Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
40 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Race for the Galaxy: Alien Artifacts» Forums » General

Subject: Starting worlds rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tomas Hejna
Czech Republic
Prague
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is there any clue on how many of starting worlds will be included in this expansion? And on how they will be numbered (i.e. starting from the 5 / the 16)?

Also, will they be compatible with the basic game, or will they use any of the new mechanics (and therefore they will be playable only with this new expansion)?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ross G.
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
Wisdom begins in wonder.
badge
Stale pastry is hollow succor to a man who is bereft of ostrich.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no information on specific cards at this time. Presumably they will start at 5, as this expansion is not meant to be mixed with the first three expansions.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gareth Roberts
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Im going to speculate. I imagine: in the same way that Rebel Freedom fighters would be useless if you just played with the base set some of the new starting worlds will be useless with it as well. Also for reasons of balance you probably shouldn't incorporate them alone.

In terms of numbers I'd expect to see at least as many as included by the time you get to RvI as the starting world choice mechanic has been implemented. I would not expect to see as many start worlds as the full first arc because there isnt quite (almost) as large a deck to shuffle them into and for the most part start worlds are pretty cost ineffective to settle I think, so you don't want them coming up more than they do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Hejna
Czech Republic
Prague
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ZiggyZambo wrote:
There is no information on specific cards at this time. Presumably they will start at 5, as this expansion is not meant to be mixed with the first three expansions.

In that case I hope there will be some preview, soon
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luke Stirling
Norway
Trondheim
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XehutL wrote:
In that case I hope there will be some preview, soon

Given that there's no word of the game showing at Essen, I'm not holding my breath for any major new info for the next couple of months.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Hejna
Czech Republic
Prague
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ilovedawkins wrote:
Im going to speculate. I imagine: in the same way that Rebel Freedom fighters would be useless if you just played with the base set some of the new starting worlds will be useless with it as well. Also for reasons of balance you probably shouldn't incorporate them alone.

In terms of numbers I'd expect to see at least as many as included by the time you get to RvI as the starting world choice mechanic has been implemented. I would not expect to see as many start worlds as the full first arc because there isnt quite (almost) as large a deck to shuffle them into and for the most part start worlds are pretty cost ineffective to settle I think, so you don't want them coming up more than they do.

Hmmm, maybe this could be a clue:
Quote:
Everything gets used in the Alien Orb scenario, while players can also play the base game with just the new cards and start worlds.
...
The only thing we use from the first expansion arc is the deal two and choose a start world after seeing your starting six cards mechanic introduced in Rebel versus Imperium. Nothing else.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/6266415#6266415

Personally - I will be very happy if the SW's numbering would continue from 16.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rus
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Surely the new start world numbering will continue from 5, not 16. It has been made clear more than once that the new expansion and arc is to be totally disjoint from the first arc. That said, nothing prevents you from instituting a house rule to combine the expansions in any way you like, of course. But, I strongly suspect that any such house rule will not be officially endorsed.

Regarding the number of new start world cards, I believe it will be 5, in order to bring the total to 10. I remember seeing somewhere that the new expansion will add action cards for one more player, to make a 5-player game possible. Therefore, there needs to be at least 10 start worlds total (given the "deal two and pick one start world" rule" which we know will be in this expansion). I also remember seeing a post about the components of Alien Orb somewhere that may actually explicitly give this number.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Hejna
Czech Republic
Prague
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rbelikov wrote:
That is actually quite a lot of information - thank you for them
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt N

Pennsylvania
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
16 or 5 serves the same purpose, so I would hope they would pick 16.

An obvious starting world option would be non-military and have alien synergy. I'm not sure if any of the starters would have orb-specific powers though, since that can create some significant imbalances with orb on/orb off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Hejna
Czech Republic
Prague
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stunna wrote:
16 or 5 serves the same purpose, so I would hope they would pick 16.

An obvious starting world option would be non-military and have alien synergy. I'm not sure if any of the starters would have orb-specific powers though, since that can create some significant imbalances with orb on/orb off.

It doesn't have to create significant dissbalances necessarily, but yes - it could create them, true.

And another good reason for continue in numbering from 16 is the possibility of adding those new worlds to a solitary robo-gamers: I think that there is still quite a lot of such players out there, who are enjoying AI plays.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johan Haglert
Sweden
Örebro
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XehutL wrote:

Hmmm, maybe this could be a clue:
Personally - I will be very happy if the SW's numbering would continue from 16.
Me to. Also "with only the new cards + start worlds"? Why not atleast make those possible to mix in with arc 1? Though maybe they wouldn't contribute anything of value.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Moore
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
aliquis wrote:
"with only the new cards + start worlds"? Why not at least make those possible to mix in with arc 1? Though maybe they wouldn't contribute anything of value.


I think the answer is Because! . . . Mr L felt he'd taken the 'arc' to the breaking point?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
aliquis wrote:
Why not at least make those possible to mix in with arc 1
catmando wrote:
I think [..] Mr L felt he'd taken the 'arc' to the breaking point?

There are lots of reasons why RFTG:AA is not compatible with RFTG:Arc1:

A) Look at the BoW comments: a common refrain among those who really like BoW is that RFTG:Arc1 is "now too hard to teach to new players". That's a clear sign that a reboot is needed. Allowing the next expansion to interact with Arc1 would only make this problem worse, not better.

B) Adding more cards to an already large deck makes RFTG too luck dependent: where whether one player's combo hits and another doesn't outweighs playing skillfully the cards drawn. BoW came awfully close to doing this -- without Search to help players out when none of their early cards fit together, I believe BoW would have had too high a luck factor.

C) Dilution, Dilution, Dilution. Between the BoW cards and the Prestige symbols on a few RvI cards, roughly 25% of Arc1 combined involves Prestige in some way. Even with variance, most players will see a few cards involving Prestige during a game. Drop this below 20% due to AA and Prestige becomes too variable. Similarly, adding in lots of AA cards without any takeover powers makes Takeovers too variable.

This applies the other way. Some AA cards interact with the Orb scenario. I think it's important that card play can affect the Orb and Orb play can affect card play. However, I don't want lots of cards to have Orb-specific powers (since players won't always be playing the Orb scenario and then these powers are just clutter). I can't make these proportions work simultaneously with just the base set (where AA represents ~30% of total cards) and also all of Arc1 (where AA would represent just ~17% of the total).

D) Bad/messy interactions. Arc1 Start World design was restricted since I had to ensure that +Military start worlds couldn't be taken over right away by other players (which would be incredibly frustrating). This is why so few Arc1 +Military start worlds are actually military worlds.

Since AA Start Worlds don't work with Arc1, I can now design low defense, +1 Military Start Worlds with an extra interesting power. This has two useful properties: these worlds now count towards most Military 6-devs and these worlds get played more often when they *aren't* Start Worlds. Now, a player with low Military who draws one of them can conquer it to boost their Military, plus gain a useful power. If I had to make AA Start Worlds compatible with Arc1, I couldn't do this.

Similarly, I can include new ways to Settle multiple worlds in a single phase in AA if I don't have to worry about compatibility with TGS and Improved Logistics. Or, I can include a 6-dev rewarding Imperium in a different way in AA if I don't have to worry about a player drawing it along with too many Arc1 Imperium 6-devs.

E) Finally, let's be honest. There was some "power creep" in Arc1. A reboot lets me both scale back complexity and reduce power creep. If AA cards had to work with Arc1, then they would have to be more powerful than they need to if they just have to work with RFTG base.

For all these reasons (and more), AA is a reboot. Yes, I know some players will combine AA with Arc1 and then complain about weird rules interactions, too high variance, Orb powers not showing up often enough, or their Start World got taken over on turn 1, and so on. I can't help that except by trying to draw a sharp line between Arc1 and AA.
51 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serge Levert
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tom Lehmann wrote:
B) Adding more cards to an already large deck makes RFTG too luck dependent: where whether one player's combo hits and another doesn't outweighs playing skillfully the cards drawn. BoW came awfully close to doing this -- without Search to help players out when none of their early cards fit together, I believe BoW would have had too high a luck factor.

This issue has been itching me for a while. The idea that a larger deck results in more luck and less skill. I'd never heard of such a thing before coming to bgg. And yet here i hear the complaint time and again.

Can anyone link me to some hard facts on this issue? Something evidence-based, a formula, a dissertation, anything. Alernately just the scientific name of the phenomenon, so i can dig on my own.

Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Martyn
United States
Guilford
VT
flag msg tools
EXCELSIOR!!!
badge
ZOMGALOMES!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
entranced wrote:
Tom Lehmann wrote:
B) Adding more cards to an already large deck makes RFTG too luck dependent: where whether one player's combo hits and another doesn't outweighs playing skillfully the cards drawn. BoW came awfully close to doing this -- without Search to help players out when none of their early cards fit together, I believe BoW would have had too high a luck factor.

This issue has been itching me for a while. The idea that a larger deck results in more luck and less skill. I'd never heard of such a thing before coming to bgg. And yet here i hear the complaint time and again.

Can anyone link me to some hard facts on this issue? Something evidence-based, a formula, a dissertation, anything. Alernately just the scientific name of the phenomenon, so i can dig on my own.


Someone probably can - not me, though!

But think of it this way: you've managed to get several Uplift worlds into play, and it looks like you're in contention to win the game if you can maintain some sort of card advantage. "What I really need," you think, "is to draw and play Uplift Code! Then I'll get extra points and extra cards in Production phases!"

In this scenario, would you rather be drawing from a deck with:

A) Forty cards, one of which is Uplift Code

or

B) One hundred twenty cards, one of which is Uplift Code?

In this case, clearly you'd prefer scenario A. The more cards in a deck, the less likely it is you'll get the one card you really need (see also: Magic: The Gathering, Dominion, and A Few Acres of Snow.) In RftG, the game still manages to feel balanced, because no one card is necessarily going to win the game. In the example above, several other cards would also be helpful, and this is mirrored in other strategies -- you've got a good chance, with all the expansions, of using military, Rebel, Imperium, or Alien strategies.

But consider this: if a new expansion added all of those kinds of cards except Alien ones, then the alien strategy is diluted. The ratio of Alien cards to total cards is less favorable, and winning with that strategy requires more luck as a result (probably to a point where experienced players give up on the strategy as too risky, thus devaluing every Alien card in the game. By starting anew, we get new challenges without forcing the designer into trying to balance a dozen different strategies...well, to a degree, anyway.

Does that make sense?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Børge N
Norway
Porsgrunn
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the pete wrote:
entranced wrote:
Tom Lehmann wrote:
B) Adding more cards to an already large deck makes RFTG too luck dependent: where whether one player's combo hits and another doesn't outweighs playing skillfully the cards drawn. BoW came awfully close to doing this -- without Search to help players out when none of their early cards fit together, I believe BoW would have had too high a luck factor.

This issue has been itching me for a while. The idea that a larger deck results in more luck and less skill. I'd never heard of such a thing before coming to bgg. And yet here i hear the complaint time and again.

Can anyone link me to some hard facts on this issue? Something evidence-based, a formula, a dissertation, anything. Alernately just the scientific name of the phenomenon, so i can dig on my own.


In this scenario, would you rather be drawing from a deck with:

A) Forty cards, one of which is Uplift Code

or

B) One hundred twenty cards, one of which is Uplift Code?
This is a clear choice, but what about this:

A) Forty cards, 2 of which would win you the game.

or

B) One hundred twenty cards, 6 of which would win you the game.

Let's say you are seeing 20 cards for the rest of the game:
The probability that you find (at least) one of your wanted cards is equal to

A: 1 - (20 ncr 2)/(40 ncr 2) = 0.756
B: 1 - (100 ncr 6)/(120 ncr 6) = 0.674

The clue here is "assuming you see the same amount of cards". When the deck size increases, the chances that all your wanted cards are clumped together at the end of the deck also increases.
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Børge N
Norway
Porsgrunn
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
..and this becomes more intuitive if you think of this scenario:

C) 20 cards, 1 of which would win you the game.

Seeing 20 cards, the probability is obviously 100%.

For a visualization, see:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+1+-+%28%28x-20%29+...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Bradshaw
United States
Farmington
Connecticut
flag msg tools
entranced wrote:

Can anyone link me to some hard facts on this issue? Something evidence-based, a formula, a dissertation, anything. Alernately just the scientific name of the phenomenon, so i can dig on my own.

Thanks!


It's hard to analyze that for a game like this, because defining something like "good cards" and "bad cards" in an objective sense is questionable at best.

That said, in general with statistics, large sample sizes introduce larger degrees of variance, and that provides at least some parallel to this situation. For example, it's much easier to predict how many times you'll get heads on 10 flips of a coin than, say, 1000 flips of a coin. For this situation, the standard deviation (which means, essentially, the degree of uncertainty in the result) depends on the square root of n, the number of "trials" that you conduct. As n increases, the standard deviation increases, and more uncertainty is introduced into the outcome.

For drawing cards from a deck, what you're essentially looking at is the number of permutations; that is, out of the large deck you'll only draw a certain subset of cards, and the order in which you draw them is important (getting New Vinland in your start hand is awesome, not so much later in the game). The number of permutations depends on the factorial of the number of possible outcomes, which is a function which increases unbelievably quickly. As the deck grows, therefore, the number of possible "outcomes" (that is to say, sets of cards you'll draw) increases dramatically. The number of "good" outcomes (again noting the difficulty in defining that) doesn't increase nearly as rapidly.

The whole thing is muddled by the fact that you have some degree of control over how many cards you will see (through choosing Explore actions and powers, leeching with things like Interstellar Bank, etc.) and that interactions between cards are so important (Galactic Federation is awesome, unless you don't have useful developments). Mathematically exploring this would, as a result, be tricky at best. Hopefully, though, this gave you a better picture.

In regards to the more luck/less skill idea, I don't think I buy that. A game like RFTG is very much about managing luck. Sure, sometimes you'll get a perfect storm of cards which synergize perfectly (a bunch of cheap blue production worlds and Free Trade Association) and you can win blindfolded. Sometimes you'll get nothing but stinkers and get steamrolled. These are extreme situations. Most of the time you get a hand that is useable, but needs management. If the number of options goes up, you need to be even more flexible and have a better idea of strategy in order to make it work.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Delano
United States
Stamford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
entranced wrote:

This issue has been itching me for a while. The idea that a larger deck results in more luck and less skill. I'd never heard of such a thing before coming to bgg. And yet here i hear the complaint time and again.

Can anyone link me to some hard facts on this issue? Something evidence-based, a formula, a dissertation, anything. Alernately just the scientific name of the phenomenon, so i can dig on my own.

Thanks!


(Edit: I messed up the numbers by not correctly subtracting the removed cards from the deck. The corrected numbers are in parentheses)

Let's say you have a 10 card deck, 5 are developments and 5 are worlds. If you draw 7 cards you are guaranteed to draw a world. Now change that to a 20 card deck still 50% developments and worlds. You have a .05% (corrected .15%) chance of not drawing a world on those 7 cards. If you increase the deck again to 100 cards now it is .5% (.62%), or 10 (4) times more likely. Raising it to 200 cards increases it to .63% (.7%). The effect levels off for a given number of card draws as you increase the deck size, but it becomes more dramatic if you are looking for rarer cards.

Let's look at trying to draw a 6 cost Development. Let's say they constitute 10% of the deck, which is close enough for our purposes. Now even with our 10 card deck there's a small chance we won't draw one on a 7 card draw, 1.81% (30%). 20 cards it jumps to 12.53% (41.05%), 100 cards it's up to 37.66% (46.67%) and 200 it's at 42.5% (47.26%).

With a deck when you draw a card it reduces the chance of drawing a similar card since you can't draw that exact card again. Compare that to dice where it doesn't matter how many times you roll a 6 the chances of rolling it again remain the same. The larger the deck, the closer a simulation of a die it becomes.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GoodOmens wrote:
That said, in general with statistics, large sample sizes introduce larger degrees of variance, and that provides at least some parallel to this situation. For example, it's much easier to predict how many times you'll get heads on 10 flips of a coin than, say, 1000 flips of a coin. For this situation, the standard deviation (which means, essentially, the degree of uncertainty in the result) depends on the square root of n, the number of "trials" that you conduct. As n increases, the standard deviation increases, and more uncertainty is introduced into the outcome.


That is, in fact, the exact opposite of what happens to the standard error as the sample size increases... and it's disanalogous anyway to the question being asked.

The previous example concerning looking for 1 card from an 80-card deck or 1 card from a 120-card deck was much better.

Quote:
For drawing cards from a deck, what you're essentially looking at is the number of permutations; that is, out of the large deck you'll only draw a certain subset of cards, and the order in which you draw them is important (getting New Vinland in your start hand is awesome, not so much later in the game). The number of permutations depends on the factorial of the number of possible outcomes, which is a function which increases unbelievably quickly. As the deck grows, therefore, the number of possible "outcomes" (that is to say, sets of cards you'll draw) increases dramatically. The number of "good" outcomes (again noting the difficulty in defining that) doesn't increase nearly as rapidly.


Yes, but this muddles the issue. If only a small subset of cards are "useful", it's harder to find them in a large deck, regardless of factorial growth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serge Levert
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice, thanks again everyone.

frunkee wrote:
Let's look at trying to draw a 6 cost Development. Let's say they constitute 10% of the deck, which is close enough for our purposes. Now even with our 10 card deck there's a small chance we won't draw one on a 7 card draw, 1.81%. 20 cards it jumps to 12.53%, 100 cards it's up to 37.66% and 200 it's at 42.5%.

The 7 card draw being 1.81%, that can't be right can it? You have 1 6dev in a 10 card deck. You draw 7 cards. How is it only 1.81% you whiff? Not intuitive if it's right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
The core issues are:

A) When average proportions of various attributes are held constant across an increasing deck size, each given player still sees only a *subset* of the deck as it is gradually drawn. Thus, the *sample* variation increases (given that players are drawing about the same number of cards per game), even though the underlying *population* variation (frequency) actually remains the same.

B) When a game involves synergies and combos (as RFTG does), drawing a clump of cards (on a sale or mix and match Explore) that work very well together is powerful, whereas drawing a clump of cards that don't work together is not. As sample variation grows with increasing deck size, this luck-of-the-draw factor starts to loom larger.

(I used a lot of tricks in the expansions to reduce this luck factor including: making more cards multi-purpose, so that the actual deck proportions for many characteristics rose to compensate for the increased sample variation; adding Goals to add more scoring "dimensions" to the game, so that the game is less about drawing a single effective combo; adding more "draw-1" explore powers (plus some "draw then discard" powers in BoW), so players would see more cards (effectively increasing the sample size to compensate for increased sample variation); and, in BoW, adding Search to help players get started (the first three categories), reduce the risk for some high-variance strategies (the Uplift, Alien, Military 5+, and Takeover categories), ensure that players could find at least two 6-devs (since 6-devs are a major source of VPs); and ensure that players could find some multi-good Consumption (since Produce/Consume is another major source of VPs).)

C) As a deck draws larger, some previously one-of-a-kind "reward a given strategy" 6-devs get duplicated (to maintain the deck proportions). Before, when there was only one "Imperium 6-dev", say, players couldn't draw two of them, as two simply didn't exist. Add a second one in the expansions (to maintain average deck proportions relative to strategies) and occasionally a player will now get lucky and draw both of them. Playing both of them will score better than placing one of them, plus another 6-dev that didn't combo so well.

Both high and average scores rose across Arc1 in part due to A) increasing "power creep" from introducing more multi-purpose cards (here's where solving one problem -- increased sample variation -- leads to another problem); B) the expansion of maximum world VPs from 7 to 9 (this compensates for more reinforcing 6-devs) and C) the increased chance of drawing "reinforcing" 6-devs due to there being more of them (absolutely) in the deck.

However, high scores rose a lot more than average scores did. That's a indication of increasing luck factor (although high scores will always rise more than average scores over time as players simply experience more games within the "long tail" of possible score distributions).

Does this make sense?
31 
 Thumb up
0.07
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Delano
United States
Stamford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
entranced wrote:
Nice, thanks again everyone.


The 7 card draw being 1.81%, that can't be right can it? You have 1 6dev in a 10 card deck. You draw 7 cards. How is it only 1.81% you whiff? Not intuitive if it's right.


And of course I screwed up the numbers. I knew I shouldn't of posted that early in the morning. I'll fix them now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serge Levert
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tom Lehmann wrote:
Does this make sense?

Yup, great post, fascinating. The way you dealt with the problem is genius, i have to give you props!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendon Russell
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
entranced wrote:
Tom Lehmann wrote:
Does this make sense?

Yup, great post, fascinating. The way you dealt with the problem is genius, i have to give you props!


And if this approach was continued indefinitely, you'd eventually end up with an expansion where the new mechanics and card powers consisted solely of solutions to the variance problem, having no room for anything else - so props also for "rebooting" before reaching that point of absurdity!
9 
 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.