|
goodness posted:http://www.clevermovegames.com/2015/02/03/7-games-to-play-while-youre-waiting-for-exploding-kittens/ The real question is who is going to make the opposite, much more important list: "7 Games to Play When Exploding Kittens Becomes Dull". Sure it might just be a normal list of gateway titles, but framing it around EK seems like it'll garnish attention from the influx of people whose first experience with table-top gaming is EK, which is a good thing. Say what you will about EK as a game (and I'll say it with you), but there's a silver lining in that it's likely to help guide a lot of new people into the fold who otherwise may not have ever been exposed to it.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I was thoroughly unimpressed with Trains, mostly because dominion is just better. I'm going to try to not open a huge can of worms here, but could you elaborate on what about Dominion is "just better"? Are the cards in the market better designed (I know of the extensive testing that went into Dominion), or the single action turns, or something else? Not being sarcastic or snarky, I'm just genuinely curious what your (or anyone else's) thoughts are, since in my experience the two are all but interchangeable quality-wise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Is Yomi on iOS worth getting for $10?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
The problem with Hearthstone is that isn't not the WoW TCG.  (because it's gone, and it still hurts me)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Such total assholes in this thread sometimes, christ.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Yeah, gotta make sure you build up that cred with the internet forum board game posse before sharing things that are board game related.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:It was an obvious shill, man. I didn't get a bad vibe from it at all so I was surprised so many people acted like he was some kind of monster. And even if it was a heartless shill, who actually cares that much? Whatever, more talking about board games, less petty bullshit. I played Tammany Hall last night, was pretty interesting. Not usually my style of game, but once I got the hang of the strategy it was fun. Any recommendations for similar stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I know nothing about X Wings though. Well aside from the obvious thematic difference (space ships vs. infantry units), a game of xwing/Armada are played in mostly large open game space, 3'x3' or bigger, as opposed to ImpAss's gridded tiles that make up a defined board. Players secretly assign movements/actions to all their ships, and then simultaneously reveal them before resolving them in an order determined by some stats each model has. Both ship games are primarily designed to be head-to-head skirmish games where your key objective is to eliminate all the opposing models, though there are some objective-based modes of play as well. ImpAss is designed to be a multi-player campaign, has co-operative gameplay for a majority of the players (ala Descent as mentioned previously), and mechanically there isn't really all the hidden information. I own ImpAss, but I haven't played it or Armada first-hand yet so someone else might be able to do a better job of explaining some of the mechanical differences. They really aren't very similar, but I'm having a hard time parsing out exactly how to explain it. Merauder fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Purely a verbiage question: what does the general consensus refer to DBGs like Dominion as, vs the "market row" games? I personally took to referring to DBGs a while back as either "fixed market" (Dominion) or "dynamic market" (Ascension), but it seems that the market term is only used for the latter around here anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Robust Laser posted:Oh poo poo, there's a word game deckbuilder? i love both of those things somebody tell me more about it. I played it a few weeks back, it's definitely interesting. If you have friends who are DBG fans and want a quick 30-45 min game this likely isn't it; as mentioned above it's a word game first, so sometimes players take very long turns figuring out what all their options are with the letters in their hand.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Question related to shuffling, as this came up at work just yesterday: how would you feel if your next card-based game (be it a DBG or whatever) was printed on quality playing card style card stock (like nice Bicycle cards and above, not the cheap gas station brand playing cards you may have lying around)? Those cards are meant to be shuffled and not show wear nearly as bad as the more traditional hobby game equivalents. Would it feel too cheap by comparison to today's standards? Also, I've just heard about these "mana weaving" people that apparently exist in MtG and can't believe it's a real thing people do. Man we nerds are dumb sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
FingersMaloy posted:My friends and I love Coup but I don't love the SciFi art. Got the French version plus expansion sent from Canada. I know there's a natural tendency to scoff at licensed games, but the first time I played Coup I immediately though it would have been a perfect Game of Thrones game. Players hold influence over characters on the council, lie to each other, back stab and try to eliminate competition to be the last one standing? It's almost too perfect, really.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Was the World of Warcraft CCG good? It was amazing, and Hearthstone is a shell of what the original was, but is the closest thing you'll get to it. I wouldn't recommend buying physical wowtcg product even if you can still find any, since competing with people is the best part of a TCG and well, you won't find any competition for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
This post is a bit late, but I've had a busy couple days and haven't been able to keep up. Lorini's breakdown/comparison of Hearthstone and MtG was pretty solid. I'd comment on more specifics in it but I'm phone posting and this is going to be long enough already so I'm going to stick to addressing the guy's inquiry as to the differences between HS and physical WoW TCG. Disclaimer 1, I was loving deep into the TCG, up to and including traveling to a lot of the (US domestic) DMFs and larger events to both compete and work on the judge staff. It was a very major part of my life while it was running, and I have that game to thank for steering me into the board game world in the last few years before it got the axe around the time Hearthstone was getting released. So I'll do my best to remain unbiased, but if I come across as such, you know why! Disclaimer 2, I've played farrr less Hearthstone than I ever played the TCG, so my perceptions may lack a full scope and am open to corrections/differing opinions on where I see HS's flaws. Deck Building In Hearthstone, you have your class decision, and the smattering of class cards to choose from, followed by the neutral cards that all decks can share, as Lorini previously pointed out. That's it. In the TCG, first you had your faction: Alliance or Horde (and later in the games life a third Monster faction was introduced). Then you chose your class, and within that class you had multiple heroes to choose from, each with a different power (more on this below). Then you had all your class abilities, but within them there were Talent cards (mirroring the three-pronged talent trees featured in the MMO, naturally), which structured your deck around a particular theme; for example, a Protection Warrior deck was likely to be built differently than a Fury Warrior deck, or an Arms Warrior, and further still the Alliance or Horde versions often played very differently still due to the faction-specific Allies available to each (Ally = Minion in Hearthstone terms). Essentially there was a lot of decisions that could go into building a deck, and changing just a couple things could massively swing how the deck played, and it was incredible for diversity and customization. Now I'm not going to tell you that the game didn't suffer from solved meta-games at the competitive level; naturally there were always top-tier decks that rose to the top of the pile every time the meta shifted, but solving said meta game was a complex process at times due to the robust nature of the deck building options, and as someone else mentioned a page or so ago, a lot of the fun in TCGs can come from trying to solve that puzzle. In Hearthstone, the lack of most of those options always made me feel very cookie cutter when I played a class or explored what card options I had. Sure, part of that may be attributed to the fact that the game is only a year or so old and doesn't have the card pool that the TCG had, but all the same, it definitely leaves me feeling wanting when I play it. Hopefully they incorporate more of those micro details to HS down the road, and if they do id be thrilled, but I've got some friends on the HS team and well, I'm not holding my breath. Heroes A sub-point of the first, heroes fill a very different space in the two games. This likely will be something they'll change/add to Hearthstone in time and it will be great when they do. In HS, each class has 1 hero, and that hero had a single 2-cost power that is available once per turn. In the TCG, even in its first set, had multiple heroes for each class to choose from, each with a different power, and the biggest difference between them being that their powers were a once per game effect instead of once per turn. They also were designed with a variety of costs, so deck building had to take into account not only which hero power best suited the deck you were building, but then a smart player wanted to build their card pool around how and when to best utilize their (often very powerful) hero power that game. I played some decks that specifically intended to utilize their hero's power right on curve (that is, the turn which you first have enough resources to pay for it), every game, because it best synergized with cards you'd want to be playing the turns before and after. It became a virtual card in your hand, and could be utilized to create heavy advantage. Hearthstone's hero powers serve a similar function, but in a much more narrow space since they're all identically costed and none of them are really game changing (arguable that Warlock's draw is a leg above the rest IMO, but that may be up for debate). Again, it just has always felt really watered down compared to the TCG, since that intense decision point is removed when you can just use your power every turn after you run out of cards (not that it's necessarily a good play to do so, but you get the idea I think). Brian Kibler wrote up a really good evaluation of HS hero powers on his blog last year; I'd recommend searching it up, he has a good perspective on it and assuredly compares the two games heroes better than I am. Resources As has been mentioned or as you already know, HS has an auto-resource system that many people love; it removes the need for specific cards ala MtG's lands and thus removes the potential for mana screw/flood, one of the single biggest flaws with Magic. It also, however, is boring as gently caress (sorry, I know I said I'd try not to sound biased; I failed). WoW TCG's system for resources was probably my favorite I've seen in a TCG to date, though I realize not everyone sees it the same way. In it, a player can place any card in their hand face down as a resource to be used to pay costs. Before getting into further options, let me talk about that a bit. First off, as an actual similarity to Hearthstone, it does make the game much more tempo driven since both players are presumably upping their resource count by 1 every turn, so the pressure is usually constant and that keeps the games A) more interactive, and B) heading towards a natural conclusion and helped avoid lulls in which both players are stalled for lands. Additionally, the strategic decision making that often had to go into these face-down resource plays were something a lot of people I think take for granted; since you couldn't get a card back once it had been placed face-down, you would need to decide bSed on your match-up what cards were integral to your strategy, or which cards could be forfeit as less useful. Or maybe you just simply had to choose between a hand of 5 really good cards? How do you choose? There was a skill element that came into play with the system that I really enjoyed thanks to those difficult decision points. Aside from face-down cards, they also had two face-up options which were cards specifically intended to be resources (like Lands). They were Quests and Locations. Quests had unique powers that let you pay some resources to "complete the quest" for some kind of reward (drawing cards was common, but there was a huge design space explored for quests) and then you would turn the quest over to show you completed it, never to be done again that game. Not only were they great mechanically as come-back powers when your hand ran dry, or simply other strategic pieces of a gamestate that had to be considered and played around, but they were thematic as hell, and I'm a sucker for good theming. Locations stayed face-up the whole game and had powers as well, but you were only allowed one face-up location at any given time. All of that stuff combined makes me really love the TCG resource system, while Hearthstones mana gems filling up each round just make me wish I had ANY kind of agency over the system. Interactivity This is a pretty obvious one, so I'll keep it short. Hearthstones Secrets are a far cry from actually being able to use instant-speed responsive effects during your opponents turn. I realize that the mobile-friendly age of gaming that we're in doesn't really support that level of game play depth, but that doesn't change the fact that Hearthstone will simply never touch that level of interactive complexity offered not just by WoW, but by any physical TCG. That said, I think Secrets are a decent middle ground that I give their designers credit for coming up with in the space they had to work with. This is long enough I think, and that's the major points that immediately come to mind when comparing physical WoW to Hearthstone. There's probably other things to be said, but those are the major ones. I will say that if you're able to get a large collection for cheap, AND you have multiple people interested in playing, it is still a great game. You could also put together a draft cube pretty easily and inexpensively I'd wager; I know a lot of the guys from the old tournament scene have made them (myself included) since the game ended and is a nice way to enjoy the game in its dead days. (Though like I mentioned before, it'll never live up to the fun of new cards releasing, meta games changing, and learning how to compete with new decks all the time) Feel free to PM me any other questions about the game. As I said, I was pretty heavily involved with it and would be glad to talk about it, any time. You can also check out https://www.tcgbrowser.com to explore all the cards from the games 7-year run, and see examples of all the stuff I talked about here. Merauder fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:How the hell do you even microtransact Coup? "Pay $1 to unlock Duke"? Pay 3 to assassinate / 7 to Coup is now actually a cash micro transaction it's self! (Nah I have no idea, how he hell do they gently caress that up?)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Bellmaker posted:Anybody get their mitts on Scoville? It looks good but I'd like to get in a game or two/some opinions before I purchase it. I've got it and really enjoy it as a medium-weight strategy game. I wrote up some words about it a few months back, let me dig them up, Merauder posted:So I've had a chance to get in a couple games of Scoville since I picked it up earlier this week and have really enjoyed it, and figure I'd do a run down of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Lorini posted:How does Scoville play do you think if you get rid of the screens (I murder AP people so that's not a problem). I don't think it would be a deal breaker in my experience. Most of the time people have a decent enough pulse on 1. which scoring items players have acquired (many of which can just be turned face down anyway), and 2. which peppers people have at their disposal for fulfilling recipes. It might make things a little more direct, where you are explicitly wanting to buy a certain recipe before another player instead of the approximating what people are going for, or the inadvertent "aw I was going to get that one!" moments that occur. Aside from that, the blind biding would be a different beast when you know how much each player has to work with, but I don't think it would change it in an inherently bad way, just different. Would be more like GoT bidding, where everyone knows what everyone has before the bid happens, and that seems to work well for that game, can't see why it would be an issue here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Obviously the rest of the world is in love with Dead of Winter, but is there a gooncensus on the "best" zombie themed game on the market? Accepting the baggage that comes with that theme of course, and that they pretty much all are so-so to bad. What are the best/worst mechanics people have seen in them? I'm curious what it would take to make a genuinely good game with that theme.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Too broad of a criteria. The poster was like "recommend me a zombie game that isn't Dead of Winter" and I'm just saying zombie game is an awfully broad brush. I wasn't so much asking for a recommendation, just trying to drive some discussion around what elements of existing zombie games people considered good or bad. That's why the broad stroke of "zombie games" isn't really too much of an issue for the inquiry, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 04:29
|
|
(don't actually)
|
Misandu posted:I think it boils down to how in a lot of zombie fiction the characters make hilariously insane, sociopath-esque decisions nearly constantly and while that might be fun to watch it's probably worth toning it down a little in a game. The Walking Dead tv show is a great example of zombie fiction that is very popular but would make a terrible game if you got the 'tone' of it right. The "tone" being what exactly? I still think there's a good "zombie" game to be had which focuses on the players and their survivors and how they interact, making it about the people instead of focusing on killing maximum generic baddies. I'd say that is pretty much the "tone" of TWD, right? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? I think DoW comes close to getting that idea right, but as this discussion (which has been really good, btw) indicates they got a lot wrong along the way.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:A lot of talk about evolution kickstarted. I've never heard about the game before today. Since a lot of people are taking about buying it I'm guessing it's good. Anyone want to give me a run down of it? It's a giant game of rock-paper-scissors where each player grows a species or multiple species of animal by increasing their population, the animal's size, and then various other traits to help them collect food, defend themselves, or be carnivorous and attack other player's species. Intelligent Species > Defensive Species > Carnivorous Species, to over-simplify it basically. Players are able to continually evolve their species selected traits to best fit the ecosystem (the state of all the species on the table), but each round it's done with simmultaneous action so you may turn your defensive species into a carnivorous one because you want to go kill off your neighbor, but they might anticipate it and evolve with a new defensive trait that your species can't overcome and thus you can't attack them. It's pretty enjoyable, and apparently the 2nd edition improves some of the card text and rules slightly, and the Flight expansion looks like it adds some fun new stuff as well. It usually is pretty well recommended in this thread from what I've seen.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Well that certainly got some responses. I'll probably give both a pass (at least until i've tried Seasons) and AP stuff is a no-no because of my girlfriend alas. Thanks for the advice all! I actually really like Five Tribes a lot myself, but I'm a lot less discerning than the average goon gamer, so take that as you will. It's definitely a bit of a brain burner for the AP-inclined, but I honestly don't think it's as bad as its reputation would have people believe. It's the kind of game where there's no single best path to victory which I really like; I've seen players win by leaning heavily into using the Dijin cards, and other games where those are hardly used at all and players just focus on claiming spaces on the board, or others still where players just stack money (1:1 points) by means of item card set collection. Probably a try before you by kind of thing based on the rest of the reviews you've heard from here, but I think it's definitely worth trying at least a couple times to get a solid opinion of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I'm playing Mage Wars with the new core set today. It's been a long time since I played it and now that there's the app, I'm hoping to get it to the table more often. Really interested to hear the thoughts on this one. Is this the "Arena" box, and designed to be a shorter play time?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:That's Mage Wars Academy, it's designed to be a quicker, smaller game that's easier to teach. Currently not out yet. Domination has rules for building a custom arena, a capture point win condition, and an Overlord or something so you can do a 1 VS many type of game. Right, mixing up Academy and Arena. As for playing it, I have... I started the OP for it here on the forums  Just haven't played it in probably over a year now.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
My most recent purchase has been Alchemists, and I'm kind of infatuated with it right now. I just want to play it and nothing else and figure out new ways to solve poo poo. It's neat, and the flavor and theme is super entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Game of Thrones 2nd edition LCG looks pretty great. Currently this is the only major release on my radar. This, and the Five Tribes expansion. Hopefully my new game expenditures at GenCon are less than last year (shouldn't be too hard; I bought anything that looked remotely interesting and ended up packing home like 25 games  )E: Wait, when is Mysterium coming out? It'll be a buy for me if it's available.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
al-azad posted:My favorite teaching trick when someone's eyes are glazing over is to ask them a question. "So if you played this against me how many points would you score if the board looked like this?" That puts them on the spot and now everyone else has to pay attention to their explanation. That's pretty good actually. I think the biggest thing when teaching a game, especially more complex ones, is to A) make sure you're teaching with a logical flow, be it a turn order or series of actions or whatever, avoiding jumping around too much and making things feel disjointed and hard to follow, and B) knowing what elements of the rules can be glazed over or skipped altogether initially in favor of core understanding. I mentioned recently my current infatuation with Alchemists and I've been working on finding a good flow to teach it because that one can be a beast to understand. My two points here have been hugely helpful in teaching it so far, and I've only played it a few times myself since my first game when I was taught.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Sounds like you need to have a board game night?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
I got my 2nd Edition copy of Funemployed yesterday (ala Kickstarter), just in time for my group's weekly get together. It's a party game where one player acts as the Employer who gets a random job card they are hiring for, while each other player is an Applicant who has a hand of 4 qualification cards they are going to have to use during their "interview" to pitch to the Employer why they're the best candidate for the job. The catch is that the jobs are often ridiculous (Dominatrix, Celebrity Impersonator, etc., but sometimes normal like Used Car Salesman), and the qualification cards are usually absurd things that would never come up in an actual job interview. For example, maybe you're holding Pyromaniac, Beard, Soft Hands, and Italian Accent, and with those 4 cards you have to tell the employer why you're the person they should hire to be your Secret Agent, or something. Each round everyone gets a new hand of 4 qualifications and there's a public market of 10 cards that players can swap from 1-for-1 with cards in their hands, allowing you to "build your résumé" until the first interview begins. I really enjoyed it, and will be in my rotation for bigger social games for sure, mixing in with ONUW and Spyfall. Unlike other similarly structured party games which have all the players submitting to a judge, this one really requires players to be engaged and creative to really sell their qualifications. If you just read the cards at face value it's going to fall really flat, like some other party games which need not be named.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I demoed Samurai Spirit at BGG Con last year having heard a bunch of hype around it, and it fell completely flat and left me totally underwhelmed and wondering why people are talking about it so much. The theme is okay, I like the tower-defense style of protecting your village from waves of attackers, but the mechanics felt super arbitrary and none of the decisions seemed terribly interesting, if they were really decisions at all. Mind you this was only one demo, maybe repeat plays it opens up more, but I'm disinclined to want to find out, and ConfusedUs's post above doesn't help that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Re: Welcome to the Dungeon talk, a couple of the things my group got wrong the first time I played it were: 1. Unless an item token explicitly says "use once per dungeon", than it can be used multiple times. For example, the Torch can be used to kill every copy of the Goblins and Skeletons (and whatever the #3 monsters are) in a single dungeon. 2. When entering the dungeon, the cards are revealed one at a time (we couldn't find in the rule book if they're shown first-in-first-out or last-in-first-out, though I don't believe it matters). We were playing with the Warrior and initially just turned over the stack and started assigning items to monsters, which isn't correct. Both of these tips became more clear due to context clues once I played with the other classes, which have items that list the "once per dungeon" clause, or items which which imply the one-at-a-time monster process (because they specifically reference "next" cards, for example). Totally agree that it will take a few rounds, maybe even a couple games to completion, to really "get" the strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Does anyone have any good Lost Legacy custom sets? I imagine with 4 out already, there's bound to be a lot of good combinations, even if Whitegold is sorta...out there. We've dabbled in doing custom sets, and when we do we always leave out the majority of the Spire set (the one with the points-based victory, and all the face-up/face-downing of cards). Don't have any specific setups, just that mixing in Spire felt really clunky. Once we took those out we just randomized which cards from each number went in and enjoyed it each time we played.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Gencon release highlight so far I was at Origins chatting with a buddy before we knew about this existing, and this exact idea came up between us. Later that day he came back by our booth and said "Sorry, someone beat us to it". Was so disappointed. I hope their game ends up being as ridiculous as it should be!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:So Millennium Blades? Do you nail together planks of wood to build patios with railings in Millennium Blades?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Is dead of winter fun? Turtlicious posted:Is there a game like king of tokyo but w/o players getting eliminated from the game?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I enjoy when the Spy player doesn't play vague and just jumps in with both feed with a crazy answer to a question to see if it sticks, or totally flops. Once played a round where the spy was asked the first question of the game: "Why are you here?" His answer: "...Bitches." We were at the Service Station. It was a short game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Tippis posted:Depends… did they get the rules right? About 10 or so minutes in I saw one rule that they didn't get "wrong" per se, but omitted something they should have done. When the first villain escapes, they're supposed to K.O. a Hero from the HQ, but they only performed the villain's "Escape" text. Didn't watch enough to see if it happened more than the one time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Can't wait! Because the most likely scenario is that people would wait until they want to play a game to utilize the technology, absolutely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:So it's basically Heroscape with a MtG shell? I don't think they've been particularly coy about that being the case since it's announcement, or at least that the engine was heavily inspired by HeroScape. I haven't seen final rules / verdict on it though, so it may be different enough outside the terrain's tile style. Hopefully fozzy will offer a nice write up once he has a chance to try it out!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
X-Wing is amazing and you should buy it. There's a dedicated thread about it too, if you care to dig into it more. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3657860
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 00:14
|
|