Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Ancient Battles Deluxe» Forums » Rules

Subject: Losing Command Control rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mike Schmidt
United States
Maquoketa
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When losing Command Control, the rules state that all Knight/Barbarian units must move their entire movement allowance, but later states that they cannot move farther away from the nearest enemy unit.

What happens when you are adjacent to an enemy unit?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You attack it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Schmidt
United States
Maquoketa
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Melee attack during the Activation Phase?

I was thinking that it would not move, but possibly rotate to face the unit but the rules just seem to leave a hole here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the wording of that Command Control section a bit strange, especially the part about expending the entire movement allowance.

But it pretty much boils down to charging towards the nearest enemy unit. If you're already adjacent to an enemy then that's the nearest unit & you're done (although I think it's OK to rotate in the case there are multiple adjacent units).

The rules seem to imply that you violate the phrase "must expend their entire Movement Allowance" when the enemy is closer than your full Movement Allowance away but I don't think that's how it is meant. I think that part is in there to stop someone just moving one step closer to the enemy & saying, "There, I moved closer," rather than charging like a mad man!

Perhaps it could have said the part about "each hex must be closer to ..." first & then mentioned that the full MA must be used if the nearest enemy is that far away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SliverXII wrote:
Melee attack during the Activation Phase?:what:


No, Patrick's saying that you don't move (apart from maybe rotate) in the activation phase & then since you're adjacent in the melee phase then you'll be set up to attack it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Schmidt
United States
Maquoketa
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But you are not required to attack, correct? The loss of command only applies to movement from what I see.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I agree that you're not required to initiate a melee attack if you lose command control.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry; I was being flippant. I'd have to reread the rules, but I remember running into a similar situation and having to do some kind of on-the-fly house-rule clarification. In any case, the adjacent unit is the nearest, so movement is done (except maybe for rotating).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Nagel
United States
Burlington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Is this more clear?

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian combat units must immediately (prior to any other activation) move adjacent to enemy units to the extent that the impetuous unit’s movement points allow. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs.

Addition: Hack and Slash! Place a yellow activation marker below the Impetuous units. During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Replace the yellow marker with a red marker after these units have attacked.

Let me know and I'll have the rules updated. Thanks!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Schmidt
United States
Maquoketa
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mpnagel wrote:
Is this more clear?

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian combat units must immediately (prior to any other activation) move adjacent to enemy units to the extent that the impetuous unit’s movement points allow. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs.

Addition: Hack and Slash! Place a yellow activation marker below the Impetuous units. During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Replace the yellow marker with a red marker after these units have attacked.

Let me know and I'll have the rules updated. Thanks!


This come across clearer to me, and according to how I understood it. However, I am new to the game and I am not sure how the Hack and Slash addition would impact the game, but it seems like it would work from my limited experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mpnagel wrote:
Is this more clear?

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian combat units must immediately (prior to any other activation) move adjacent to enemy units to the extent that the impetuous unit’s movement points allow. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs.

Addition: Hack and Slash! Place a yellow activation marker below the Impetuous units. During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Replace the yellow marker with a red marker after these units have attacked.

Let me know and I'll have the rules updated. Thanks!


That looks a lot clearer to me. Can you see a way off mentioning the "closest" enemy unit in the 17.4.2? Maybe it will be too messy due to the way it refers to "all" units. What if you say: "Each [...] unit must immediately [..] move adjacent to it's closest enemy unit ..." or something like that?

I know that "Charge!" takes care of the technicalities of "closest" but without it being mentioned directly in 17.4.2 the reader might get the initial impression that each impetuous unit can just pick a unit within its MA range & head for it, rather than for the closest one.

Also, I like Hack and Slash! I think it will make it even worse to lose control (& it's more thematic too).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been thinking about this a bit more & perhaps the business with the yellow markers below the Impetuous units is not needed since we know that this applies to all all Barbarian & Knight units of the side that lost control (unless I'm missing something). Also there is the marker that says something like "Command Control Lost" to help remind us & we already have to remember the -1 to their Combat Value so we should have a fair idea of who they are & where they are when they lose control.

What about if it was just:

"Hack and Slash! During Melee all Impetuous units conduct melee prior to the normal Melee phase. Place a red marker on these units after they have attacked."

It's probably obvious that the Initiative player should attack first with all their Impetuous units if both players have them but it could be worth mentioning so that there's no confusion. (I'm presuming that this is the case & that Impetuous units on both sides shouldn't alternate...)

Of course, feel free to ignore all these comments.

I'm looking forward to playing with the new Hack and Slash!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rom
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
mpnagel wrote:
Is this more clear?

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian combat units must immediately (prior to any other activation) move adjacent to enemy units to the extent that the impetuous unit’s movement points allow. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs.

Addition: Hack and Slash! Place a yellow activation marker below the Impetuous units. During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Replace the yellow marker with a red marker after these units have attacked.

Let me know and I'll have the rules updated. Thanks!


Hack and slash variant sounds reasonable but I am afraid it could change balance of certain existing scenarios beyond repair.
Let's take Bannockburn scenario as example. Once English knights lose control they will have to melee attack Scots pikes on the hills, maybe from the stream. It will be suicide for them in most cases.
What do you think?
And by the way thank you for this great (well, my favorite) game and for the ongoing efforts to enhance game rules!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Nagel
United States
Burlington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the feedback! Ben is right in that we don't really need to do the "below" the unit marking.

I think that if both players have impetuous units that fail control on the same turn, that the initiative player would have the choice to go first or second. I can't think of a scenario where this would happen, however. If both sides lose control at the same time, should this simply cancel Hack n Slash?

I agree that losing control under Hack n Slash would be devastating, as it should be. There's a reason that the Scots won at Bannockburn!

Any more thoughts?

Thanks! :-)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Mike,

It's funny that we're discussing a situation that will possibly never happen but if both players lose control my feeling is that Hack n Slash should go ahead for both players & that the initiative player should not get to choose whether to go first or second. I think it would be interesting if Impetuous units just charge off & take matters in to their own hands without the player making any decisions (apart from when there are equidistant enemy units I suppose).

I don't know whether the initiative player's Impetuous units should all attack first or second in the case that both players lose control. The first attackers have the advantage that they will definitely get to attack the unit in front of them (that they charged towards) but will suffer from being the attacker in the combat results (A>D & all that). The units of the player going second may have already been attacked in the initial onslaught & could already have a red marker meaning that they don't get to attack the unit they were aiming for BUT they have the advantage of being the defender if attacked in the first wave of Hack n Slash, which is a pretty decent advantage.

I'll be happy with whatever you decide for this unusual situation of both players losing command but if I HAD to choose one I would say the initiative player should Hack n Slash first. As well as being intuitive it will make the decision of how to spend CPs even more tough. Spending CPs to win initiative (if required) & then spending them to maintain command control will be a very costly exercise & it would probably be better to let initiative go if it means keeping control.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rom
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
mpnagel wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! Ben is right in that we don't really need to do the "below" the unit marking.

I think that if both players have impetuous units that fail control on the same turn, that the initiative player would have the choice to go first or second. I can't think of a scenario where this would happen, however. If both sides lose control at the same time, should this simply cancel Hack n Slash?

I agree that losing control under Hack n Slash would be devastating, as it should be. There's a reason that the Scots won at Bannockburn!

Any more thoughts?

Thanks! :-)

But if chance for English army to win will be very small, who would like to play on English side?
I have played Bannockburn recently, and English army was badly beaten even without Hack n Slash.Maybe this addition deserves some playtesting at least.
Of course, I don't insist on anything, just some thoughts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leksa wrote:
But if chance for English army to win will be very small, who would like to play on English side?
I have played Bannockburn recently, and English army was badly beaten even without Hack n Slash.

Most historical battles were not balanced. Real-life commanders don't go looking for fair fights; they take every advantage they can get. Forcing historical battles to play like chess games makes them unrealistic.

If you can't get anyone to play the English side, offer to change the victory conditions: e.g., the Scots have to win a decisive victory, or else it counts as a loss.

IMO, that's the way to make a balanced game out of an unbalanced historical scenario.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Rom
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Patrick Carroll wrote:
leksa wrote:
But if chance for English army to win will be very small, who would like to play on English side?
I have played Bannockburn recently, and English army was badly beaten even without Hack n Slash.

Most historical battles were not balanced. Real-life commanders don't go looking for fair fights; they take every advantage they can get. Forcing historical battles to play like chess games makes them unrealistic.

If you can't get anyone to play the English side, offer to change the victory conditions: e.g., the Scots have to win a decisive victory, or else it counts as a loss.

IMO, that's the way to make a balanced game out of an unbalanced historical scenario.

Sure, I agree with you that most historical battles were not balanced.
And it is a good idea to change the victory conditions, in some scenarios it is already done (one side starts battle with 1 VP on hands already). Maybe if we give English 1 VP from the start then chances to win will be more or less equal.

But as we know ABD is very harsh to player who makes unprepared attacks (there are some topics about that in this forum). If we will use hack and slash variant we force player with impetuous units to make a lot of unprepared, almost suicidal attacks. What if using this variant make these impetuous units too dumb and weak even from historical point of view? They were knights not zombies, weren't they?

By the way I noted that beginners try to make every possible melee attack and often with disastrous results. But the rules of ABD don't force you to attack every time! Quite opposite, player should carefully place his commanders and strongest units to make chances of successful attack higher in some certain place of battle line, because usually he doesn't have enough forces to attack successfully everywhere.
But hack and slash variant would force player in scenarios like bannockburn to attack almost everywhere in the same time.

Sorry, now I don't even understand: Was this hack and slash variant used by Mike Nagel and playtesters before the start of this topic? (But then it was somehow missing in the game rules.) Or was it invented in this topic? (And then it was not platested yet.)

Of course everything I wrote here is just my opinion (and some thoughts), maybe I am wrong,




1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Don't hang around, 'cause two's a crowd on my cloud, baby.
badge
If I were to hang my head, I'd miss all the rainbows. And I'd drown in raindrops instead.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leksa wrote:
Sorry, now I don't even understand: Was this hack and slash variant used by Mike Nagel and playtesters before the start of this topic? (But then it was somehow missing in the game rules.) Or was it invented in this topic? (And then it was not platested yet.)

I think it's just an idea so far--an idea that Mike presented here for maybe the first time. It hasn't been playtested or added to the rules yet.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leksa wrote:
Patrick Carroll wrote:
leksa wrote:
But if chance for English army to win will be very small, who would like to play on English side? :)
I have played Bannockburn recently, and English army was badly beaten even without Hack n Slash.

Most historical battles were not balanced. Real-life commanders don't go looking for fair fights; they take every advantage they can get. Forcing historical battles to play like chess games makes them unrealistic.

If you can't get anyone to play the English side, offer to change the victory conditions: e.g., the Scots have to win a decisive victory, or else it counts as a loss.

IMO, that's the way to make a balanced game out of an unbalanced historical scenario.

Sure, I agree with you that most historical battles were not balanced.
And it is a good idea to change the victory conditions, in some scenarios it is already done (one side starts battle with 1 VP on hands already). Maybe if we give English 1 VP from the start then chances to win will be more or less equal.

But as we know ABD is very harsh to player who makes unprepared attacks (there are some topics about that in this forum). If we will use hack and slash variant we force player with impetuous units to make a lot of unprepared, almost suicidal attacks. What if using this variant make these impetuous units too dumb and weak even from historical point of view? They were knights not zombies, weren't they?:)

By the way I noted that beginners try to make every possible melee attack and often with disastrous results. But the rules of ABD don't force you to attack every time! Quite opposite, player should carefully place his commanders and strongest units to make chances of successful attack higher in some certain place of battle line, because usually he doesn't have enough forces to attack successfully everywhere.
But hack and slash variant would force player in scenarios like bannockburn to attack almost everywhere in the same time.

Sorry, now I don't even understand: Was this hack and slash variant used by Mike Nagel and playtesters before the start of this topic? (But then it was somehow missing in the game rules.) Or was it invented in this topic? (And then it was not platested yet.)

Of course everything I wrote here is just my opinion (and some thoughts), maybe I am wrong, :)




I do think that the new Hack n Slash rule will make it even worse to lose command & I believe that it's only being mentioned here for the first time, without play testing.

One way to offset the issue of making "suicidal" attacks could be to remove the -1 Melee penalty. Were charging knights & barbarians actually that worse in combat? I really don't know. I can understand that they might have been more susceptible to arrow fire so the -1 in ranged combat makes sense.

Without Hack n Slash & without the -1 in Melee, the penalty for losing control would not be a big enough deterrent; the units would have just moved adjacent to the enemy and the usual decisions for whether to attack or not would have applied & at least the opponent might have felt confident enough to attack in some cases due to the -1. But with Hack n Slash where Impetuous units must attack then maybe that's enough of a penalty. (As I've described elsewhere, the attacker really wants to be at least +2 on the defender to have an equal chance.)

Mike, what do you think about removing the -1 Melee penalty for the new Hack n Slash?

I might try & do some play testing of Hack n Slash in existing scenarios over the holidays.

Is there anything else I should try out?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Nagel
United States
Burlington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Gents,

This is all new and in response to clearing up some inconsistencies in the optional command control rules.

A couple of things:

1) As noted, most battles were not fair fights. Fortunately, ABD plays quickly enough that players can play the battle as each side and total up total VPs between each fight to see who wins.

2) I only award initial VPs to a side to push a scenario toward a historical outcome. In the Bannockburn example, it would be more appropriate to give the Scots an initial VP to force the English to attack and hope for the best. As it is, command control is suitable incentive.

3) Please do feel free to playtest this stuff. Until it hits the rules, it's all off the books ... ;-)

-- M
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Nagel
United States
Burlington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's another go at wording. Feel free to give these rules a shot and let me know how you make out.

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian units must immediately (prior to any other activation) attempt to move adjacent to the closest enemy unit to which it can become adjacent, expending as few movement points as possible. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs. Mark these units with a yellow activation marker. If both players have Impetuous units, the Initiative player completes his moves first.

Bullet Correction: Damn All! Impetuous units that currently have lost Command Control suffer a minus one (-1) missile defense modifier.

Bullet Addition: Hack and Slash! During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Mark these units and their targets normally after combat. If both players have Impetuous units, the Initiative player resolves his attacks first
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's looking good Mike. Thanks for taking the time to go through this with us. I realise it is only an optional rule that applies to a only few scenarios.

With regards to 17.4.2, does an Impetuous unit get a yellow activation marker even if they didn't move (i.e. they were already adjacent)? I presume that they do but it might be worthwhile covering that by saying something like "Mark all Impetuous units ..." instead of "Mark these ..." Is that being too pedantic & am I even right in that assumption? I'm just trying to look for any points of possible confusion.

As I think about it more, Hack n Slash without the -1 Melee modifier should work really well. I expect Impetuous units to charge of & become disordered when they're forced to attack. Then if they lose command control next turn they won't be able to Rally (since they'll already be activated) & will probably attack at a large disadvantage in the following Melee phase & die. The alternative is that they get really lucky in their die rolls & charge off to cause to serious damage to the enemy (particularly knights stacked with a leader who can do Advancing Melee). Either way it should be entertaining!

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Skellett
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
A wolf and a penguin could never live together, nor could a camel and a hippopotamus. That would be absurd.
badge
And the older you get, the fewer things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just posted a session report using the new command control & Hack n Slash rules here: Clontarf, 1014 AD testing new Hack n Slash rule

It was a great battle with both sides losing command control in some turns which led to some of the unusual situations we've been discussing.

Also we just played two games of Bannockburn using these new rules.

I intend to write a more detailed report of them but the summary is that the English lost both battles. The first one was only due to them panicking (1VP) & the second was due to them panicking (1VP) & the Scots also having battlefield control (1VP).

I still think it's possible for the English to win this scenario but they have to get their archers into the battle before the loss of their knights causes the whole army to panic.

I don't mind it being an "unbalanced" scenario at all but for those players who want to give the English a bit of a better chance my suggestion is to increase the English panic rating to 49 (from 43) & maybe decrease the Scottish leader to a B (down from an A). I'm not sure how Robert the Bruce fans would feel about that!

I'll write about this more in another thread shortly so maybe we can keep the discussion to that thread.

I've already said it in a number of places but overall I think the new command control rules & Hack n Slash are great, & it's all due to the innocent looking rules question that started this thread! I look forward to seeing if they'll make it into an updated rulebook.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Artl
United States
New Berlin
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mpnagel wrote:
Here's another go at wording. Feel free to give these rules a shot and let me know how you make out.

Correction: [17.4.2] Effect of Losing Control: All Knight and Barbarian units must immediately (prior to any other activation) attempt to move adjacent to the closest enemy unit to which it can become adjacent, expending as few movement points as possible. This Impetuous Movement costs no CPs. Mark these units with a yellow activation marker. If both players have Impetuous units, the Initiative player completes his moves first.

Bullet Correction: Damn All! Impetuous units that currently have lost Command Control suffer a minus one (-1) missile defense modifier.

Bullet Addition: Hack and Slash! During Melee, these units conduct melee prior to alternating attacks. Mark these units and their targets normally after combat. If both players have Impetuous units, the Initiative player resolves his attacks first


This is certainly much clearer than the v1.23 rules that I have been using. I came to this thread to try and clear up these same questions after playing Scenario 68 Crecy earlier tonight. In this scenario, it seems that losing command control might be beneficial to the French. They need to get into and across the stream as quickly as possible to engage those deadly English archers. This leads me to a question...if the side that loses command control is not the initiative side, does their impetus movement wait until just prior to their first activation or does it trump the intiative player's first activation? Regarding the penalty to missle combat, I'm glad to see that this thread seems to make it clear that it means -1 to the missle defense rating. Good thread!
 
 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.