|
golden bubble posted:Well, how young is your son? There is a place for board games with Candyland levels of depth. I will take whatever games I can get my family to play with me. Munchkin is stupidly simple and plays in like 15 or 20 minutes. It's a nice opener or filler in between heavier stuff.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:Munchkin...plays in like 15 or 20 minutes. Are we talking about the same game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Are we talking about the same game? Munchkin is stupidly simple and plays in like 15 or 20 minutes before you kill yourself...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Are we talking about the same game? I am an idiot. Disregard my previous posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I will take whatever games I can get my family to play with me. Munchkin is stupidly simple and plays in like 15 or 20 minutes. It's a nice opener or filler in between heavier stuff. I don't think I've ever played a game of Munchkin that took that little amount of time to play. If you can, and it works for you, more power to you, but I'm personally pretty tired of Munchkin. For a game that's been around so long and has so many versions, it's remarkably the same every time I play it, pretty much regardless of which one or which combination of ones you play. At our table, either Coup or Love Letter is the quick 15-20 minute game between games or setup game. I actually prefer Batman Love Letter, because the "Hunt the Supervillain for Points" is a nice mechanic that lets anyone at anytime have a chance to pick up a VP, but really any version of Love Letter is a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Gzuz-Kriced posted:Traitor I was asking more about the "tank morale to 0" part, which is where the traitor play in DoW usually falls completely flat. As the cards say where they're coming from, it's very hard to spike a check subtly, so the traitors best bet is to reveal and tank morale as much as possible, ideally on back to back turns. What you're talking about could be perfect normal play (and in fact those objectives look like any a non-traitor player could have).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I was asking more about the "tank morale to 0" part, which is where the traitor play in DoW usually falls completely flat. As the cards say where they're coming from, it's very hard to spike a check subtly, so the traitors best bet is to reveal and tank morale as much as possible, ideally on back to back turns. What you're talking about could be perfect normal play (and in fact those objectives look like any a non-traitor player could have). Someone seriously made a hidden traitor game where you can't hide that you're the traitor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Someone seriously made a hidden traitor game where you can't hide that you're the traitor? From what I understand, he means the location where you picked them up from. It's like how BSG has the different colours for the action cards, so you can make educated guesses as to who is tanking checks. Only in BSG, if the Cylons are slowly chipping away at you with small actions that could have come from the fate deck, it takes time for that picture to form. And given cards are worth different values, you can sabotage the effort by being helpful, just not helpful enough. Or overly helpful when the group has a test in the bag, giving you cover for being useless later at more important checks. In Dead of Winter there's no fate deck with two random cards to hide behind, and there's less overlap between players as to which locations they have been to in the early game (and generally you don't want people following you into an area, risking killing you with a bitten result, attracting extra zombies by being there, and making searches less efficient because additional searches beyond your base search generates noise, which has a limit based on location, not by person), again putting pressure on people to play along in the early game and then make big end game tanks. The binary nature of the cards being helpful or not helpful means there's little reason to put in some helpful and some unhelpful cards; you're just undoing your unhelpful cards on a 1:1 ratio and you're going to end up under suspicion anyway. The best you can do is withhold cards that would help, which everyone is doing to a degree anyway, because they all have their personal objectives. I haven't played the game, so I could be wrong, but from what I understand they took the BSG system of giving the group limited information about who the traitor could be, and then removed all incentives for the traitor to make opportunistic small but clever plays against the colony, slowly building up distrust until people are getting brigged and Cyclons are diving over to their fleet before being outed, and replaced it an end of game all-or-nothing attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's not as good as Ankh-Morpork and it's probably the weakest Wallace game I own, but it's playable. It's semi-cooperative in the same way that Archipelago is (except nobody's trying to lose), and a little more interactive than House Louse says in that only one person can score for solving a problem so you can gazump your opponents. However, you can't do everything yourself so if you screw the other players over too much you risk ending the game. How would gazumping like that work? Are witches able to help each other in a way that influences who gets the rewards?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
House Louse posted:How would gazumping like that work? Are witches able to help each other in a way that influences who gets the rewards? Not exactly. There are Easy and Hard problem tiles. The number of cards you draw each turn is based on the number of Easy problems you have completed, and the more cards you have the more likely it is you'll be able to solve a Hard problem. So you can go around pinching the Easy problems and increase the score you'll get in the end game, but there's a limited number of Easy problems and if you take too many then other players won't be able to solve Hard problems at all. This leads to a nasty snowball. There are a number of Elf tiles in the Hard problems, and if ever three of them are in play everybody loses. If you're the only person who can solve Hard problems and Elves start appearing at opposite ends of the map, by the time you get from the first to the second two more may have shown up. Also whenever someone tries to solve a problem and fails it gets a Crisis token. Crisis tokens make the problem harder to solve, and in addition there's a finite supply and if that supply runs out everybody loses again. So while you want to be the first person who is able to reliably solve Hard problems to get a leg-up on final scoring, there's a strong disincentive against pulling the ladder up behind you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Anyone ever get in on that Arena Rex KS and have a review of the game? Looks interesting and they just released/offered starter packs on their webstore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:I am an idiot. Disregard my previous posts. Haha. What game were you thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Someone seriously made a hidden traitor game where you can't hide that you're the traitor? Yes. You start with some generic "starter" cards, but each card you get in game (medicine, fuel, a weapon) says which location deck it's supposed to be in. It's exactly like BSG but without the Fate deck and less overlap between characters, so it's ridiculously easy to pinpoint the culprit. Playtesting is for chumps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Yo nerds tell me about Unpub events.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Someone seriously made a hidden traitor game where you can't hide that you're the traitor? Bad designers take their lessons from Shadows over Camelot instead of BSG.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
I played Quartermaster General and I think it's a pretty bad game even though I originally liked it. Game balance is too reliant on getting very specific cards, the game was over a long time before it actually ended and I spent 4 turns doing nothing 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Played 3 new games today. Favor of the Pharoah is a Yahtzee-style rollfest with almost no room for strategy. Everything you can buy gives you a significant boost so you buy the best card you can each time and once someone gets 7 of a kind, everybody else gets one more chance to outdo that roll. The high-level cards are ridiculously overpowered - e.g., take another turn immediately; add +1 or +2 to all of your dice. Plays quickly, but no one wanted a second game. Hab & Gut is a simple, elegant stock game with partially hidden info. Each turn you can buy or sell goods and then play 2 cards to manipulate prices--those cards are drawn from racks that you share only with the players to your left and right (like Between Two Cities). The other unique angle is that you can contribute a certain amount of goods to charity (the type of goods are secret and they are cashed in at the good's price at end of a round). At the end of the game, the person who contributed the least to charity automatically loses and of the remaining players, whoever made the most money wins. I'd definitely play this again, but apparently it's out of print right now. I Hate Zombies is a fast-playing party game where zombies fight humans via rock-paper-scissors. The humans have modifiers (some of which seem really broken), but that's the whole game. If you get turned into a zombie halfway through the game, then the zombies win, do you consider that a win or a loss for yourself? Who cares! The party micro-game field is getting crowded, so I can't imagine ever wanting to play this one again either. Still, Hab & Gut made up for the other two. And then we played Galaxy Trucker, so I can't complain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I was asking more about the "tank morale to 0" part, which is where the traitor play in DoW usually falls completely flat. As the cards say where they're coming from, it's very hard to spike a check subtly, so the traitors best bet is to reveal and tank morale as much as possible, ideally on back to back turns. What you're talking about could be perfect normal play (and in fact those objectives look like any a non-traitor player could have). Hm, maybe I'm confusing it with what my traitor objective was but I'm pretty certain I didn't have to tank morale. Who knows!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:Hab & Gut is a simple, elegant stock game with partially hidden info. Each turn you can buy or sell goods and then play 2 cards to manipulate prices--those cards are drawn from racks that you share only with the players to your left and right (like Between Two Cities). The other unique angle is that you can contribute a certain amount of goods to charity (the type of goods are secret and they are cashed in at the good's price at end of a round). At the end of the game, the person who contributed the least to charity automatically loses and of the remaining players, whoever made the most money wins. I'd definitely play this again, but apparently it's out of print right now. I really want a copy of this and was about to get really excited that maybe it was reprinted, but then I read the last line... I assume it was a friends copy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:I really want a copy of this and was about to get really excited that maybe it was reprinted, but then I read the last line... I assume it was a friends copy? A guy brought it to a strategy game meetup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Kanban: It's real good. I see why people like it more than Vinhos, but in my mind the are pretty different games. Sure, they share a designer and are both heavy euros, but Vinhos has almost no action-space denial and a lot of scoring denial and an emphasis on generating an engine that requires constant tinkering to beat other players. In contrast, Kanban focuses its attention on heavy deniability in all aspects of the game - scoring opportunities, scoring positions, and all the pieces needed to get to the end-result of tested designs and cars in garages. It's possible to win Kanban specializing either in filling out your garage, or in focusing on tested designs, or simply by playing the meetings (which are their own wonderful minigame that governs scoring.) Kanban doesn't have any engine-building to speak of, other than the literal engines in the cars. Vinhos has you deal with the consequences of past turns and makes gaining additional actions an integral part of the game, but Kanban challenges you to get what you need done in as few actions as possible and pushes you toward finding ways to make do with what you have. It's a much more future-focused game than Vinhos, which will penalize you for mistakes made in the beginning through the rest of the game. They both have major points in their favor as fast-playing heavy games that feature a lot of interactivity and escape the "gain actions, build engine, deny" quagmire that lesser euros get stuck in, but they're very different. If I had to introduce someone to Vital's games, I would choose Kanban, but I would also play Vinhos with them. (There are some caveats to showing someone Vinhos. One is that getting at least two, hopefully three vineyards operating in the opening year is critical to being able to play the game well.) Madeira: It's bad. Pretty disappointing show by this game, considering that it is spoke of in hushed tones by many other heavier gamers, including a few podcasts I follow. It does a good job of having many routes to victory, and there is good jostling for position when two players have overlapping goals. As a two player game, however, I found it distinctly lacking, as we both conspired pretty hard to not have to deal with each other. If you focus on one victory condition you're not really going to be bothered by other players' attempts to score their own victory points. I am always bothered by euros that attempt to put "hidden scoring" in games by having players take points and then hide their totals, rendering part of the skill of playing into a guessing games, and that's exactly what Madeira does with the pirates tokens. I would rather play with them face-up, and I might do that again if I ever have occasion to play this game again, but after two unsatisfactory plays I'm not sure that I would want to. Was quite a burn to buy a game without having played it with such high praise and not like it. The engine-building, is nice, and I like how tight resources are, but as a two-player game it doesn't offer much. I'd have to try it with 3 or 4 players to have a complete opinion, I'm kind of dissatisfied with it now. There are other bright spots: It uses dice really well. It's very similar to the way that Castles of Burgundy's die mechanic works, but is tighter and yet not punishing. Players can fail to plan for bad luck, but there are many ways to mitigate this. If you didn't take food and didn't pass early enough to give yourself the option to choose the next set of dice first you feel like you deserve whatever fate you got by letting everyone else pick out their dice sets first. It's a shame that this mechanic exists in a game that is otherwise so loose. Inherit the Earth: It's bad. This is a game where you have six types of animals and can upgrade them by "multiplying" them, giving them adaptions, and otherwise making them better at progressing 6 tracks, which roughly correspond to the continents of the world. The majority of the high-scoring evolutions you can change your animals into, however, are in the 3-deck, which is only accessible once you're close to the end game. If you happen not to pull cards that can work with the positions your animals are in, you may not be able to score a meaningful amount of points. And, since this is a race game, anyone who does pull cards that help them first will be heavily incentivized to end quickly. (And if they could pull those cards first, it is likely they are in a position to end the game.) This game also inspired a lot of AP due to the way that rules for animals moving up the track work. It's too much to list here, but the icon-matching opportunities are "fiddly" in the sense that there's a lot of little details to keep track of to ensure that your animals' movements are optimized. (And AP-prone players will absolutely go nuts.) I expected more from the designer of Keyflower. Expo 1906: It's loose and flabby. This is another in the run of euros that adds a (interesting and fun) side-mechanic by which players score points. The simple version is that players can buy tetris-piece shaped inventions, and place them on a grid, then they take resources and position adjacent to their inventions in order to power them. Cunningly placed resources can power multiple inventions. The euro-part of the game, though, leads something lacking. Other than competition for (plentiful) resources, there's a simple tech tree race for additional point-multipliers. Being ahead on a track that corresponds to a resource used by an invention you create will also let you score additional points, one per track. There's also a voting system where whoever decides to end the round can make either mechanical or electrical inventions worth more at the end of the game. If it sounds like the euro part of the game is a little simple, that's because it is. Money is tight and you can upgrade your actions (which are cards ala concordia) which makes the solo-efficiency part of the game more interesting, but doesn't help with the fact that the game isn't that interactive. Most of the game is about positioning your pieces on your board, so there's a strong whiff of the old "multiplayer solitaire" complaint. If you really love spatial orientation puzzles you might like it, but there's not that much in the game side of this to recommend. Puzzle Strike: It's fuckin' great. I'm going to do another post on this later, but if you like dominion or don't like dominion because it doesn't feel interactive (you're wrong, but, like, I get what you mean) then you should try this. Impermanent fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:
 I've always felt like Dominion, at least without expansions, feels like a system in search of a game. Puzzle Strike IS that game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Played a couple solo games of The Gallerist trying to get a feel for it before trying to introduce it to others. I haven't played any of Vital's other games, the theme of this one really piqued my interest though and the design sounded very appealing from the previews. I tend more towards medium weight euros and this is probably the heaviest game I've played, but it's very enjoyable if you like interactive euros with tons to think about but very streamlined mechanics. In The Gallerist the mechanics are very simple, each turn you move to one of four action spaces and take one of two actions, with the option for extra minor actions. Each choice you make though has many small branching actions and bonuses that you have to plan and prepare for. Almost every action you do will have at least one if not a few various bonuses that you can trigger to give you more money, gain influence which is a secondary resource you have to manage that can be used for a variety of things, get visitors into your gallery or a number of other things. Almost all of these options are out in the open so you have a lot to think about in terms of what actions you want to take and when. All of these effects though are just one offs, though there are many to trigger. In this sense you're never really building an engine - the closest parallel to an engine is getting visitors into your gallery to increase certain bonus effects - but instead deciding how best to take actions in order to get the most out of the bonuses and extra actions available. The kicked out mechanic is also really good and adds an extra layer of strategy, tactics and interaction to the game. Another player can boot you off the spot you took to take that action, but when they do so you have the opportunity to now do that action again by spending influence, or take a different bonus action. Players also compete in an auction for a renowned work of work, an area majority, and other players will always be influencing the different artists making them more famous and their works more valuable so there's a good amount of indirect interaction as well. If you like deep, very thinky euros with a good amount of interaction and fairly straight forward mechanics I think it's hard to go wrong with this one. I can imagine there may be a lot of downtime with 4 due to how interwoven all the choices are and how often players would be getting kicked out at that count. I think it will probably be best with 3. The component quality is also outstanding, probably the best I've seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
I've really enjoyed Madeira with 3 and with 4 but it seems not very good with 2. Sadly nobody around here in NYC seems to have The Gallerist that I've spoken to yet. I'm still hoping!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
ETB posted:Is that worse, or a certain uncle giving their nephew his Munchkins collection? That was me. You forgot the best part, that he and his sister played hit a gazillion times over the next couple days canyoneer posted:I mentioned here that I gave away my copy of Munchkin to my teenage nephew, because I hate the game and never want to play it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Went to a Board Game Meetup with a friend today. Played ~Kittens in a Blender~ ( ) and Legendary: Alien.My friend really liked Legendary and thinks a co-op deckbuilder is right up his group's alley. That said, which of the Legendaries is the best for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Went to a Board Game Meetup with a friend today. Played ~Kittens in a Blender~ ( Probably Alien since it has more coop scenarios than predator. Predator has coop too, but half of it is also competitive game where you are all different predators trying to get the most trophies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:Probably Alien since it has more coop scenarios than predator. Predator has coop too, but half of it is also competitive game where you are all different predators trying to get the most trophies. Yeah. gently caress every other game that is not a game where you are A PREDATOR COMPETING WITH OTHER PREDATORS FOR THE MOST TROPHIES. I don't think I've ever wanted a game so bad in my life based on a 1 line description.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I got to try Cuba Libre today. It was my first COIN game, and it was really good. The Government, and Directorio had played once before, July26 was new, and I was the Syndicate. I made a mistake early on, choosing to open casinos instead of building more before the first propaganda card, but I somehow managed to get virtually all of my cash tokens each time. When the Government had all but lost after the second propaganda card, he decided he would just help me out to ensure July26 didn't win. That gave me the resources I needed to keep my casinos open, and win the game. I think we made a couple rule mistakes with the government skimming money from the casinos, but either way, it was really good. I also got to play Roll for the Galaxy at 2 and 5 players. I think I like Race more because it's easier for me to wrap my head around the card economy than the dice economy. Also, is it just me, or is a produce I played Codenames, which is always great. And I topped the night off with two player Glass Road. It always surprises me how quickly the game ends. I enjoyed the game, but I can never hold everything I want to do in my head. Part of it is that the cards I choose won't necessarily be activated in the order I want them to or at all, and part of it is making sure I don't screw myself over with the resource wheel. It's a nice Euro with an interesting game flow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Produce/Consume is definitely weaker/harder to put together in Roll than it is in Race, especially at lower player counts. Expansion for RollftG buffs it a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Hi board game thread, it's been a while. Looking for a game that can be played on a camp table/easily stored for travel. Will mostly be played with 3 players, 4 max. I assume lightweight games are the norm for these sort of requirements. It's for my parents, who are quite fond of playing Carcassonne on their camping trips. Sushi Go or Love Letter are the starting ideas, any other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Those are both good, so is carcassone and hive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Coup the original game works for this as well, given the small box. Dunno about the new version that just came out, I haven't played that one yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Not exactly. There are Easy and Hard problem tiles. The number of cards you draw each turn is based on the number of Easy problems you have completed, and the more cards you have the more likely it is you'll be able to solve a Hard problem. So you can go around pinching the Easy problems and increase the score you'll get in the end game, but there's a limited number of Easy problems and if you take too many then other players won't be able to solve Hard problems at all. This leads to a nasty snowball. There are a number of Elf tiles in the Hard problems, and if ever three of them are in play everybody loses. If you're the only person who can solve Hard problems and Elves start appearing at opposite ends of the map, by the time you get from the first to the second two more may have shown up. Also whenever someone tries to solve a problem and fails it gets a Crisis token. Crisis tokens make the problem harder to solve, and in addition there's a finite supply and if that supply runs out everybody loses again. So while you want to be the first person who is able to reliably solve Hard problems to get a leg-up on final scoring, there's a strong disincentive against pulling the ladder up behind you. Oh, gotcha, I thought there was some mechanic to steal other players' points or something. We played Qin and Splendor for the first time yesterday. I enjoyed Qin even though I mucked it up badly, but another player who's played it a few times said it was all about getting the cities and then won handily, so... Splendor was great, and felt a lot like lighter, quicker Seven Wonders - I think both games took about 15 minutes each. The best strategy seemed to be stocking up on cheap, no-VP cards and then cashing in ruler tiles. It was also funny to unsettle the teacher by pointing at one of the rulers and saying "Him! I hate him!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Gzuz-Kriced posted:Hm, maybe I'm confusing it with what my traitor objective was but I'm pretty certain I didn't have to tank morale. Who knows! AFAIK, all traitor objectives require you to drop the morale to 0 and then do some other stuff. I don't know the game well enough to be 100 % sure, but otherwise you're working in parallel, rather than against the group. Both groups could win and that would be silly in a traitor game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:I Hate Zombies is a fast-playing party game where zombies fight humans via rock-paper-scissors. The humans have modifiers (some of which seem really broken), but that's the whole game. If you get turned into a zombie halfway through the game, then the zombies win, do you consider that a win or a loss for yourself? Who cares! The party micro-game field is getting crowded, so I can't imagine ever wanting to play this one again either. I brought this to a party and it absolutely bombed. Complaints were as follows: - rock-paper-scissors is lame - humans not being able to attack zombies is lame - humans can't win - You stole 5 minutes of my life and I want them back! Part of that is my fault for putting this on the table while everyone was still fairly sober. I think we would have needed about 4 more beers each for this game to work. I tried for a second round later on but people were soured on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
CaptainRightful posted:I Hate Zombies is a fast-playing party game where zombies fight humans via rock-paper-scissors. The humans have modifiers (some of which seem really broken), but that's the whole game. If you get turned into a zombie halfway through the game, then the zombies win, do you consider that a win or a loss for yourself? Who cares! The party micro-game field is getting crowded, so I can't imagine ever wanting to play this one again either. Never before have I seen a sentence beginning with "I hate zombies" go downhill so fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
EBag posted:Played a couple solo games of The Gallerist In a four-player game of The Gallerist someone is being kicked out with almost every move, so the odds are very high that you will be kicked out at least once before it's your turn again. The game will stop dead every time someone takes a bio, trust me. It's also a much better introduction to Lacerda games than Kanban. The guy who owns Kanban in our group has managed to get it on the table once, for half a game with people who'll play anything without asking, because everyone else is terrified of it. He can't even get the Terra Autistica players to try it. Toshimo - the idea of LE: Predator's competitive scenarios is better than the execution. I've played both LE: Alien and LE: Predator, and Alien is by far the better game. If you want a semi-coop deckbuilder, play LE: Alien with the Agenda and Alien Player options. Jedit fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Jedit posted:He can't even get the Terra Autistica players to try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Tekopo posted:I honestly thought you were better than teenager-level burns jedit. You haven't played Terra Mystica with these people. It's a fair description.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:33
|
|