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

Up Front» Forums » General

Subject: KS Reprint: Rules Changes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I pledged for the Kickstarter reprint based on the great enthusiasm of UF players. But, I know nothing about the rules.

The UF KS project posted this update about the rules. Can somebody tell me what it means. That is to say, I thought the UF KS project was a straight reprint albeit with aesthetic changes. This sounds like a non-trivial mechanical redesign. Or, perhaps it's nothing.

I mention it because doesn't something like this imply playtesting; and without it, the risk of breaking the game.

Todd says:

After we released the rules to the Internet, there was several players concerned that entry into CC with the new rules was now too easy when compared to the previous edition. While there are some constraints as to the changes to CC (like infiltration should be totally separate at this point, etc), there was still plenty of wiggle room to see if we could modify the ruleset to get it more in line with the previous edition. Thus I reached out to several of the previous UF World Champions to see if we could come up with a modified solution.

Over the last couple of weeks, the CC Group have thrown out a variety of ideas – some I had directly tried to work through myself in the past and others that were totally brand new. But in the end, sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. The essence of what we did was try and reproduce the same (or as close as possible) entry percentages from the 2nd edition rules with the new rules. What I found was if I applied a simple –1 to the Morale Check for CC Entry, the percentages suddenly fell relatively in line. For example:

- Morale 1: old system 22% new system 14%
- Morale 2: old system 40% new system 27%
- Morale 3: old system 53% new system 49%
- Morale 4: old system 64% new system 67%
- Morale 5: old system 72% new system 80%

...


The update goes on. Here is a link to the full text.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Badger
England
London
Enfield
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've not read the full text, but from what you've posted it sounds as though less cards will need to be played to enter in to Close Combat. Up Front has a built in time limit for each scenario based on how many times you play through the deck. So it appears that although the odds to enter Close Combat are roughly the same, it will have a reduced effect on the length of the game. This could be an important change as sometimes the best thing one player can do is to try and run the deck down to end the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Galli
United States
Scottsdale
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
The 4th Hussars Do Not Ride Donkeys!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to admit when I got the email announcing rules changes it caused a small amount of concern.

I don't mind if the mechanics in the reprint are different from the original, providing any changes have been thoroughly and exhaustively playtested before the game goes to print.

The email made it seem like the changes were solely based on the opinions of few gamers plus a few minutes spent with a calculator. I sincerely hope that is not the case.

Speaking for myself, it would be nice if someone provided a little reassurance that comprehensive playtesting of these proposed changes is in progress!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan
United States
Maitland
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have casually enjoyed Up Front in the past, so take what I am saying with a grain of salt. The rules as-written aren't quite so bad as their reputation would suggest. Members of BGG, at least, have proven able to follow minute legalize, which is how the original rules were written. That said, if Up Front is going to find an audience beyond its current crop of old-school grognards, it definitely needs some tweaking. The average eurogamer looking for something a bit different is going to have to really wrestle with Up Front as written to get it to the table. Anything Radiant can do to help out is a positive.

Relative Range looks like it's going to be re-worked for clarity, and now it seems Close Combat is being tweaked. I am absolutely fine with that, provided the essence of the game doesn't change. As others have mentioned, any tweaks ought to be playtested before they are implemented.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Click
United States
Bristol
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Nothing to see here
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:


[i]Todd says:
Thus I reached out to several of the previous UF World Champions to see if we could come up with a modified solution.
To me, that is the most important part of that quote... No reworking the rules in a vacuum, but reaching out to those who know the rules the best.
7 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
gallid wrote:

The email made it seem like the changes were solely based on the opinions of few gamers


Umm... these "few gamers" were not just casual fans voicing their opinions - they were guys that I have the utmost respect for in this community. Thus after I read their comments, I looked into the situation a bit more and found it to be less than ideal as written previously. That is why I reached out to world-class veterans who know this game better than anyone else and asked them if they would like to help find a solution. Every single one I reached out to agreed to help and we had fantastic discussions on various ways to bring the rules back in line with 2nd edition. The current rules are a result of those discussions and represents the solution that we all agreed was the best for the game.


gallid wrote:
plus a few minutes spent with a calculator. I sincerely hope that is not the case.


A few minutes spent with a calculator? Really? You think that is what we did? Nothing could be farther from the truth.

gallid wrote:
Speaking for myself, it would be nice if someone provided a little reassurance that comprehensive playtesting of these proposed changes is in progress!


Of course playtesting is going on with these rule changes. And that is why these updates are posted to the community as well. You can certainly use the new rules with your existing cards if you feel like it. Flipping the Range values really isn't that hard at all and the rest of the rules are easy to adapt using 2nd edition cards. Thus if you are so inclined, you can "playtest" the rules yourself and send me feedback. The more people I can get looking at the rules and trying things out before it goes to print - the better the final product is going to be.

Take care
TB
14 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I get it now, I think. Because of the separation of the cards, it implies this necessary adjustment.
.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
jmw23 wrote:
Relative Range looks like it's going to be re-worked for clarity, and now it seems Close Combat is being tweaked. I am absolutely fine with that, provided the essence of the game doesn't change. As others have mentioned, any tweaks ought to be playtested before they are implemented.


Trust me - the "essence of the game" remains fully in tact with UF. And in preserving the essence of UF leads to difficult situations. While there is a certain cry to rework UF to be "streamlined" or more "modern", there is also a great deal of players that want this version to essentially be a reprint of the classic game. Thus each and every change that we implement to the game is considered and scrutinized over and over to make sure that UF is ultimately a better because of it.

Lets be real - we could make UF so that it would appeal to a greater audience by making massive changes to the rules and making it vastly easier for new players to start gaming. But if we went that route, that game (whatever it would be) simply wouldn't be the UF that we all know and love. Thus it is being handled with great care by players that adore this game - and the essence of what makes UF so wonderful - remains fully in tact.

Take care
TB
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I certainly haven't playtested these new rules, it sure seems that they make sense considering the card split and whatnot.

I also like that it has been released well in advance. Now that the core group has made the changes, everyone with an interest can at least make their points pre-production.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
isaacc wrote:

I get it now, I think. Because of the separation of the cards, it implies this necessary adjustment.
.


We had certain parameters that Courtney Allen (original creator of the game) wanted to see implemented in this version. The decoupling of infiltration as an absolute requirement for CC entry was one of his requests. Thus I have painlessly worked for months trying to find the best/optimal solution to the "new" CC while still preserving the ratios/percentages from the previous editions.

Trust me, you might think this really shouldn't be to hard to figure out, but it is. Especially when you want to preserve other aspects as well (benefit for Banzai attacks, infiltration as an option (not a requirement), retain the idea of the morale check across all situations, retain terrain requirements, etc...). Its like trying to take a card away from the bottom row of a house of cards - its not easy. Especially when you want to actually make it better/stronger in the end.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Walters
United States
Hercules
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

You know what would be neat? A CC flowchart. Both for discussing the changes to the rules (a before and after) and for explaining the rules later. There are three (?) paths to CC now, and there are some branches, too (ie Movement cards or MCs, Hero cards).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
andreww wrote:

You know what would be neat? A CC flowchart. Both for discussing the changes to the rules (a before and after) and for explaining the rules later. There are three (?) paths to CC now, and there are some branches, too (ie Movement cards or MCs, Hero cards).


The only part of CC that has changed in this version is the CC entry routine. Previously, you had to be an infiltrator to enter into CC and then had to pass a MC or play a Movement card to engage in CC. Now infiltration is optional. Under the new CC entry routine, anyone can engage in CC after passing a modified MC and infiltrators can automatically join in the fun if they want to.

Thus there used to be one one path into CC (infiltration) and now there is two (infiltration and non-infiltrators). Previously, CC entry took two turns to enter and now it potentially can only take one turn (but it still takes two turns for infiltrators).

As for flowcharts, there already is a CC Entry flowchart in the new rules (page 19). I'm sure I could create a CC Entry flowchart for the old rules if you like for comparison purposes. I'll try to work on this in my spare time.

TB
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Galli
United States
Scottsdale
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
The 4th Hussars Do Not Ride Donkeys!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Todd,

Thank you for your explanations. The kickstarter email (update #61) concerned me, but your comments have reassured me that the the development of this edition is in good hands. Thanks.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
gallid wrote:
Todd,

Thank you for your explanations. The kickstarter email (update #61) concerned me, but your comments have reassured me that the the development of this edition is in good hands. Thanks.


Cool! If you haven't picked up on this yet, I flipping love this game and will gladly talk/discuss it at anytime.

I'm certainly not the smartest person out there - but I'm smart enough to know where my limitations are and have NO problem bringing in other people to help out that are more qualified than me. That is what I did with the CC Entry redesign and I'm so very thrilled with the way it came out. Plus, it allowed me to get to know some really awesome UF guys.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I suggested on the update the pairing for CC I don't think needs to be random. What's the rationale for it being random? The men have had plenty of time during their advancing to get a pretty good idea of the composition of the group(s) that are attacking them. The man entering CC would have a pretty good idea of whom he wants to attack prior to entering the enemies position.

I say let the attacker and the defender choose the pairings. Which gets to choose first could be dependent on modifiers or a black/red RNC or RPC. If the attacker gets to choose first it's communicating that he had a slight advantage and initiative in the attack. If the defender chooses first that communicates the defender gained the initiative right at the last moment.

If only 1 man enters CC then only one side will be choosing. If say 3 men enter than whoever chooses first also chooses for the 3rd guy, while the 2nd guy is chosen by the other side.

I wonder if you play tested this with desired pairings versus the random system of the current rules how different it would even be.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I totally admit to being a hardcore UF fan, and really felt the original rules were stellar (in practice if not neccesarily in format) and have really unsettled issues over the RR situation. (as to my mind, it DOES constitute an additional step in some functions, and it also fit intrinsically with various calculations)... but I've kinda got to the "deal-with-it" point there (or just re-label all AFV/personel/weapons cards).

But I'm really concerned (albeit without play, because my game time's been zilch lately, and my UF partner's been AWOL) with the new thoughts on entering CC. Seems to me that CC was pretty uncommon in WWII except for the Japanese, and also during certain timeframes/settings with the Russians.

The original UF way of having to get to CC "normally" was a two-step process, infiltrating and then CC, which normally happened only rarely, and then usually being a game ended or breaker. To me (and I don't claim expertise, just fairly well read on history) this change will go farther from the portrayal of this occurance to actual happenings.

The Japanese already have an exception for this in their ability to Banzai, and so do the Russians by a Berzerk soldier. If you make it quicker (even if perhaps not so much "easier" giving that your "factors" on CC entry are correct %-wise) to go into CC with "normal" soldiers, might we not see more CC in UF2ed than original or "WWII-wise", and does this not take something away from these "special" Berzerk & Banzai abilities ALSO?

I DO think that entering INF/CC was not without it's "clunkyness", but IMHO that added to the facts that it was rarely done, without dire cause, or clear reasoning. It did work well, IMHO, and I'm concerned that making it simpler gamewise will make it become a more viable mode of operation than it should be historically.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Holly Hill
South Carolina
flag msg tools
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DiploGuy wrote:
As I suggested on the update the pairing for CC I don't think needs to be random. What's the rationale for it being random? The men have had plenty of time during their advancing to get a pretty good idea of the composition of the group(s) that are attacking them. The man entering CC would have a pretty good idea of whom he wants to attack prior to entering the enemies position.

I say let the attacker and the defender choose the pairings. Which gets to choose first could be dependent on modifiers or a black/red RNC or RPC. If the attacker gets to choose first it's communicating that he had a slight advantage and initiative in the attack. If the defender chooses first that communicates the defender gained the initiative right at the last moment.

If only 1 man enters CC then only one side will be choosing. If say 3 men enter than whoever chooses first also chooses for the 3rd guy, while the 2nd guy is chosen by the other side.

I wonder if you play tested this with desired pairings versus the random system of the current rules how different it would even be.



I doubt in the heat of battle when entering into an upfront and personal, life or death struggle with the enemy that you've time to check his personal chart and figure out just how tough he personally was. Just say'n

(heck, I jumped the littleguy... how the hell was I to know it was Bruce Lee!)
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OrionDD wrote:
But I'm really concerned (albeit without play, because my game time's been zilch lately, and my UF partner's been AWOL) with the new thoughts on entering CC. Seems to me that CC was pretty uncommon in WWII except for the Japanese, and also during certain timeframes/settings with the Russians.


toddbanister wrote:
We had certain parameters that Courtney Allen (original creator of the game) wanted to see implemented in this version. The decoupling of infiltration as an absolute requirement for CC entry was one of his requests.


I'm always interested when a game designer wants to change something in his own game. And I agree with Orion that whenever it's done there is a risk of changing the flavor of the game. In the second iteration of Washington's War the designer eliminated the battle cards which I loved. He wanted a "cleaner" combat system. At first I was disheartened but I grew to appreciate the reasoning for the change.

I was wondering what if any reasoning Courtney gave for wanting this change?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
OrionDD wrote:

The Japanese already have an exception for this in their ability to Banzai, and so do the Russians by a Berzerk soldier. If you make it quicker (even if perhaps not so much "easier" giving that your "factors" on CC entry are correct %-wise) to go into CC with "normal" soldiers, might we not see more CC in UF2ed than original or "WWII-wise", and does this not take something away from these "special" Berzerk & Banzai abilities ALSO?


Are Banzai and/or Berserk units have their special abilities reduced in the new edition? No. They have modifiers and abilities that are better than the standard CC Entry routine.

But I certainly understand your concern about the potential for seeing more CC in the new version. Now I say potential for a reason. One of the things that really struck me when we were working on the "re-blancing the entry percentages" project was just how poor the odds were of a normal soldier to enter into CC. I'm not talking about your superhero type soldiers (MOR 4 and above) but the average Joes (MOR 2 and 3). When you look closely, their percentages of entering into CC is not good at all. And when you look at them when they are outnumbered - it is down right pitiful (14 and 27 percent respectively). Thus if they fail, you are left at close range with a group of pinned soldiers. Thats not a lot of fun at all.

Thus what I am trying to say is this - just because you have the ability to do something certainly doesn't mean that you should. An astute player will realize these odds and resist the desperate charge into the game of death (outside of certain situations of course).


OrionDD wrote:
I DO think that entering INF/CC was not without it's "clunkyness", but IMHO that added to the facts that it was rarely done, without dire cause, or clear reasoning. It did work well, IMHO, and I'm concerned that making it simpler gamewise will make it become a more viable mode of operation than it should be historically.


To me, in this edition, it will still be rarely done (among smart players) as the odds dictate that it generally isn't a good idea at all.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
OrionDD wrote:
DiploGuy wrote:
As I suggested on the update the pairing for CC I don't think needs to be random. What's the rationale for it being random? The men have had plenty of time during their advancing to get a pretty good idea of the composition of the group(s) that are attacking them. The man entering CC would have a pretty good idea of whom he wants to attack prior to entering the enemies position.

I say let the attacker and the defender choose the pairings. Which gets to choose first could be dependent on modifiers or a black/red RNC or RPC. If the attacker gets to choose first it's communicating that he had a slight advantage and initiative in the attack. If the defender chooses first that communicates the defender gained the initiative right at the last moment.

If only 1 man enters CC then only one side will be choosing. If say 3 men enter than whoever chooses first also chooses for the 3rd guy, while the 2nd guy is chosen by the other side.

I wonder if you play tested this with desired pairings versus the random system of the current rules how different it would even be.



I doubt in the heat of battle when entering into an upfront and personal, life or death struggle with the enemy that you've time to check his personal chart and figure out just how tough he personally was. Just say'n :p

(heck, I jumped the littleguy... how the hell was I to know it was Bruce Lee!)


Well said!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
SewerStarFish wrote:

I'm always interested when a game designer wants to change something in his own game. And I agree with Orion that whenever it's done there is a risk of changing the flavor of the game. In the second iteration of Washington's War the designer eliminated the battle cards which I loved. He wanted a "cleaner" combat system. At first I was disheartened but I grew to appreciate the reasoning for the change.

I was wondering what if any reasoning Courtney gave for wanting this change?


I know the answer to this question but I think I need to get approval before stating it here. I'm not sure if it is common knowledge or not. And yes, from me being a bit cryptic here I think you can guess that there is a story behind the change. Some of the old UF grogs might know the story...

But regardless of the "why", if the original designer of the game wants it to happen, its a bit hard for me to say "um no, you are wrong". I mean, it is his game and all.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Bauer
United States
Reading
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Waste Water too
badge
Mid-Atlantic Air Museum
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddbanister wrote:
SewerStarFish wrote:

I'm always interested when a game designer wants to change something in his own game. And I agree with Orion that whenever it's done there is a risk of changing the flavor of the game. In the second iteration of Washington's War the designer eliminated the battle cards which I loved. He wanted a "cleaner" combat system. At first I was disheartened but I grew to appreciate the reasoning for the change.

I was wondering what if any reasoning Courtney gave for wanting this change?


I know the answer to this question but I think I need to get approval before stating it here. I'm not sure if it is common knowledge or not. And yes, from me being a bit cryptic here I think you can guess that there is a story behind the change. Some of the old UF grogs might know the story...

But regardless of the "why", if the original designer of the game wants it to happen, its a bit hard for me to say "um no, you are wrong". I mean, it is his game and all. :p


Well every good game has a Designer's Notes at the end of the rules. Hound him until he agrees to write one.

Please.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
SewerStarFish wrote:

Well every good game has a Designer's Notes at the end of the rules. Hound him until he agrees to write one.

Please.


Wouldn't that be cool? Actually in saying that, I think this has actually been brought up in the past with Courtney. Not sure if he is actually going to do this or not - but I'll ask around and see if it is going to happen. I for one would love to see that article!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
toddbanister wrote:
OrionDD wrote:
DiploGuy wrote:
As I suggested on the update the pairing for CC I don't think needs to be random. What's the rationale for it being random? The men have had plenty of time during their advancing to get a pretty good idea of the composition of the group(s) that are attacking them. The man entering CC would have a pretty good idea of whom he wants to attack prior to entering the enemies position.

I say let the attacker and the defender choose the pairings. Which gets to choose first could be dependent on modifiers or a black/red RNC or RPC. If the attacker gets to choose first it's communicating that he had a slight advantage and initiative in the attack. If the defender chooses first that communicates the defender gained the initiative right at the last moment.

If only 1 man enters CC then only one side will be choosing. If say 3 men enter than whoever chooses first also chooses for the 3rd guy, while the 2nd guy is chosen by the other side.

I wonder if you play tested this with desired pairings versus the random system of the current rules how different it would even be.



I doubt in the heat of battle when entering into an upfront and personal, life or death struggle with the enemy that you've time to check his personal chart and figure out just how tough he personally was. Just say'n

(heck, I jumped the littleguy... how the hell was I to know it was Bruce Lee!)


Well said!


Really my suggestion is that idiotic? Neither of you have addressed why it should remain a random thing. The man entering CC would likely know if that position held a LMG/MMG/HMG and might seek that as a primary target knowing it's chewing his squad up.

obviously there's no consideration to this but I doubt whatever CC happened in WWII it was entirely random.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Banister
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
DiploGuy wrote:

Really my suggestion is that idiotic? Neither of you have addressed why it should remain a random thing. The man entering CC would likely know if that position held a LMG/MMG/HMG and might seek that as a primary target knowing it's chewing his squad up.

obviously there's no consideration to this but I doubt whatever CC happened in WWII it was entirely random.


Idiotic? No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. To me, CC needs to be random pairing for a couple of reasons:

1.) The attacker has no way of knowing who is a low morale guy vs. a high morale guy. The player knows that by looking on the card but the soldiers rushing into combat have no idea ... until its too late.

2.) I do not feel like in real life, a group of guys would rush into CC and try to take out just the MG. There is a LOT going on in that attack with things changing at a moments notice. Also remember that CC does not only represent actual hand to hand fighting but actual close range fighting (with grenades and such). Being able to select who attacks who makes it seem too scripted - which is really not what it was really like.

3.) Just as in a fire attack, you cannot select a single target (you can't concentrate on the MG or whatever). You attack the entire group. CC needs to be the same way in my opinion.

4.) Perhaps more importantly, it was written that way in the earlier versions and Courtney gave no indication that he wanted it changed. Thus we left that part of CC alone.

I'm sure Courtney has his own reasons as well - these are just my own. But it certainly is an interesting idea - and one that I hadn't thought of in all my time in the CC rules. I'll definitely think about it more in a bit but I doubt this will make it into the game as an actual rule change.

Take care
TB
6 
 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.