Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » General

Subject: Let's Talk About Balance: How Can Corporations be Buffed? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There seems to be a general consensus that Runner's are easier to play and tend to have a significantly higher win % than corporations do given 2 players of equal skill. I think this is primarily due to a limited card pool that inherently favors the runners due to the inherent mechanics of the game.

Now there is nothing wrong with this as it allows for easier entry into the game for newer players as well as the asymmetrical gameplay we all love.

However I feel that at the competitive level having a faction that is inherently 'better' may cause issues.

So lets discuss our ideas that we would like to see implemented to improve the Corp side of things.



Tags
The current tagging system is clearly underdeveloped. We need more cards (both in faction and neutral) that punish runners who keep tags on AND I think we need some kind of additional built in benefit to tags. For example a you can discard hardware on a runner with 3 tags or discard a program on a runner with 5 tags. There needs to be some kind of built in incentive for runners to get rid of their tags and not idly sit on 5 tags just because they have no resources and they know the opponent isnt running SE.

Agendas
Please dear lord give us some agenda diversity! Currently all Corps are pigeonholed into taking the same 6 agendas every time. New neutral agendas that open up Corp playstyle are desperately needed.


Non-card specific Trickery and Mindgames
I would love to see some kind of asset/upgrade or rule change that allows Corps to score agendas on the runner's turn and/or allowed the corp to advance cards that they could not normally advance.

This would allow for some more inherent trickery on the corp side that isn't reliant on specific card combos. Advance that facedown pad adonis campaign as HB and the is forced to ask, is this an agenda, an aggressive secretary maybe or just a dud/faux trap. Scoring agenda's on the runner's turn would also allow really help give some legs to the fast advance playstyle and would potentially open it up to other factions besides NBN.



Now none of my suggestions are perfect and definitely have some kinks that would need to be worked out but the ideas I think are valid and I am genuinely curious as to what others have to say on the matter.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jessey
Canada
flag msg tools
designer
I also purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
badge
I purchased this and do not know what to do with it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Points 1 and 2 are to be addressed as early as the first expansion (due out in a week or so?)

Also, I disagree with the premise -- is it actually "consensus" that Runner is "stronger" than Corp? That's not my experience, but I am far and away from the most experienced player (or even moderately experienced players) out there.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Parkes
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
However I feel that at the competitive level having a faction that is inherently 'better' may cause issues.


I don't want to stop you from suggesting house rules to tweak your personal runner/corp win/loss ratio, but I don't think that there are any competitive issues with runner/corp imbalance.

In any competitive match, you have to play once as the runner and once as the corp. Therefore, any advantage you gain from playing as the runner is precisely counterbalanced by having to play as the corp. Since you can still score points even if you don't win, sometimes playing as the corp may be less about winning and more about scoring as many points as possible before you loose, to give you the overall win.

In fact, it might be better if the game favors the runner, just a little; after all, it's a thematic game, and the natural motivation will be to root for the underdog.

Just my two cents.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:

Tags
The current tagging system is clearly underdeveloped. We need more cards (both in faction and neutral) that punish runners who keep tags on AND I think we need some kind of additional built in benefit to tags. For example a you can discard hardware on a runner with 3 tags or discard a program on a runner with 5 tags. There needs to be some kind of built in incentive for runners to get rid of their tags and not idly sit on 5 tags just because they have no resources and they know the opponent isn't running SE.

I disagree with changing the status from 'tagged / not tagged' to having some kind of threshold for various levels of 'how tagged is the Runner'. Psychographics already lets a Corp score a 5-Advacement-Required Agenda directly from hand if the Runner has enough tags.

We've been assured that the Genesis cycle will focus in tagging and its effects, and based on what we've seen so far, that will be delivered on.


Quote:
Agendas
Please dear lord give us some agenda diversity! Currently all Corps are pigeonholed into taking the same 6 agendas every time. New neutral agendas that open up Corp playstyle are desperately needed.


We've also been told that the first datapack in the Genesis cycle will contain a new in-faction Agenda and ICE for each of the 4 Corps.
Each of the corps receives a new agenda and a flavorful piece of ice, perfectly tailored to its base strengths. (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3569)

Quote:
Non-card specific Trickery and Mindgames
I would love to see some kind of asset/upgrade or rule change that allows Corps to score agendas on the runner's turn and/or allowed the corp to advance cards that they could not normally advance.

This would allow for some more inherent trickery on the corp side that isn't reliant on specific card combos. Advance that facedown pad adonis campaign as HB and the is forced to ask, is this an agenda, an aggressive secretary maybe or just a dud/faux trap. Scoring agenda's on the runner's turn would also allow really help give some legs to the fast advance playstyle and would potentially open it up to other factions besides NBN.

Just as you cannot install Agenda/Assets/Upgrades 'as ICE' (or ICE into a server in the Agenda/Asset/Upgrade orientation), you shouldn't be permitted to Advance a card not meant to be Advanced. There's enough hidden information that this would summarily break the game.

Quote:
Now none of my suggestions are perfect and definitely have some kinks that would need to be worked out but the ideas I think are valid and I am genuinely curious as to what others have to say on the matter.


Of the ones already addressed by news articles, I'm 100% behind you.

For fundamental rule changes (Items #1 and #3), I don't think that's necessary. There is plenty of space to explore within the existing rules.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
There seems to be a general consensus that Runner's are easier to play and tend to have a significantly higher win % than corporations do given 2 players of equal skill. I think this is primarily due to a limited card pool that inherently favors the runners due to the inherent mechanics of the game.

Now there is nothing wrong with this as it allows for easier entry into the game for newer players as well as the asymmetrical gameplay we all love.

However I feel that at the competitive level having a faction that is inherently 'better' may cause issues.


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

In all seriousness, the tag system is fine as it is. It's a bit sad how difficult they are to get on good runners, but given cards like Closed Accounts and Scorched Earth if they were easier, Corps would likely be very overpowered. It's not a problem that Runners can choose not to remove tags against decks that aren't designed to take advantage of tags.

Corp side, I would like to see more assets/upgrades that interact with the Runner. Maybe an asset that, for a cost, could prevent or impair a Runner from accessing cards from a central server after a successful run. Or an upgrade similar to Zaibatsu Loyalty in effect. And more cards that are like Snare!, where they have effects when accessed that are desirable for the Corp.

More agendas are a given, but every corp is getting a new one in the upcoming Data Pack, and I think that will be a very good thing for the game as a whole.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hoobajoo wrote:
Corp side, I would like to see more assets/upgrades that interact with the Runner. Maybe an asset that, for a cost, could prevent or impair a Runner from accessing cards from a central server after a successful run. Or an upgrade similar to Zaibatsu Loyalty in effect. And more cards that are like Snare!, where they have effects when accessed that are desirable for the Corp.




Card on the left is already in the core set.
Card on the right was spoiled here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3618

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mychal
United States
Tempe
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am very much against giving the corp the ability to advance cards that aren't normally advance-able. That's a game-breaking mechanic, in my opinion.

As others have said, buffing tags and diversifying agendas will both be addressed in the first data pack cycle. This game is still in its infancy!

I wouldn't mind a future card (probably NBN) that allows the corp to trash a tagged runner's programs, or mayyybe even hardware, if the cost was high enough as to not make the card overpowered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
byronczimmer wrote:
hoobajoo wrote:
Corp side, I would like to see more assets/upgrades that interact with the Runner. Maybe an asset that, for a cost, could prevent or impair a Runner from accessing cards from a central server after a successful run. Or an upgrade similar to Zaibatsu Loyalty in effect. And more cards that are like Snare!, where they have effects when accessed that are desirable for the Corp.


Red Herring and Ash 2X3ZB9CY

Card on the left is already in the core set.
Card on the right was spoiled here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3618



Exactly; more like that! I didn't say there weren't cards like that, I really like those cards (especially Red Herring), and think that's the direction I'd like to see Corp cards go in, aside from the obvious desire for diversity in agendas and ICE.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
El-ad David Amir
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll join the chorus: What Lies Ahead is going to have a new Agenda for each Corp, plus a Neutral Agenda (if I recall correctly- I'm guessing it'll Main-Office Relocation that costs either 3 or 4 and gives 2 points). Additionally, it's going to have a new ICE for each Corp, plus a Neutral ICE (the super cool Draco). It should make life much easier for Corps.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll also say, FWIW, I think Runners are actually the harder side to learn how to play competently, since it demands a much better knowledge of the card pool and how/when to run without a full suite of breakers. Sitting corporation side, since they have all the information, is easier to get in the swing of. Although it's flipped for deckbuilding. Just my experience from teaching the game and my own learning process.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rus
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
There seems to be a general consensus that Runner's are easier to play and tend to have a significantly higher win % than corporations do given 2 players of equal skill.


According to OCGN statistics of over 1000 games, runners' and corps' difference in winrates is statistically insignificant:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/865823/anr-octgn-faction...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow was not expecting such a decisive response.

The first two points will be addressed by the first data pack I guess I am primarily interested in discussing potential cards ideas of how the new agendas could synergize with their particular faction. For example a low advance NBN/Weyland style agenda in Jinteki.


The advancing non advancable cards is definitely an underdeveloped idea but it was an idea a friend came up with and was curious as to what people thought about it.

However I am curious to what people think about the potential to score agenda's on the runner's turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rbelikov wrote:
y2ace wrote:
There seems to be a general consensus that Runner's are easier to play and tend to have a significantly higher win % than corporations do given 2 players of equal skill.


According to OCGN statistics of over 1000 games, runners' and corps' difference in winrates is statistically insignificant:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/865823/anr-octgn-faction...


I was going off a previous poll where the numbers were more along the lines of 40/60 so it is nice to see that the advantage is not as skewed as I thought.

But a 4% advantage to the runner is still an advantage and is not statistically insignificant...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rus
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
But a 4% advantage to the runner is still an advantage and is not statistically insignificant...


Given 1500 games, 1 sigma is 2.6%. So, a 4% discrepancy is less than 2 sigma. Sure, that is statistically insignificant.

(Note: I may be off by factors of 2 here, but that won't change the conclusions.)

Edit: did indeed have a factor of 2 error. 1 sigma is 1.3%, so 4% is about 3.1 sigma as pointed out below. That makes it marginally significant. However, see updated statistics on more games below.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
However I am curious to what people think about the potential to score agenda's on the runner's turn.


There needs to be risk if the Corp leaves a fully advanced agenda for the Runner to steal.

In the case of Matrix Analyzer, the benefit of advancement on the Runner's turn is enough - being able to then score the Agenda out from under the Runner as they Access is too powerful.

So... no.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
byronczimmer wrote:
y2ace wrote:
However I am curious to what people think about the potential to score agenda's on the runner's turn.


There needs to be risk if the Corp leaves a fully advanced agenda for the Runner to steal.

In the case of Matrix Analyzer, the benefit of advancement on the Runner's turn is enough - being able to then score the Agenda out from under the Runner as they Access is too powerful.

So... no.


D'oh you are absolutely right, Corp would have no incentive to ever score an agenda on their turn then. blush I feel dumb now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rbelikov wrote:
y2ace wrote:
But a 4% advantage to the runner is still an advantage and is not statistically insignificant...


Given 1500 games, 1 sigma is 2.6%. So, a 4% discrepancy is less than 2 sigma. Sure, that is statistically insignificant.

(Note: I may be off by factors of 2 here, but that won't change the conclusions.)


Just because the discrepancy is less than the 'standard' p-value of 5% does not mean that it is statistically insignificant.

The law of large numbers says that as N approaches infinity the average approaches the expected value. If we assume that both runner and corp are equally good than we would expect to see the same 50% win percentage.

However with an N value of 1500, this data strongly suggests that the game is in fact weighted in favor of the runner, specifically that they have a ~4% advantage.

In statistical terms a coin that was flipped 1500 times and came up 54% heads would not be considered a 'fair' coin as the law of large numbers says that percentage should be very very close to 50%
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
[The law of large numbers says that as N approaches infinity the average approaches the expected value. If we assume that both runner and corp are equally good than we would expect to see the same 50% win percentage.

However with an N value of 1500, this data strongly suggests that the game is in fact weighted in favor of the runner, specifically that they have a ~4% advantage.

In statistical terms a coin that was flipped 1500 times and came up 54% heads would not be considered a 'fair' coin as the law of large numbers says that percentage should be very very close to 50%


It has been observed that the discrepancy is still shrinking. Also a fair coin has a 1/30 chance of coming up heads or tails 54% of the time after 1500 flips, which is not nearly unlikely enough to assert that the coin is unfair.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hoobajoo wrote:
y2ace wrote:
[The law of large numbers says that as N approaches infinity the average approaches the expected value. If we assume that both runner and corp are equally good than we would expect to see the same 50% win percentage.

However with an N value of 1500, this data strongly suggests that the game is in fact weighted in favor of the runner, specifically that they have a ~4% advantage.

In statistical terms a coin that was flipped 1500 times and came up 54% heads would not be considered a 'fair' coin as the law of large numbers says that percentage should be very very close to 50%


It has been observed that the discrepancy is still shrinking. Also a fair coin has a 1/30 chance of coming up heads or tails 54% of the time after 1500 flips, which is not nearly unlikely enough to assert that the coin is unfair.


1/30 is still only a 3% chance that the coin is indeed fair, which is below the 'standard' statistical threshold of 5%. What p-value do you feel is 'good enough' then? .01? .001?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
El-ad David Amir
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
Just because the discrepancy is less than the 'standard' p-value of 5% does not mean that it is statistically insignificant.

I agree, the magic 5% is quoted too often.

y2ace wrote:
The law of large numbers says that as N approaches infinity the average approaches the expected value. If we assume that both runner and corp are equally good than we would expect to see the same 50% win percentage.

This is true if the number of games approaches infinity. Last I checked, 1,500 is not infinity. I would say that 1,500 is a small sample size given the problem at hand.

y2ace wrote:
In statistical terms a coin that was flipped 1500 times and came up 54% heads would not be considered a 'fair' coin as the law of large numbers says that percentage should be very very close to 50%

The law of large numbers has nothing to do with it. No need to flail around with the large numbers sledgehammer. If we treat games as repeated binomial trials we can calculate the expected value and the variance. n = 1,500, p = 0.5. E = 750. Var = 375.

rbelikov wrote:
Given 1500 games, 1 sigma is 2.6%. So, a 4% discrepancy is less than 2 sigma. Sure, that is statistically insignificant.

The variance is 375. The standard deviation is ~19, or 1.2%. A 4% discrepancy is 3 1/3 standard deviations. Whether you're a proponent of the magical 5%, it's enough to point out an important trend.

y2ace wrote:
However with an N value of 1500, this data strongly suggests that the game is in fact weighted in favor of the runner, specifically that they have a ~4% advantage.

While I disagree with your reasoning AND your conclusion, you are correct that according to the data presented above, the Runner might have a slight advantage over the Corp.

Now, let's drop the statistical lingo and examine that same data. When examined faction-by-faction, we see that vs HB the runner is 50/50. Vs Weyland, again, the runner is 50/50. The problem is not that the Corp is weaker, the problem is that Jinteki and NBN are weaker, with 37% win rate and 39% win rate, respectively. In other words, two Corps are biasing the data significantly. This explains why the next few expansions are going to buff tags and trickery significantly; these are synonyms for NBN and Jinteki.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rus
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hoobajoo wrote:
It has been observed that the discrepancy is still shrinking. Also a fair coin has a 1/30 chance of coming up heads or tails 54% of the time after 1500 flips, which is not nearly unlikely enough to assert that the coin is unfair.


Exactly. In statistical terms, this is about a 2.2-sigma result (because 54% is two standard deviations away), which is about a 3% probability as hoobajoo says. Usually, the standard for claiming a statistically significant result is 3 sigma. So, a 54% win rate in 1500 games is not a statistically significant result.

Edit: ninja'd by previous post, have not read it yet (and gotta run, so won't be able to read it in a while...). It's possible my estimates are off by factors of 2 and such.

Edit2: did indeed have a factor of 2 error. (Was doing things from memory and couldn't remember whether the std for coin flips is sqrt(N) or sqrt(N)/2.) As IirionClaus points out, 1 sigma is 1.3%, so a 4% discrepancy is about 3.1 sigma. That makes it marginally significant, but still IMO not enough to claim any imbalance. Also, see updated statistics on many more games below.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
1/30 is still only a 3% chance that the coin is indeed fair, which is below the 'standard' statistical threshold of 5%. What p-value do you feel is 'good enough' then? .01? .001?


0.01 would be good. Now moving back from the abstraction, what the OCTGN data shows is that while Runners were originally winning about 60% of the time, now that has declined to 54%. This COULD mean that the game is imbalanced currently. Or it could mean that Runner decks are easier to build, and it took corporations more time to get on par. Or that there was a certain kind of runner deck that was strong in the meta, but corporations are starting to adjust to it and developing counter-measures. Bank Job punishing having unprotected assets would be a good example of this kind of thing.

EDIT: David raises many excellent points, and salient analysis. Good stuff.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Nish
United States
Marina
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IirionClaus wrote:

This is true if the number of games approaches infinity. Last I checked, 1,500 is not infinity. I would say that 1,500 is a small sample size given the problem at hand.


I'm somewhat curious as to what field your statistical background is in. I come a background of environmental science where a N of 1500 is such a godsend it might as well be infinity. I am guessing you have an engineering or medical background?

Either way your analysis is accurate. I was being lazy and didn't want to break out R to actually do the calculations of a binomial trial.


IirionClaus wrote:

Now, let's drop the statistical lingo and examine that same data. When examined faction-by-faction, we see that vs HB the runner is 50/50. Vs Weyland, again, the runner is 50/50. The problem is not that the Corp is weaker, the problem is that Jinteki and NBN are weaker, with 37% win rate and 39% win rate, respectively. In other words, two Corps are biasing the data significantly. This explains why the next few expansions are going to buff tags and trickery significantly; these are synonyms for NBN and Jinteki.


You read my mind exactly. What I find most curious about the data is that it suggests NBN and Jinteki are underpowered and Criminal overpowered with respect to their faction counterparts.

Edit: It would appear I am statistical tree hugger in a world of engineers =). I fully concede that my own typical critical values and SD's do not meet the rigorous standards set by other fields.
Much like Martin and Rus I too am loving the discussion.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
IirionClaus wrote:

This is true if the number of games approaches infinity. Last I checked, 1,500 is not infinity. I would say that 1,500 is a small sample size given the problem at hand.


I'm somewhat curious as to what field your statistical background is in. I come a background of environmental science where a N of 1500 is such a godsend it might as well be infinity. I am guessing you have an engineering or medical background?

Either way your analysis is accurate. I was being lazy and didn't want to break out R to actually do the calculations of a binomial trial.


I learned statistics and calculus to better understand quantum mechanics, but my formal background is in philosophy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
El-ad David Amir
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
y2ace wrote:
I'm somewhat curious as to what field your statistical background is in. I come a background of environmental science where a N of 1500 is such a godsend it might as well be infinity. I am guessing you have an engineering or medical background?

*laughing* My background is computational biology. I am used to doing thousands of trials with N in the tens of thousands to the millions. That's why I dislike the p l.t 0.05 notion, our p-values often go to 10^-10.

y2ace wrote:
Either way your analysis is accurate. I was being lazy and didn't want to break out R to actually do the calculations of a binomial trial.

I agreed with your conclusion but thought that your reasoning is weak. I think that sound evidence is important in this discussion.

Plus, the law of large numbers had nothing to do with it ... it's often used as a fig leaf for laziness

y2ace wrote:
You read my mind exactly. What I find most curious about the data is that it suggests NBN and Jinteki are underpowered and Criminal overpowered with respect to their faction counterparts.

At the end of the day, we are all A:NR newbies. The game has been out for a very short period of time and surprises still show up, even with just the Core Set (I never thought Magnum Opus will be declared as Shaper Enemy #1, but this is slowly turning to be the case). Perhaps given time Criminals will return to 50/50. I'm less optimistic about NBN and Jinteki, due to the limited Agenda and ICE availability. One does not have much room for originality when more than half of your deck is fixed.
 
 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.