Game: Felix: The Cat in the Sack

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

ackmondual — 2008-12-01T15:26:58+00:00

No mention of dogs chasing bunnies in the Rio Grande, english rules indeed. WHen I explain the game to people, I tell them that dogs DO go after bunnies. Furthermore, I explain small dogs chase away the WORST valued bunny or cat while large dogs chase the best valued cat or bunny, kind of using a number line system to keep avoid the ambiguity of "lowest value" being -8 as in on a number line or -3 since "3" is lower than "8", negative sign notwithstanding.

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

Drew1365 — 2008-11-29T15:12:42+00:00

Check these threads:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/267486
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/228184

Henning Kröpke of 2F-Spiele confirms that the rule that a dog will chase away a rabbit was accidentally omitted. Jay Tummelson confirms in the second thread. So dogs chase rabbits. Would be interesting to make it so they didn't. It had an effect on a recent game for us.

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

Paolo Robino — 2008-11-29T06:36:43+00:00

The inclusion of the bunny changes things quite a bit. I have the Rio Grande edition: are the German rules available somewhere in the 'Net?

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

Drew1365 — 2008-11-29T04:56:06+00:00

fortinm wrote:
The big dog chases the card having the highest value (can be 0 or negative).
The small dog chases the card having the lowest value (can be negative or 0).

Short and simple. Why didn't they write it this way?

You are correct. And a dog will chase away the bunny, too, if it fulfills the requirement. I understand the inclusion of the bunny was accidentally dropped from the English translation.

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

Neo_1 — 2008-11-29T04:20:57+00:00

Michel,

Thanks for the clarification from the French Rules! I also like the idea of INCLUDING the BUNNY. Dogs will chase a bunny as much as they would chase a cat. From now on this is how I will play. Straightforward & simple!

Thanks again!

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

Phreakyhamster — 2008-11-28T23:13:06+00:00

I think 2) as well.
The big dog chases the big cat, and the small dog the little cat. Sounds oke, doesn't it?

Thread: Re: Special Case Rule Question

fortinm — 2008-11-28T23:09:42+00:00

We play as described in 2). And we consider the bunny too. It is explicitely said in my French edition rules. Although I suspect it is as badly worded as in English. In short:

The big dog chases the card having the highest value (can be 0 or negative).
The small dog chases the card having the lowest value (can be negative or 0).

Short and simple. Why didn't they write it this way?

Thread: Special Case Rule Question

Neo_1 — 2008-11-28T20:06:02+00:00

Under the Special Cases section of the rules, one of the cases states:

"If a large dog chases a cat from the row and there are no positive cats in the row, he chases the lowest-valued negative cat from the row."

Does this mean
1) That the dog chases a positive cat AND the lowest-valued negative cat.

or

2) If there are NO postive cats in the row TO BEGIN WITH, then the lowest-valued negative cat is chased away.

My opinion is the 2nd interpretation. Your thought please!

Image

rossum — 2008-11-24T05:00:42+00:00

How much for the bunnies in the window?

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-20T14:47:11+00:00

Father & Son @ Spellenspektakel 2008 Zwolle - The Netherlands

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-11-18T20:41:04+00:00

A Good Hand - Spellenspektakel Zwolle 2008 - The Netherlands

Image

Gabriel Guerin — 2008-11-18T00:00:22+00:00

Essen 2007 - Friedemann Friese signin' a copy of Filou

Image

Toynan — 2008-11-09T01:13:43+00:00

Promotional poster of the cute Felix !

Thread: Re: Crítica em Português (Portuguese review)

cagriggs — 2008-11-04T17:14:11+00:00

Hey, this looks remarkable similar to your Ingenious Review - you just changed the number at the bottom! I see what's going on!!!!

Thread: Crítica em Português (Portuguese review)

MGBM — 2008-11-04T13:40:05+00:00

Publicado em www.abreojogo.com e www.rededejogos.com

Felix: The Cat In The Sack é um filler como nenhum outro. Este jogo usa mecânicas familiares e combina-as criando um jogo estranho mas original. Felix consegue ser um jogo que quebra a monotonia de estarmos sempre a ver os mesmos jogos serem reciclados.

Em Felix, um jogo criado pelo mesmo designer de Power Grid, Friedemann Friese, nós temos uma mão fixa de 9 cartas. Depois, por ordem, escolhemos uma dessas cartas, que podem ser vários gatos com pontos positivos ou negativos, cães ou um coelho, e pomos a carta de virada para baixo ao mesmo tempo que os outros jogadores, por ordem de turno. Depois disto dá-se inicio a um leilão com a primeira carta a ser virada. Os jogadores irão comprar todas as cartas que foram postas. Ou fazem uma licitação ou abandonam. Se abandonarem recebem dinheiro, dinheiro esse que existe em quantidade limitada no jogo. Se continuarem então por cada pessoa que abandona o leilão mais uma carta é virada. No fim quando todas as cartas forem viradas e só um jogador sobrar em jogo, esse jogador leva as cartas todas, boas ou más. No fim de 9 rondas conta-se os pontos todos e quem tiver mais ganha.

Vamos à análise.

Em termos de apresentação o jogo é mediano. A caixa é pequena, as regras são relativamente curtas e simples de entender e a arte nas enormes cartas é funcional com um bocadinho de humor à mistura. As cartas em si são feitas de material durável, embora pudessem ser de melhor qualidade. O dinheiro são simples fichas de plástico coloridas verdes ou pretas. Não há insert neste jogo visto a caixa ser pequena demais para tal. Não é nada de excepcional mas faz o trabalho de visualizar o jogo fácil.

A sorte neste jogo não existe, pelo menos sorte mecânica. Neste jogo o factor humano é o motor principal que impulsiona o jogo. Primeiro porque não sabemos o que os outros jogadores puseram para leiloar, só sabemos a nossa carta, e depois porque este jogo toma uma dimensão maior quando os jogadores usam bluff a torto e a direito para enganarem os outros jogadores. Um jogador poderá, por exemplo, fazer uma licitação alta com o intuito de dar a entender que a sua carta é boa quando não é, ou ao contrário, fazer uma licitação baixo com o objectivo de tentar desvalorizar a mão inteira em jogo. Muito honestamente nunca joguei a um filler que contivesse tanto bluff como neste. O bluff neste jogo é a alma do jogo, é a razão pelo qual se joga e se obtêm o divertimento. É o bluff que torna um jogo que poderia ser mais um filler em algo verdadeiramente espectacular e único.

E isso vê-se quando analisamos o elemento de táctica e estratégia no jogo. Tal como num jogo de leilão uma pessoa tem que examinar o que já se obteu com o que está de momento em jogo para ser leiloado. Mas o factor de incerteza, em não sabermos o que a próxima carta pode revelar, aliada com o facto do dinheiro ser escasso e precisarmos deles torna o jogo tenso, mas tenso no bom sentido. Devido à incerteza é quase impossível fazer planos de longo prazo excepto planos em traços gerais do género, preciso de mais pontos. É na faceta táctica que este jogo brilha, em que cada mão é disputada ao máximo ao mesmo tempo que tentamos enganar os outros jogadores e adivinhar que cartas jogaram eles. Neste sentido Felix torna-se um pouco como o Poker, não na mecânica mas no aspecto interactivo e psicológico, temos que analisar os jogadores tão bem quanto ao jogo se queremos ganhá-lo. Este jogo é puramente táctico mas não perde nada por isso, pelo contrário, é um exemplo de como tornar um jogo táctico em algo interessante, único e incrivelmente divertido.

E é na interacção que reside o verdadeiro prazer de jogar ao jogo. A interacção em termos de mecânicas é a mesma de um jogo de leilão, fazer licitações mais altas que os outros jogadores e assim por adiante. Mas é a interacção indirecta, a que não se faz através do jogo, que torna o que poderia ser um jogo mediano em algo grandioso. Tal como os jogadores de poker se analisam um ao outro à procura de sinais que possam dizer o jogo que têm na mão, o mesmo se passa aqui. Um jogador têm que saber ler os adversários para perceber que cartas estão em jogo e se vale a pena continuar ou desistir. É esta interacção indirecta e psicológica que transforma o jogo todo e o torna em algo maior que as partes do jogo em si. É o metajogo deste jogo que torna o jogo interessante, e isso não se costuma ver muito em jogos grandes quanto mais em fillers. Se gostam de metajogo então este jogo é perfeito para o vosso grupo.

Este pequeno filler parece ser Lightweight em peso mas eu sinceramente penso que seja um Very Heavy Lightweight. Apesar de se poder jogar em 20 a 25 minutos o jogo é muito mais pesado que um Diamant ou um For Sale devido ao metajogo. As decisões que um jogador tem que tomar durante o jogo são cruciais e um jogador tem mesmo que saber quando desistir. De facto, na minha opinião, acho que este filler é dos fillers mais pesados que alguma vez joguei. Torna-se num jogo que não é tão leve quanto se dá a entender.

Como tal este jogo tem uma longevidade tremenda pois está mais dependente do metajogo do que das mecânicas em si. Mesmo as mecânicas em si dão um novo alento às mecânicas mais que usadas dos jogos de leilão. Como tal este jogo torna-se num filler que não enjoa, num jogo que apesar de pequeno se comporta como um jogo grande em matéria de divertimento e de queimar o cérebro. Se gostam do aspecto de bluffing do poker então este jogo terá uma longevidade ainda maior. Para um filler, o Felix não é jogo de enjoar rapidamente com muitas sessões do jogo realizadas, o que para mim é um feito tremendo em relação a um jogo filler.

Apesar do que disse o problema de downtime neste jogo não é tão vasto quanto possa parecer. É maior do que num filler normal, sem dúvida, mas o jogo processa-se a um bom ritmo, sem grandes pausas. Mesmo assim se houver um jogador que goste de analisar os sinais de outros jogadores para descobrir o que eles jogaram então poderão se deparar com um problema tanto de downtime como de analysis paralysis, embora a AP seja antes ao metajogo do que ao jogo em si, o que é curioso.

O tempo de jogo acaba sempre por ser menos que meia hora se se manter um bom ritmo, mas se tiverem jogadores veteranos de poker no vosso grupo preparem-se para o jogo demorar mais tempo. Obviamente o grupo irá se divertir à mesma pois é um jogo que parece ser feito de propósito para esses jogadores de poker.

Este jogo poderá ser bom para introduzir a novatos se o novato for um jogador de poker. Poderá ser bom também para novatos que não são jogadores de poker mas não é um jogo fácil de entender para quem não lida com boardgames. Não o considero dos melhores fillers para introduzir a novatos sinceramente.

O número ideal de jogadores para este jogo será 5, embora com 4 também se jogue muito bem. Tenho dúvidas quanto a 3, acho que muita da tensão do jogo é retirada se só 3 jogadores estiverem a jogar.

O visual do jogo é engraçado, as cartas são apelativas com vários gatos mas no fim não é jogo que chame muito a atenção das pessoas.

E prontos.

Felix é um filler único e divertido mas não é para todos. Os que não gostam de bluff ou do metajogo não vão gostar deste jogo quase de certeza. Agora se acham um jogo de leilão com bastante bluff à mistura apelativo então este jogo é ideal para vocês. É um jogo que quando se gosta, gosta-se mesmo e quando o grupo é certo então o divertimento produzido pelo jogo ultrapassa e muito o divertimento da maioria dos jogos que existem, mesmo os de grande caixa.

Pessoalmente gosto bastante do jogo, é uma lufada de ar fresco no meio dos meus fillers, algo diferente que jogo quando quero quebrar as normas e jogar a algo intenso e que provoca gargalhadas à volta da mesa.

O jogo está bem construído e é engraçado mas como disse não é para todos. Acho que está muito subvalorizado e que merece melhor pois é um jogo único entre o universo de fillers.

Pessoalmente acho que toda a gente o devia jogar pelo menos uma vez. Uma excelente adição a qualquer colecção e um prazer a jogar, Felix torna-se numa das surpresas do ano para mim. A única razão porque este jogo não é o meu filler favorito é porque o vejo mais como um jogo normal do que um filler.

Um excelente pequeno jogo.

15 de 20.

Thread: Re: 3 players

Wyckyd — 2008-09-25T10:58:10+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:

The random card is turned over before the auction starts, you know.

Guess I've been playing it wrong. Thanks for pointing it out!

I'm just wondering... could the random card be revealed before the players decide which card they put into the sack? This way, you also can take into account which card people would add to a certain card.

Thread: Re: 3 players

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-24T23:44:08+00:00

Wyckyd wrote:
I've played with three and I find the dummy player to be really annoying. Having a random card added to the sack makes it more difficult to predict what kind of sack you are bidding on.

The random card is turned over before the auction starts, you know.

I definitely agree that you don't have enough information, though. I think it might be a lot better if you turned over the random card and also the first player's card, before the first bid. That would make it more like the 4-player and 5-player game. Without some change, I would strongly recommend against anyone buying this to play with 3 players.

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

Karlsen — 2008-09-10T06:13:30+00:00

sbszine wrote:
It seems to me that you need a different groupthink / tempo depending on the player count.Just like Diamant

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

sbszine — 2008-09-10T05:49:59+00:00

Auction games should hopefully be self balancing, so I'm sure groupthink is a part of it. But, the right time to pass differs depending on player count. It seems to me that you need a different groupthink / tempo depending on the player count.

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

wmshub — 2008-09-10T05:34:13+00:00

sbszine wrote:
In the few games I've played, the winner has always been a player who passed every turn. But, only by a few points.Your group is simply overbidding. No need to rebalance the game. Just pass a bit earlier than you have been, and you'll start winning...until more people catch on to the idea, then the game will work out fine.

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

sbszine — 2008-09-10T05:22:48+00:00

In the few games I've played, the winner has always been a player who passed every turn. But, only by a few points. I think the 5 player game has the most balanced payout for passing, so that this strategy is kept level with buying a bunch of cats.

But, I take the point that changing the passing values changes the game economy too.

Edit: and of course I haven't tried out this variant yet... I wanted to put it up for discussion first.

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

wmshub — 2008-09-10T05:18:25+00:00

I'm just completely stumped by why you think it is necessary to make sure an "always passes" player earns the same amount no matter how many players.

I've played 4. I've played 5. Both seemed balanced just fine. If somebody always passes, they'd lose (assuming other players bid even close to properly), so why does it matter what their exact score is?

Thread: Re: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

SevenSpirits — 2008-09-10T04:11:49+00:00

The way it is equalizes over all 3/4/5 players, not just the ones who passed. This way the same amount of money per player enters the game each round, regardless of the player count.

Thread: Equalise the value of passing at different player numbers

sbszine — 2008-09-10T03:57:23+00:00

Remove the 4 mouse card and replace it with the 3 mouse card in the four player game. Rationale follows...

In the 5 player game, there are four mouse cards 2,3,4,6, with an average value of 15 / 4 = 3.75. So, a player who passes every round can expect to finish on (15 + 9 x 3.75 =) 48.75 points.

In the four player games, there are three mouse cards: 2,4,6, with an average value of 4. So, a player who passes every round can expect to finish on 51 points.

In the three player games, there are two mouse cards: 3,6, with an average value of 4.5. So, a player who passes every round can expect to finish on 55.5 points.

If the 4 card is substituted for the 3 card in the four player game, the average becomes 3.67, which is much closer to the five player value of passing. So, a player who passes every round can expect to finish on 48 points. This result is also closer to the five player value.

If the 4 card is substituted for the 6 card in the three player game, the average becomes 3.5, which is much closer to the five player value of passing. So, a player who passes every round can expect to finish on 46.5 points. This result is also closer to the five player value.

Edit: added maths for 3P game

Image

Toynan — 2008-08-30T16:34:34+00:00

Back of the french edition (still in shrink)

Image

Toynan — 2008-08-30T16:33:31+00:00

Front of the french edition (still in shrink)

Thread: Re: Rio Grande Games edition box size

boris317 — 2008-08-29T00:02:21+00:00

in inches: 5 x 5 x 1.5

Thread: Re: Rio Grande Games edition box size

maura — 2008-07-03T01:08:18+00:00

all editions of filou have the same size.

Thread: Re: Rio Grande Games edition box size

ackmondual — 2008-07-02T15:16:58+00:00

I don't have the box on me, but I can recall it's about 5 inches by 5 inches or so. It's small enough that I put this box into the boxes of other games

Thread: Rio Grande Games edition box size

Altaira — 2008-07-02T09:57:14+00:00

Which is the size of the box for the Rio Grande Games edition (I suppose all the editions have the same size box, but just to be on the safe side)?

Image

tickwang — 2008-06-18T08:05:09+00:00

Our Felix Queen

Thread: Re: 3 players

Wyckyd — 2008-06-13T08:11:08+00:00

I've played with three and I find the dummy player to be really annoying. Having a random card added to the sack makes it more difficult to predict what kind of sack you are bidding on.

Thread: Re: 3 players

wmshub — 2008-06-13T07:49:08+00:00

Agreed. Never played 5. I like 4 better than 3, but 3 is still fun and worth getting the game for.

Thread: Re: 3 players

ackmondual — 2008-06-13T02:37:57+00:00

King Bing wrote:
Is Felix a good cat with 3 players ?3 people petting Felix instead of 4 or 5 means each player gives her more attention

It's not too bad. There's a dummy player that goes last, so the first person who passes would cause the 2nd card to be revealed, and the next person who passes leaves a 3rd and a 4th card to be revealed. It's certainly different from 4-5p game, but most games are like that. The range of players changes things and gameplay in nontrivial ways

Thread: Re: 3 players

anarchy — 2008-06-12T22:46:12+00:00

I've enjoyed many 3-player games with Felix. I think it's best with 5, but it's very good with 3.

Thread: 3 players

King Bing — 2008-06-12T22:26:33+00:00

Is Felix a good cat with 3 players ?

Thread: Re: Error in Dutch rules

Gelete — 2008-05-08T18:53:02+00:00

Thanks

Thread: Re: Why limit on the chip?

ackmondual — 2008-04-15T18:04:33+00:00

shingoi wrote:
The only time there were no mice (chips) left in the bank was during a 5p game. AFAI can remember, ppl were bidding more on the conservative side

That's interesting considering number of chips available is different depending on the number of player.. according to the rule.
I'd thought that you have equal chance of chip running out in any number of players.

I'm still not sure why you have to change the number of chips available depending on the number of player.. or how it would affect the game play.
It's like having a cap on how much VP you can acquire by collecting Mice.
Whoops! I did miss something after all 5p game gets 33 mice in the bank while a 4p game gets 27 in the bank. At least in the two 4p games we had, we always had at least the difference in chips (5) for a 4p game and a 5p game, so we wouldn't have ran out of $$ anyways. I'm also assuming there's just enough $$ to handle 15 mice per each of the 5 players in a 5p game + 33 for the bank _OR_ that the 5p game I played, the game explainer was also aware of the 33 mice-in-the-bank rule.

Doing the math, 33 mice for 5p, 27 for 4p, and 21 for 3p comes out to....
6.6 per player in a 5p game
6.75 per player in a 4p game
7 per player in a 3p game

Doesn't seem too significant, but having THAT along with different playstyles between groups could indeed cause one situation to run out of $$ faster than the other

Thread: Re: Start player?

Wyckyd — 2008-04-14T19:38:06+00:00

timstellmach wrote:

Does it matter what you did with the pet, or can you buy one before the game just so you can go first?

I think that should work, though ethically speaking I wouldn't like to say it doesn't matter what you do with your pets.

Please be kind to your pets!

Thread: Re: Error in Dutch rules

Wyckyd — 2008-04-14T19:34:26+00:00

Thanks for pointing this out!

Thread: Re: Why limit on the chip?

shingoi — 2008-04-14T03:52:19+00:00

The only time there were no mice (chips) left in the bank was during a 5p game. AFAI can remember, ppl were bidding more on the conservative side

That's interesting considering number of chips available is different depending on the number of player.. according to the rule.
I'd thought that you have equal chance of chip running out in any number of players.

I'm still not sure why you have to change the number of chips available depending on the number of player.. or how it would affect the game play.
It's like having a cap on how much VP you can acquire by collecting Mice.

Thread: Re: All Players Pass

LennyS — 2008-04-11T19:17:48+00:00

Thank you - I couldn't for the life of me figure that one out.

Thread: Re: All Players Pass

Werbaer — 2008-04-11T18:51:27+00:00

Just badly worded.

If you are the last player who passes, you (usually) receive 6 mice.

Thread: All Players Pass

LennyS — 2008-04-11T18:37:13+00:00

I have not played Felix yet, but in reading the rules, a comment on the last page of the RGG/English rules book makes no sense to me: A tactical note: If a player passes as the last player, he receives six mice. How can this be? There is no mouse money on the "Cat In The Sack" card, so all money would be gone by the time the last player passes. Insight? Am I just dim?

Thread: Re: Why limit on the chip?

ackmondual — 2008-04-10T05:28:11+00:00

The only time there were no mice (chips) left in the bank was during a 5p game. AFAI can remember, ppl were bidding more on the conservative side

Subsequent 4p games never had the bank run low. Came close on a few occassions.

Your reasonings sound right. Some people may be more tempted to just always pass and rack up score like that.

FYI, the green chips are worth 5 points/mice. The black ones are worth one apiece.

Thread: Re: Why limit on the chip?

wmshub — 2008-04-10T05:15:06+00:00

It's not unusual to run out of chips when everybody is bidding low.

Limiting the number of chips forces a change of strategy eventually. Well, doesn't force it, you can still bid low. but bailing out becomes less attractive so people are more likely to start bidding higher.

Thread: Why limit on the chip?

shingoi — 2008-04-09T23:08:26+00:00

I read the rule for the first time last night, and couldn't understand why specific number of chips has to be used for different number of players.

I am guessing that this has something to do with each chip being one point, and maybe this way, number of point you can earn through chips and number of point you can earn through cards are better balanced.

But can you please explain the logic for me? And does it make such a big difference if you just use all the chip?

Thread: Re: Start player?

artmark — 2008-04-04T14:53:30+00:00

whoever owns the most cats (or the most you will admit to)

we usually take the cards that everyone had to discard and shuffle them under the table, then ask one person to say a number between 1 and the number of players. whoever's card was that number in the shuffled stack places first.

Thread: Re: Error in Dutch rules

ackmondual — 2008-03-30T15:25:21+00:00

^^

Definately. If some of the sacks or hands are gonna suck, then I'd rather just pass and take 3 to 6 points rather than risk spending 10 mice to only get an -8 cat, -5 cat, a bunny, a large dog, and other junk cards

Thread: Error in Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2008-03-30T07:33:56+00:00

This game was just published in the Netherlands under the title "Minoes, De Kat in de Zak" (Minoes is also the title of a children's book and a movie in which a cat is transformed in a woman).

In the Dutch rules it says that at the end of the game, players count the worth of their cards, and the player with the most points wins. It does not say that the money is worth points at the end of the game. In some of the reviews here on BGG it says that money (or mice) is worth points at the end, while in the German-Dutch translation of the rules which is found in the files section it does not say such.

The 999 games (Dutch publisher) website gives an erratum for the game, which is that money does indeed translate to points at the game's end. That changes the game quite a bit, I think.

Thread: Re: Start player?

timstellmach — 2008-03-18T18:39:46+00:00

minordemon wrote:
The player that most recently has bought a pet.

Does it matter what you did with the pet, or can you buy one before the game just so you can go first?

Thread: Re: Start player?

minordemon — 2008-03-18T18:02:38+00:00

Ajax wrote:
Funny, guys.

I take it that this information was not in the German rules?

OK, I'll look it up in the rules:

The player that most recently has bought a pet. (But it says so in german of course)

(Usually this is also the cuddliest one)

Thread: Re: Start player?

Ajax — 2008-03-18T15:06:01+00:00

Funny, guys.

I take it that this information was not in the German rules?

Thread: Re: Start player?

maelic001 — 2008-03-18T07:35:33+00:00

The last one to actually put a cat in a sack?

Thread: Re: The wonderful, wonderful cat...

vintermann — 2008-03-16T22:40:06+00:00

Congratulations on posting thread nr. 300000! You get a star!

Thread: Re: Start player?

minordemon — 2008-03-16T07:37:27+00:00

The one who can lay in the sun the longest?

The one who can purr most realistically?

The cuddliest one?

(Does it really matter?)

Thread: Re: Start player?

ackmondual — 2008-03-16T05:04:43+00:00

Ajax wrote:
Who is the first start player?The youngest player?

Thread: Start player?

Ajax — 2008-03-16T01:42:18+00:00

Who is the first start player?

Image

Armington Lewis — 2008-03-02T21:02:36+00:00

Rabbit and big dog. Do you dare to bet?

Image

Armington Lewis — 2008-03-02T20:56:24+00:00

My winning score of a 5 player game last evening