attracted me to comment in the first place. I didn't mean to emphasise the symbols (sorry), because the text problem is worse. But they are small and significantly smaller than those heading the cards, which only need to be read at about 30cm, when reviewing your hand. The stuff at the bottom of the card needs to be referred to quite often especially when learning. Why does it need to be so small?

Quote:
The other thing I learned after rereading your comment carefully, is that you don't seem to have a problem with insinuating that someone you have never met is an idiot based on just one decision.

You are too kind. It was a flat assertion, not an insinuation. Sorry, yes, I should have said that it was an idiotic decision. Overstatement, I apologise.

Quote:
In my opinion, you seem to be under the impression that the Special Power text description that appears at the bottom of some cards is (1) a complete description of the function of the card, (2) the only place where that information appears in text, and (3) will be referred to very often in the course of playing a game.
None of those is the case.

(1)&(2) Didn't say so, so shouldn't infer it's my belief.
(3) When checking options and obligations as a learner, you need to check most things until you get the hang of what you don't need to check, if you see what I mean. After playing I found the rules to contain a much friendlier size and layout, pity about the cards.

Quote:
In earlier versions of the playtest, the cards were a more PR/SJ-style where the entire functionality of the card was described in text. Then icons were added to complement the text, which generally seemed to help ease-of-play. Then there was an attempt to remove the text entirely, which would hurt ease-of-play but would help internationalization and actually leave room for artwork. (For instance, Mining Conglomerate had so much text it filled the whole card!) After a lot of playtesting (mostly because many experienced players were already keying off the icons and therefore their ease-of-play wasn't impacted much) there was a compromise -- powers were divided into "standard" powers, which would only be represented by icons, and "special" powers, which would be represented by icons plus a text reminder. The included icon summary sheet includes the text reminders for all the standard powers, and rulebook lists the full details of all the powers. For the great majority of experienced players, the icons by themselves were sufficient, but the text reminders were necessary for the players who had played maybe 5 to 10 games and just needed to be reminded what the icon meant. And for beginning players, they would mostly be referring to the rulebook (which I'll note has black text on white background for the card powers).

In other words, part of the reason that text is small and unobstrusive is that it is mostly designed to be a reminder, and not the main function of the card. (It's not that different from Puerto Rico, unless you insist that "your own ship" is a comprehensive explanation of what the Wharf does!)
EMPHASIS ADDED

I believe this supports my opinion of the playtesting. Were the finalised graphics then tested with novice players?
If you still need reminders after 5-10 games (3-6 hours playing experience?) it does rather hint that the symbols are not provoking an intuitive understanding. This was my experience over 2 games and very frustrating it was too. Didn't have this problem with Puerto Rico or San Juan, both of which I rate highly.

Quote:
I sympathize with your difficulty in trying to appreciate this game. However, very few games can satisfy 100% of the population, and RftG doesn't have the audacity to claim that. Every time one makes a change in game design, you lose some players and gain some players, and in the end you can just hope that you've gotten the most you can get while keeping the game true to its nature.

I'm confident that if you are like the majority of the playtesters, after 20 games or so it will be completely irrelevant that that text is hard to read under dark lighting conditions, as you won't ever find yourself reading it. But if you are like the other playtesters instead (mostly types who find recognizing icons a difficult task), then the game as is will probably require better lighting conditions, unfortunately. Again, you could write to the publisher and encourage them to lighten the background on those special power text reminder boxes in future printing.


20 games or so???? Playtesters have undertaken an obligation and will persevere, bless 'em. (And again, after 20 plays you are no longer working with people reacting to an unfamiliar system and presumably mainly the enthusiasts) Many reasonably well thought of games will struggle to get to 20 plays, given the mini avalanche of titles we optimistically try to work through. It wasn't so dark, but those designs love their shadows, don't they? If the text is a 'reminder' why has it been made 'unobtrusive'?

Don't get me wrong, those pictures are pretty. But they would still do the job at 70% and then maybe in the space freed up the information could be larger and more readable across a table. Function needs to win out over form. You could then save this kind thing for a de luxe Edition, assuming the game stands the test of time (I haven't complained about the play, just the ease of play), where the bulk of purchasers will be veterans.

Finally, apologies again for overstepping the mark in my criticism. I should really widen the net as presumably everyone concerned was happy with the final product (so there was no reason for you not to be) - spread that pain!

If you had stated that you were part of the production I would have been more considered in my response earlier (I had skimmed the credits, but names don't always stick). I must continue to insist that my honest opinion is that the cards are poor. I'm not interested in 'stirring' as we say here, but these are honest opinions and should be taken in that spirit.

Bye for now.




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Yes, the finished graphics (icons only for many cards and small text reminders for the rest) were then tested with new players. A few cards that we thought could get by without text reminders didn't work out, so we added some additional text reminders based on the feedback we received.

There were a lot of compromises made among the various criteria. For example, I argued long and hard for larger card titles (wanting them to be easily read across the table), but was voted down on the grounds that new players would ignore them and experienced players would mostly associate artwork with specific cards and would ignore the card titles. While this isn't true for some players, I now accept that this is actually true for many players.

No graphic interface works for everyone. But, generally, the system we ended up with does seem to work for a lot of players, where the primary icons do most of the work, with little reminders to help newer players out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian pearson
United Kingdom
Unspecified
(Play in London at Finchley Games Club
flag msg tools
Having just had a good look at the graphics on the cards I have to say I agree with much of what the detractors say about the cards in Race For The Galaxy.

I like the graphics themselves, as art, BUT, and it's a big but(:what, they DO make the game harder to play. There is a balance to be struck between enhancing the experience of a game with the look and feel and the actual mechanics. If one interferes with the other, there is a problem.

The fact that there have been so many issues raised at all is significant and the designers should calmly accept the fact. You won’t please everybody, but it’s difficult to name a classic game where there has been as much noise about the artwork.

Sorry guys, almost, but no cigar.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wei-Hwa Huang
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
banzaibadger wrote:
it’s difficult to name a classic game where there has been as much noise about the artwork.


Classic games have artwork? "Hey Charlie, the people don't like all these squiggles on Senet. Says it interferes with ease-of-play." "That's fine then, we'll just remove all the pictures, replace them with giant triangles and call it Backgammon."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian pearson
United Kingdom
Unspecified
(Play in London at Finchley Games Club
flag msg tools
onigame wrote:
banzaibadger wrote:
it’s difficult to name a classic game where there has been as much noise about the artwork.


Classic games have artwork? "Hey Charlie, the people don't like all these squiggles on Senet. Says it interferes with ease-of-play." "That's fine then, we'll just remove all the pictures, replace them with giant triangles and call it Backgammon."


Of course classic games have artwork, you just don't notice it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.