Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Tammany Hall» Forums » General

Subject: compare Tammany Hall to El Grande rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Sizemore
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
www.NevermoreGames.com
badge
This is NOT a Chihuahua. It is a Sphynx cat. A bald, grouchy Sphynx cat who will bite you if you mistake him for a Chihuahua.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a good question, and I'll be interested to read what people have to say. It's been too long since I have played El Grande for me to feel very comfortable writing much specific. But I will say that Tammany Hall "feels more thematic", for what that's worth. The action of picking up immigrants, fresh off the boat, from Ellis Island, and settling them comfortably in the boroughs where they will do you the most good makes better narrative sense than the cube placement in El Grande. Also Tammany Hall seems a bit tighter and more controlled -- it's more obvious who is winning, what people can do, and what they are likely to do, and so the need for cooperation among players not in the lead is fairly clear.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ldsdbomber wrote:
Specifically the metagame and leader bashing but also in general the area control and moving around of parts, how do people think these compare, or complement each other, like those old "compare and contrast" questions we used to have on the old geography O levels.


I like both these games, and they feel very similar. The leader bashing is particularly brutal in Tammany Hall due to the City Offices. My feeling is TH can have a more swingy scoring because of the "all or nothing" scoring, and removal of opponent's losing ward bosses. In El Grande, even if you don't come in 1st place in a province, you get to keep your caballeros.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moe45673
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
skipsizemore wrote:
That's a good question, and I'll be interested to read what people have to say. It's been too long since I have played El Grande for me to feel very comfortable writing much specific. But I will say that Tammany Hall "feels more thematic", for what that's worth. The action of picking up immigrants, fresh off the boat, from Ellis Island, and settling them comfortably in the boroughs where they will do you the most good makes better narrative sense than the cube placement in El Grande. Also Tammany Hall seems a bit tighter and more controlled -- it's more obvious who is winning, what people can do, and what they are likely to do, and so the need for cooperation among players not in the lead is fairly clear.


Just a quick digression: Ellis Island wasn't used for immigrant processing until, I believe, the 1890s. Castle Garden (at the very tip of Manhattan Island) was used prior to that, so the game correctly uses that as the place where immigrants show up
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Moe45673 wrote:
Just a quick digression: Ellis Island wasn't used for immigrant processing until, I believe, the 1890s. Castle Garden (at the very tip of Manhattan Island) was used prior to that, so the game correctly uses that as the place where immigrants show up


Leave it to the Canadian ... whistle
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pandasaurus Games
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
publisher
www.pandasaurusgames.com
badge
www.pandasaurusgames.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I remember my conversation with Doug correctly it was a Brit who originally caught that and changed it from Ellis Island to Castle Garden.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moe45673
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
looleypalooley wrote:
Moe45673 wrote:
Just a quick digression: Ellis Island wasn't used for immigrant processing until, I believe, the 1890s. Castle Garden (at the very tip of Manhattan Island) was used prior to that, so the game correctly uses that as the place where immigrants show up


Leave it to the Canadian ... whistle


I've spent a lot of time in NYC. Even married one of its women

I find its history fascinating (I'm a bit of a shameless whore for city Histories, urban exploration, abandoned buildings/subways, and the like)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Sizemore
United States
Richmond
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
www.NevermoreGames.com
badge
This is NOT a Chihuahua. It is a Sphynx cat. A bald, grouchy Sphynx cat who will bite you if you mistake him for a Chihuahua.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually remember reading about that after playing the game for the first time. But when I think of Italians coming to New York I think of Vito Andolini singing to himself while quarantined on Ellis Island. Maybe one day someone will make a great film about Reconstruction-era immigrants.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Martin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
I owned El Grande over 10 years ago but only played it once or twice before selling it. I like Euros, but El Grande just seemed too dry to me. The theme of Tammany Hall shines through more and is much more appealing IMO.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ldsdbomber wrote:
Specifically the metagame and leader bashing but also in general the area control and moving around of parts, how do people think these compare, or complement each other, like those old "compare and contrast" questions we used to have on the old geography O levels.


In Tammany you have a lot more freedom of where to place your bits. In El Grande you are not only limited by the aciton cards and king placement but also by how many cubes you have available to place from round to round.

That said, in Tammany this translates as a no holds barred ability to bash the leader, collude and cut deals. In El Grande, your hands are often so tied that you lash out at the leader in any way you can but it often ends up being blunted by circumstances.

In this vein, negotiating is not nearly as prevalent in El Grande. Essentially, each player is going to do whatever is best for them on each particular turn, with less of an eye towards playing sub-obtimally to cut a deal or bring the leader down a peg or two.

Edit: More thoughts.

Game play in Tammany revolves around the elections. The negotiations that are cut and the blind bidding of the all important favor chips add a dimension to Tammany that is simply not present in El Grande. In El Grande, scoring is a lot more cut and dry. Whoever has the most cubes in a province scores the highest, etc.

El Grande, however, does have the card play which determines player order and how many cubes are available to be placed from round to round. Player order jockeying is a much bigger component in El Grande (Tammany has this too, but it is a lot more subtle).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ldsdbomber wrote:
this is great stuff but making it really difficult for me to decide on whether to make the effort to give a serious run of play to EG or TH


I just wrote a TH review. Should pass geekmod shortly.

In the end, TH beats out EG (I love both games) for a couple reasons:

1: It plays great with 3, 4 or 5 players. EG is best with 5, ok with 4 and meh with 3.

2: The player interaction in TH is off the charts, and I am finding right now that is something I crave.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see how either is higher or lower on the negotiation / metagaming; there are just as many opportunities in each game for this to take place [the Castillo in particular in El Grande], and it is not written into the rules of either game that it must take place [in fact, my one play so far of my copy of Tammany Hall was completely devoid of metagaming and no worse for it as far as I could tell]. Tammany Hall feels much "smaller" [again based on one play; many of El Grande, however]; you don't get to put down a lot of pieces, and many areas go uncontested, with the "big" contests being between maybe 2 to 3 pieces per side. The game doesn't really subsist in the area majority aspect as such, but rather in the race to control the subsidiary factors which will allow you to simply keep control [by threat of force] of your preferred regions. In this way, it felt considerably more like Dominant Species [although significantly condensed]. I think that's the fairer comparison; TH is almost DS-lite, in that it is a two-level majorities game [immigrants and wards, instead of elements and tiles]. Contrarily, El Grande is a two-level auction game that only so happens to have a map; you are bidding once on the turn-order and ability to control the card draft, then again [through your caballero placements] on the amount of points you hope to get in each region. This feels much more like the typical / traditional game in the area majority genre, where what's really going on is a bidding-up process until the runner-up in the majority race decides that the value of the area in question is not worth the effort needed to obtain it, so they settle on the consolation prize [if there is one]. This is how Acquire, China, Alhambra, Union Pacific, etc--all of the classic "majority"-driven titles--function. Contrast that with games like TH or DS, which are more about territory-building / area-selection [here I will make my stand] than the tit-for-tat majority race.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:
I don't see how either is higher or lower on the negotiation / metagaming; there are just as many opportunities in each game for this to take place [the Castillo in particular in El Grande], and it is not written into the rules of either game that it must take place [in fact, my one play so far of my copy of Tammany Hall was completely devoid of metagaming and no worse for it as far as I could tell]. Tammany Hall feels much "smaller" [again based on one play; many of El Grande, however]; you don't get to put down a lot of pieces, and many areas go uncontested, with the "big" contests being between maybe 2 to 3 pieces per side. The game doesn't really subsist in the area majority aspect as such, but rather in the race to control the subsidiary factors which will allow you to simply keep control [by threat of force] of your preferred regions. In this way, it felt considerably more like Dominant Species [although significantly condensed]. I think that's the fairer comparison; TH is almost DS-lite, in that it is a two-level majorities game [immigrants and wards, instead of elements and tiles]. Contrarily, El Grande is a two-level auction game that only so happens to have a map; you are bidding once on the turn-order and ability to control the card draft, then again [through your caballero placements] on the amount of points you hope to get in each region. This feels much more like the typical / traditional game in the area majority genre, where what's really going on is a bidding-up process until the runner-up in the majority race decides that the value of the area in question is not worth the effort needed to obtain it, so they settle on the consolation prize [if there is one]. This is how Acquire, China, Alhambra, Union Pacific, etc--all of the classic "majority"-driven titles--function. Contrast that with games like TH or DS, which are more about territory-building / area-selection [here I will make my stand] than the tit-for-tat majority race.


Alhambra? Area majority?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
looleypalooley wrote:
NateStraight wrote:
I don't see how either is higher or lower on the negotiation / metagaming; there are just as many opportunities in each game for this to take place [the Castillo in particular in El Grande], and it is not written into the rules of either game that it must take place [in fact, my one play so far of my copy of Tammany Hall was completely devoid of metagaming and no worse for it as far as I could tell]. Tammany Hall feels much "smaller" [again based on one play; many of El Grande, however]; you don't get to put down a lot of pieces, and many areas go uncontested, with the "big" contests being between maybe 2 to 3 pieces per side. The game doesn't really subsist in the area majority aspect as such, but rather in the race to control the subsidiary factors which will allow you to simply keep control [by threat of force] of your preferred regions. In this way, it felt considerably more like Dominant Species [although significantly condensed]. I think that's the fairer comparison; TH is almost DS-lite, in that it is a two-level majorities game [immigrants and wards, instead of elements and tiles]. Contrarily, El Grande is a two-level auction game that only so happens to have a map; you are bidding once on the turn-order and ability to control the card draft, then again [through your caballero placements] on the amount of points you hope to get in each region. This feels much more like the typical / traditional game in the area majority genre, where what's really going on is a bidding-up process until the runner-up in the majority race decides that the value of the area in question is not worth the effort needed to obtain it, so they settle on the consolation prize [if there is one]. This is how Acquire, China, Alhambra, Union Pacific, etc--all of the classic "majority"-driven titles--function. Contrast that with games like TH or DS, which are more about territory-building / area-selection [here I will make my stand] than the tit-for-tat majority race.


Alhambra? Area majority?


The fact that "area majority" games have "areas" is nearly always ancillary to the game play [that is, the games are very rarely incredibly spatial]. Alhambra, Acquire, Union Pacific [you could have called me out on the latter two, as well] are all members of the larger "majorities game" family.

What is the substantive difference between El Grande's king limiting which "areas" you may place into based on some minor geographic adjacency and Alhambra's tile display limiting which "colors" you may buy into based on some minor currency "adjacency"? I contend none, or all but none.

When the only aspect of geography that matters is adjacency, rather than say distance or size / capacity or terrain or some other feature, then the fact that there is a map with so-called "areas" is incredibly unimportant. You can achieve much of the same limiting factors of adjacency in other ways.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A thought experiment: How many truly significant modifications to the substance of the gameplay would be made if instead of a map, El Grande simply had 9 numbered, but physically discrete, areas to place into? Instead of a king token which was "adjacent" to a certain number of regions, you'd have a deck of 9 cards corresponding to the 9 regions and could choose a set of N cards summing to a total not more than X, the cards chosen indicating which regions players could play into; you'd declare one of your selections as the king's region and it would be off-limits as usual. This would change a few of the subtleties, but the overall effect would remain. The remainder of the game is largely non-spatial; very few action cards are limited by adjacency or distance or any other physical feature of the so-called "map".... only the arbitrary limits that the king's 'adjacency' status provides.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In contrast, consider Dominant Species where distance, terrain [i.e. element chits], and adjacency [to a much greater extent than in El Grande] are all incredibly important features of the gameplay.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:
looleypalooley wrote:
NateStraight wrote:
I don't see how either is higher or lower on the negotiation / metagaming; there are just as many opportunities in each game for this to take place [the Castillo in particular in El Grande], and it is not written into the rules of either game that it must take place [in fact, my one play so far of my copy of Tammany Hall was completely devoid of metagaming and no worse for it as far as I could tell]. Tammany Hall feels much "smaller" [again based on one play; many of El Grande, however]; you don't get to put down a lot of pieces, and many areas go uncontested, with the "big" contests being between maybe 2 to 3 pieces per side. The game doesn't really subsist in the area majority aspect as such, but rather in the race to control the subsidiary factors which will allow you to simply keep control [by threat of force] of your preferred regions. In this way, it felt considerably more like Dominant Species [although significantly condensed]. I think that's the fairer comparison; TH is almost DS-lite, in that it is a two-level majorities game [immigrants and wards, instead of elements and tiles]. Contrarily, El Grande is a two-level auction game that only so happens to have a map; you are bidding once on the turn-order and ability to control the card draft, then again [through your caballero placements] on the amount of points you hope to get in each region. This feels much more like the typical / traditional game in the area majority genre, where what's really going on is a bidding-up process until the runner-up in the majority race decides that the value of the area in question is not worth the effort needed to obtain it, so they settle on the consolation prize [if there is one]. This is how Acquire, China, Alhambra, Union Pacific, etc--all of the classic "majority"-driven titles--function. Contrast that with games like TH or DS, which are more about territory-building / area-selection [here I will make my stand] than the tit-for-tat majority race.


Alhambra? Area majority?


The fact that "area majority" games have "areas" is nearly always ancillary to the game play [that is, the games are very rarely incredibly spatial]. Alhambra, Acquire, Union Pacific [you could have called me out on the latter two, as well] are all members of the larger "majorities game" family.

What is the substantive difference between El Grande's king limiting which "areas" you may place into based on some minor geographic adjacency and Alhambra's tile display limiting which "colors" you may buy into based on some minor currency "adjacency"? I contend none, or all but none.

When the only aspect of geography that matters is adjacency, rather than say distance or size / capacity or terrain or some other feature, then the fact that there is a map with so-called "areas" is incredibly unimportant. You can achieve much of the same limiting factors of adjacency in other ways.


Good points all. Although it is worth mentioning that adjacency plays an important role in most area-majority games like DS (wanderlust, migration, a slew of the Dominance cards), TH (slandering, Precinct Chairman) and El Grande (King's region, etc).

Edit: Yipes! Ninja'd twice!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
looleypalooley wrote:
Good points all. Although it is worth mentioning that adjacency plays an important role in most area-majority games like DS (wanderlust, migration, a slew of the Dominance cards), TH (slandering, Precinct Chairman) and El Grande (King's region, etc).


But adjacency on its own is perhaps the weakest spatial element one could conceivably have in a game. There is adjacency in Uno. In Battle Line. In 7 Wonders. And so on. Divorced of any concern for distance, difficulty of traversing the border between adjacent regions, or any other actually interesting aspect of topography, adjacency is just a restriction on what affects what or which game features can interact with which other ones.

Sure, in a game like El Grande the "map" [as it were] of adjacencies is a little more intricate than in my examples above [though Uno is actually not negligibly interesting, having two axes of adjacency that can connect things in pseudo-intricate paths] with the typical asymmetries afforded by the arbitrariness of a physical space [as opposed to, say, a grid or a numeric adjacency system like Uno], but this is only a question of degree, not of kind.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
badge
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would point out that while the "adjacency" aspects are weak in TH as compared to DS [though not, I think, as weak as EG], there is terrain [in the form of immigrant cubes] in TH to an extent not present to nearly the same extent in EG.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:
I would point out that while the "adjacency" aspects are weak in TH as compared to DS [though not, I think, as weak as EG], there is terrain [in the form of immigrant cubes] in TH to an extent not present to nearly the same extent in EG.


Hmm. One thing to note is the slander, or rather double slander, aspect of the game. Also note some wards have far more adjacancies than others. In this way, wards with fewer adjacancies are preferable over wards with more.

P.S. Fascinating subject matter notwithstanding, I think we may have strayed a lot from the OP's question.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ldsdbomber wrote:
thanks David
What about playtime, similar?
I can understand your reasons, the only concern I have is if the interaction is a bit too high on the negotiation/metagaming compared to El grandes slightly more restricted placement, on the other hand, maybe that does make for a better game at the end of the day


Apparently some disagree, but having played a lot of both games, TH has considerably more negotiating than El Grande. Again, I think this is due mainly to the looseness of where a player can place their pieces in TH where in EG your best moves are fairly limited and more obvious.

Also worth considering is the fact that no one in Tammany wants to spend their hard earned influence and if you cant come to a negotiated settlement over a contested ward, you will have to spend influence to take it, and may indeed spend a lot of it for no gain whatsoever. EG does not have this.

Edit:

Regarding TH with or without negotiation. I have played both ways and enjoy it either way. Once your group starts negotiating, they will quickly realize that the person who negotiates the best, will most likely win the game. That is to say, once your group starts negotiating, everyone must do so in order to have a hope of winning.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer El Grande. I think there may be a runaway leader problem in Tammany Hall. If you get control of the different immigrant types and get the 3 bonus shares per turn, it makes it easier to retain control of them and you can shut out players who don't control a group.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
I prefer El Grande. I think there may be a runaway leader problem in Tammany Hall. If you get control of the different immigrant types and get the 3 bonus shares per turn, it makes it easier to retain control of them and you can shut out players who don't control a group.


No way would this ever happen in a game with players who are paying attention.

Having played both games quite a bit, I would say neither has a real runaway leader problem, but El Grande certainly has a losing player issue. In just about every game I play, the one or two players in the back after round 6 are just going through the motions with no real hope of catching up for the last third of the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Eddy
United States
Coeur d'Alene
ID
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The runaway leader is more possible with three players in TH and requires extra verbal negotiation (as opposed to behavioral clues given in the game) to keep it in check with less players.

TH replaced EG for me. I never thought of the DS correlation, but that makes a bucket full of sense.

Also, Nate makes me feel stupid.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pedro Silva
Portugal
Matosinhos
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I think both games have merits and are sufficiently different that owning (and playing) both makes perfect sense.
It seems to me that whilst both games require some leader bashing, there are two substantial differences.

In El Grande you can play for second place on several regions and still gather a fair amount of points. This makes it harder for several players to gang up on a single one as the leader might not actually be the player with most points but someone just keeping low enough to not stand out on the opponents radars, so to speak. Someone just getting ready to win doesn't necessarily have to be leading in El Grande. Not having a second prize award on the wards makes a leader stand out at the end of each term in Tammany Hall.

The consequence of that game-play characteristic is that players should be more open to negotiate in Tammany Hall as teamwork is definitely necessary to fight the leader and it is harder to identify him in El Grande, so it does not become so clear to the opponents whom they should target.

The need for the mayor to give others powers that will probably be used to hurt him makes for a gruesome decision. However, my feeling is that this decision is harder and really shines in the game with the full compliment of players as with fewer some powers may lose a bit of importance in some cases.

So my suggestion is to arrange for alternate plays of both games...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
I prefer El Grande. I think there may be a runaway leader problem in Tammany Hall. If you get control of the different immigrant types and get the 3 bonus shares per turn, it makes it easier to retain control of them and you can shut out players who don't control a group.


I think the TH runaway leader is a problem only in games where your opponents aren't sufficiently motivated to beat down on said leader. You can have a commanding favor chip lead, but be forced to spend buckets just to hold a few measly wards, when everyone is concentrating their efforts on taking your stuff.
3 
 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.