<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Game: Republic of Rome, The</title>
	<link>http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513</link>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 11:18:42 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 11:18:42 -0500</pubDate>
	<webMaster>aldie@boardgamegeek.com</webMaster>
	<description>BoardGameGeek features information related to the board gaming hobby</description><item>
	<title>Thread: Re: Any new about reprint?</title>
	<description>Excellent, can't wait for the reprint. :)&lt;br&gt;I just hope I remember to preorder on time!</description>
	<link>http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2291222#2291222</link>
	<pubDate>2008-05-06T10:17:20+00:00</pubDate>
	<dc:creator>Wikingus</dc:creator>
</item><item>
	<title>Thread: Re: It came, I saw it, It conquered me</title>
	<description>You know, I'm beginning to suspect it may just be a difference in how we read things.  To me, the Avalon Hill style of rules writing actually does make sense.  Could it be that it somehow 'lines up' with my thought processes?  Some other game I have a slower time digesting: Caylus was an example, perhaps because the lack of numbering of sections.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Perhaps, then, my expression of the state of the rules should be modified.  I think a blanket condemnation is completely wrong, as some folks really can read and distill the game, and teach it without too much trouble to others.  But some may find the style confusing and awash in unclearly-defined jargon or jumbled up in presentation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Could it be just a function of how our brains process data?  If so, perhaps it is a discussion with no satisfactory conclusion?</description>
	<link>http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2285318#2285318</link>
	<pubDate>2008-05-03T05:50:55+00:00</pubDate>
	<dc:creator>mi_de</dc:creator>
</item></channel></rss>