Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Railways of the World» Forums » Variants

Subject: Switch the 2 RR ops cards dealing with 3 and 4 links rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ken McMillen
United States
Oceanside
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
We noticed that 2 of the 3 starting RR ops cards always get claimed by the same person, since they are only 1 action apart. The card which gives 3 VP's for the first 3 link delivery, followed by the card rewarding the 1st 4 train are only 1 action apart. So we reversed the action on each card to:
3 VP's for the first 3-link train
4 VP's for the first 4-link delivery.
There are 2 actions between these, so players can compete for the second one easier if they want it. Otherwise the player who goes first on an early turn will most likely get both.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marshall P.
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
badge
There is grandeur in this view of life, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an intriguing idea, I'd hoped there would be more comment on it. I haven't played enough games yet to know if these the cards as designed are a problem but I'll watch for it now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Myers
United States
Salem
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You are absolutely correct about the player that gets the 1st 3 link delivery ussually gets the #4 Engine first. In the 6 games that we have played, which were 2 player up to 6 player games, it seems like this happened a lot.

It was interesting that in a 6 player game, one player got all 3 of the Special RR Ops cards. They were way ahead until the end of the game and another player (who was new) had concentrated in the NE and passed them in VPs just before the game ended. There was only a 4 point difference between 1st and 2nd and everybody else was way behind them.

I think we will try this next time to see if it spreads out the points some.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Blume
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I think this is a good modification that is easy to implement. I agree that it is easier for 1 person to get both cards as it is designed. A second player must stay committed to get to the 4 train if they want to get it (1st player goes to level 3, second player goes to level 3, 1st player delivers, second player goes to level 4).

It can cause some early separation, but I haven't seen it be a game decider. What I think it does is encourage people to get a network built up quickly. If a lot of money is spent to achieve these goals, it can come back in the long run (servicing shares for a large part of the game).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
What I think it does is encourage people to get a network built up quickly.


I'll go even further than that, and state that all of the special bonus cards are designed primarily to keep the game from the "spin in a circle" syndrome you often see in Age of Steam. That is, the tendency of players to develop a small and circumlocutionary (and to some degree, unrealistic) route, that is (I think) an unexpected off-shoot of a pick-up-delivery system based on a small number of colors. Given a wider variety of colors supplied and demanded, distribution patterns would tend to be more geographically spread.

And that segues into the real reason I'm writing this. After playing RRT a few times, now, I'm of the opinion that there is no "good" solution to the problem posed by the bonus cards for establishment of routes. A route can be established prior to the appearance of the relevant card, which in turn requires someone to build "remedial" rail to capitalize on it, for no reason other than that the card appearance had bad timing.

I think I'm going to take a different approach, the next time my group plays this game. I'm going to provide a list of all route/delivery bonuses, remove those cards from the deck, and award them as they are completed. Additionally, the bonuses will be divided evenly amongst the affected players, if the route is completed by means of tracing through one or more additional players' links. If there are multiple, possible routes, the player who builds the link that actually completes the route decides which route is used for satisfying the requirement, and thus who it is that will share in the bonus. (So, if he can trace the entire route on his own track, he gets the whole shebang.)

Unfortunately, this has the effect of seriously whittling down the size of the deck...

I also have a nagging feeling about the power of the "Perfect Engineering" card, being usable turn after turn after turn, but restricting its use to one turn only seems too Draconian. Two turns, perhaps? I haven't really decided, yet, but I do think being able to keep it the entire game is just a bit much.

Another concern of mine is in regards to the Western link and the Chicago connection. While being able to generate two new goods in Chicago is certainly a nice thing, it's been my experience so far that the person who creates the Western link will usually only have a two-link run to Chicago, and is thus penalized for trying to generate new goods in Chicago (and often only to see some other player cart them away, in the process!) - "penalized", in the sense that at this point in the game, they are often capable of already making deliveries across a greater number of links, and have to "defer" greater income gains, in order to capitalize on this "bonus".

It seems to me there should be a stronger (or, at least, more proprietary) incentive for completing the Western link.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I'll go even further than that, and state that all of the special bonus cards are designed primarily to keep the game from the "spin in a circle" syndrome you often see in Age of Steam. That is, the tendency of players to develop a small and circumlocutionary (and to some degree, unrealistic) route, that is (I think) an unexpected off-shoot of a pick-up-delivery system based on a small number of colors. Given a wider variety of colors supplied and demanded, distribution patterns would tend to be more geographically spread.


"Circumlocutionary" - I had to look that one up and still don't understand what you are talking about. The best definition I could find was "saying something in a roundabout way" (which I suspect is exactly what you have just done). The closest interpretation of this in terms of RT and AoS I can fathom is the building of routes which take great diversions (such as connecting Detroit to Toronto via Kansas City)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Myers
United States
Salem
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My son did this in a game. Part of his network was a circular route with: Cincinatti - Indianpolis - Chicago - Rock Island - DesMoines - Kansas City - St Louis - Louisville - (back to Cincinnati).

He had urbanized one of the gray cities to Purple and after he had an Engine of 7 he was able to deliver any good for 7 VP. If he had yellow goods in Louisville he would go by way of StLouis, etc. for 7 points instead of directly to Cincinatti fo 1 point.

Now I know what to call it - "Circumlocutionary" route.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Circumlocutionary" - literally, talking in circles, but it applies to the reasoning behind the words, and as such, I've heard it used for actions representing circular reasoning, too. In AoS, the word struck me as applicable to a tight set of short links leading back into itself. Thus, you have City 1 linked to City 2, linked to City 3, linked to City 4, linked back to City 1, for example, and generating income by moving the cubes in a circuitous fashion. A cube on City 2 - rather than transiting one link back to City 1 - can be sent across 3 links to City 1, tripling the income otherwise derived from the more direct route. And a cube on City 3 can similarly be sent roundabout to City 2, and so on.

In a game of railroading, I can certainly understand the need for establishing "regional infrastructure", but there has been many a game, in my experience, where this regional infrastructure became the means to the end, precluding the historical requirement for expansion into different areas. While this may be somewhat realistic on a local scale of operations, it doesn't reflect the expansion found on a continental scale, historically. Yet the same system has been "ported" to RRT, and so something had to be introduced to prevent this type of activity from being more lucrative than large-scale expansion. What was introduced (and I suspect largely for this reason) was the card rewarding major route completion.

Maybe I should have, instead, invented the term "circumlocomotively"...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Circumlocomotive" - I like that much better, and insist on using it in future when describing the act of driving trains on the longest route when a shorter one would have sufficed. A circumlocomotive use of links, as you described, probably wouldn't benefit a sole player in our games, and when it did somebody would always find a way to upset things, even if it just involved forcing transit down the single link instead of the other three.

This almost invariably occurs if such a network is set up; most realise that three links is a lot of income over two goods runs, and to deny at least one of those prevents the player from running away with it.

That's when they actually succeed in building just that; they usually don't get that far (one exception was when I was playing with a group of beginners - the player who managed it, however, became isolated in his own little circle). The main reason they don't is because they look for the longest route possible to deliver, and rarely rise above six links for that.

In simpler words, in AoS at least, it doesn't make economic sense to close one's railway into a circle. It makes better economic sense to link to each city just once and in the right order based on goods available. Circular networks are difficult to achieve. I suspect this will also be the case in RT, but I have to rely on other's input for that as I have never played.

Of course, none of this has any real relevance as the cards in question don't appear in AoS. I think it is debatable they were included to preclude circumlocomotion, as that would be more elegantly done with a simple rule requiring a player to ship via the shortest route they have between two cities. This rule would then encourage direct expansion rather than circumlocomotive link-building.

I may even introduce this into some of our AoS games to see what effect it has; maybe I will make it a rule for the next map I design. Interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anthony, while your experience may be that this type of tactic is rare, I can assure you that it has been far from rare in my games. There usually seems to be at least one player who manages to pull this off, and you're right - somebody needs to intervene, and disrupt the process by taking the cubes elsewhere.

However, this type of intervention assumes that the disruption will be justifiable, in terms of income gain/loss between the respective players, and in the overall context of who is winning, and by how much. And so it seems that much more often that not, just such a tactic can have a tendency (at least in my experience) to go "unpunished", and reap considerable benefit for a comparatively minor investment in link construction.

As is the case in a lot of "empire-expansion" games - while the thought of interfering with the growth of other players is all fine and well, no single player is going to feel it is incumbent upon him or her to be solely responsible for putting out all of the fires, as it were, rather than paying attention and energy on growth of their own domain. The cost benefit must be tangible, and somewhat easily discerned.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
In simpler words, in AoS at least, it doesn't make economic sense to close one's railway into a circle.


On the contrary, it makes tremendous sense, as the construction cost is usually cheaper, and restricts the cubes used to a reduced geographic area, thereby reducing the possibility of external interference. Why build twelve or fourteen hexes across three or four links to a blue town, when you can build ten hexes across the same number of links to a closer blue town? A blue town, in fact, to which you already connect? All you really need is links to make money - not distance. And therein lies the problem.

And I've seen its economic sense driven home, repeatedly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KMcMillen wrote:
We noticed that 2 of the 3 starting RR ops cards always get claimed by the same person, since they are only 1 action apart. The card which gives 3 VP's for the first 3 link delivery, followed by the card rewarding the 1st 4 train are only 1 action apart. So we reversed the action on each card to:
3 VP's for the first 3-link train
4 VP's for the first 4-link delivery.
There are 2 actions between these, so players can compete for the second one easier if they want it. Otherwise the player who goes first on an early turn will most likely get both.

This doesn't happen in our games. What happens is when one person builds to a 3 train then another player follows suite. Then the 1st 3 train player can either deliver the 3 good or build to a 4 train (but not both) on their next action. Then the 2nd 3 train player does the other remaining action. It's too dangerous not to defend in this way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Biggar
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
Quote:
In simpler words, in AoS at least, it doesn't make economic sense to close one's railway into a circle.


On the contrary, it makes tremendous sense, as the construction cost is usually cheaper, and restricts the cubes used to a reduced geographic area, thereby reducing the possibility of external interference. Why build twelve or fourteen hexes across three or four links to a blue town, when you can build ten hexes across the same number of links to a closer blue town? A blue town, in fact, to which you already connect? All you really need is links to make money - not distance. And therein lies the problem.

And I've seen its economic sense driven home, repeatedly.


Exactly, I've seen many AoS games won by a player able to build the Erie loop.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Etherton
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Inntrepid wrote:
My son did this in a game. Part of his network was a circular route with: Cincinatti - Indianpolis - Chicago - Rock Island - DesMoines - Kansas City - St Louis - Louisville - (back to Cincinnati).

He had urbanized one of the gray cities to Purple and after he had an Engine of 7 he was able to deliver any good for 7 VP. If he had yellow goods in Louisville he would go by way of StLouis, etc. for 7 points instead of directly to Cincinatti fo 1 point.

Now I know what to call it - "Circumlocutionary" route.


Fascinating! What would happen if there was a house rule that stated that you always had to take the shortest valid route to a destination? Biggest problem I see with that rule is that you might be forced to use a route that you didn't own as many of the links on. Maybe if you have more than one possible route on which you own ALL of the links, you are required to choose the shortest route?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Biggar
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Note that RRT unlike AoS has a rule that the first link of any cube delivery must be over a link owned by the moving player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Goodwin
United States
Grayslake
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
etherton wrote:
Inntrepid wrote:
My son did this in a game. Part of his network was a circular route with: Cincinatti - Indianpolis - Chicago - Rock Island - DesMoines - Kansas City - St Louis - Louisville - (back to Cincinnati).

He had urbanized one of the gray cities to Purple and after he had an Engine of 7 he was able to deliver any good for 7 VP. If he had yellow goods in Louisville he would go by way of StLouis, etc. for 7 points instead of directly to Cincinatti fo 1 point.

Now I know what to call it - "Circumlocutionary" route.


Fascinating! What would happen if there was a house rule that stated that you always had to take the shortest valid route to a destination? Biggest problem I see with that rule is that you might be forced to use a route that you didn't own as many of the links on. Maybe if you have more than one possible route on which you own ALL of the links, you are required to choose the shortest route?


I would agree that would make the most 'real world' sense. I don't have an issue with the 'side-effect', though. I would stick with the firm rule that the shortes valid route is what a player must score, however. If you have two possible routes, and the shortest route will score less points for you than the longer route, those are the breaks.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
However, this type of intervention assumes that the disruption will be justifiable, in terms of income gain/loss between the respective players, and in the overall context of who is winning, and by how much. And so it seems that much more often that not, just such a tactic can have a tendency (at least in my experience) to go "unpunished", and reap considerable benefit for a comparatively minor investment in link construction.


This has to be a player mix thing, then. Where our group have played there always seems to be competition for connections to the same cities; so it never goes unpunished. Our games tend to consist of five or six players; I have only ever played with less than this number two or three times. We have seen small loops (two or three cities), but usually they don't earn great revenue because of a combination of the goods mix and the competition. Even worse, the player involved is forced to start building in a separate part of the board so he never has a contiguous six-link route anywhere.

As for the cost, well a circle between three cities two spaces between each (assuming no intervening rivers or hills) will cost more than a linear route connecting three cities with two spaces between each - both in time and money. It's a topographical factor, sure, so it depends on the map; but for that investment you better have the goods to ship or you're behind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darrell Hanning wrote:
On the contrary, it makes tremendous sense, as the construction cost is usually cheaper, and restricts the cubes used to a reduced geographic area, thereby reducing the possibility of external interference. Why build twelve or fourteen hexes across three or four links to a blue town, when you can build ten hexes across the same number of links to a closer blue town? A blue town, in fact, to which you already connect? All you really need is links to make money - not distance. And therein lies the problem.


Ah, it seems my topographical comment in my previous post applies here.

Mark Biggar wrote:
Exactly, I've seen many AoS games won by a player able to build the Erie loop.


That's a difficult loop to complete, I don't think I have ever seen it done. Perhaps their win was deserved, but a player winning does not reinforce the argument that it is an economically viable option. I accept it might be (economically viable) but usually it isn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
David Etherton wrote:
Fascinating! What would happen if there was a house rule that stated that you always had to take the shortest valid route to a destination? Biggest problem I see with that rule is that you might be forced to use a route that you didn't own as many of the links on.


This would make the game radically different.

David Etherton wrote:
Maybe if you have more than one possible route on which you own ALL of the links, you are required to choose the shortest route?


That's what I was getting at; it would prevent looping in a more elegant way than a deck of cards. It wouldn't prevent massive diversions, however; furthermore like some others here I wouldn't see it as a problem anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fellonmyhead wrote:
David Etherton wrote:
Fascinating! What would happen if there was a house rule that stated that you always had to take the shortest valid route to a destination? Biggest problem I see with that rule is that you might be forced to use a route that you didn't own as many of the links on.


This would make the game radically different.

David Etherton wrote:
Maybe if you have more than one possible route on which you own ALL of the links, you are required to choose the shortest route?


That's what I was getting at; it would prevent looping in a more elegant way than a deck of cards. It wouldn't prevent massive diversions, however; furthermore like some others here I wouldn't see it as a problem anyway.


The whole problem I see with this change in the system is the additional deviousness with which the players would then need to plan their routes (so as to avoid getting a cheap return on the shorter deliveries), and the additional downtime it would take to come up with the more devious routes.

Where it is currently logical to connect a yellow city to the nearby, blue city having two yellow cubes in it, because you can still build another route back to the yellow (or to another yellow) across more than one link. With this rule change you wouldn't build that route. You would, instead, build a route away from the blue city, only to come back to it eventually, in a more roundabout fashion.

I fear this rule change would simply result in stranger rail routes.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darrell Hanning wrote:
I fear this rule change would simply result in stranger rail routes.


Yes, the massive diversions I referred to. You're spot on with that theory IMHO; probably just as well to let sleeping dogs lie.

Then again...

I was toying with a rule for an AoS map I was making, in which the colour of the cube related not to the destination city, but to cities that would not accept those goods. As a result, a good can be shipped to any number of cities but must not stop on one the same colour. This almost turns the whole economic model on its head and certainly would not be the sole rule change for it to be workable (for example, the starting goods for each city might be reduced, or the production chart initially stocked according to city colour).

I wanted to use this to represent the fact that over a small area the economy is generally similar, and hence I would group cities of the same colour together.

If you like specifics, then I'm talking UK around the time of steam being introduced; certain parts of the country have been known for producing certain types of goods (tin mines in Cornwall, textiles in Lancashire, coalfields in Yorkshire and North Wales, and so on) so there would be less demand for them locally.

Would this work for RT? Probably not, but it's just another thought.

I suppose I should start a separate thread about this if I am going on a bit?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jarratt Gray
New Zealand
Upper Hutt
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thematically the idea of taking a goods cube over multiple links instead of 1 works perfectly for me.

In both AoS and RRT you are developing trade routes. You don't ship goods once, you set up a permanent contract to deliver said goods to said city. The city that you start the route from will produce the goods equal to the demand. The demand is initially generated in the city you deliver the goods to but by running a longer route you are able to deliver additional goods of the same type to cities and towns alongthe way. Just because those goods are not in demand in those cities doesn't not mean there is not interest in them.

The locomotive speed also reflects this. I guess it reflects both the ability to pull greater number of carraiges as well as covering a longer route fast enoug hso that the demand city is not unhappy with the speed of delivery from the producting city.

Yes I understand that historically part of teh development of rail networks (especially in America) was to 'explore' and link the two sides of the country together. Travel by train is faster and safer. However in AoS the boards are on a much smaller scale and while passengers certainly factor in, the game is essentially about building and developing both a rail infrastructure and a competitive company.

From an abstract point of view the game is very interesting, though RRT takes on more of the story elements of building rail networks. In RRT the circuitous route technique is more difficult because of the limitation of cities you can build to with one action. This means that the cons (too many actions building, not enough moving goods) can outweigh the benefits. In AoS this is not the case and the circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game. Generally the tactive isn't about building from point 1 to point B to point C to point A again. It is much better to create multiple triangles in your network so you can avoid certain coloured cities and turn what would have been 1-step into 2. It is very difficult to snake 6's across the board, it is much easier to do it with loopy track.

Back to the question at hand. In our first game of RRT the 2 operating cards did not get taken by the same player. Though I can see it happening I don't think it is a flaw in the game. It is something that other players need to be aware of, in the same way that early hotels can be really important for certain player and you need to watch out for them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An excellent synopsis, Jarratt.

Jarratt Hely wrote:
In AoS this is not the case and the circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game.


I think this could just as easily read "The non-circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jarratt Gray
New Zealand
Upper Hutt
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fellonmyhead wrote:
"The non-circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game."


In AoS the long non-circuitous route is easily broken. The goods are much harder to protect as you opponents can run crossing links through your setup and take your goods. Also it is difficult to plan a route that encompasses multiple colours for high deliveries when you are only running in a straight line.

However in RRT I have found that the circuitous route is difficult to develop within the time-frame. Especially when each turn you spend building track takes away from your income earning potential. A couple of loops can be developed but nothing as complex or powerful as AoS. There is way more competition in the strong areas where this can be done as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fellonmyhead wrote:
An excellent synopsis, Jarratt.

Jarratt Hely wrote:
In AoS this is not the case and the circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game.


I think this could just as easily read "The non-circuitous route is almost always a game winner as long as you plan it right and develop your links at the right times in the game."


The two statements can't both be true. If you have two equally skilled players, who execute two different strategies, equally well, then one of those is going to work better. Only one person can win even when everyone plays well.
 
 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.