Through the Ages has possibly the best game design of any boardgame of all time. It's definitely in the top few if not at the very top. And I can't think of anything offhand that comes close besides perhaps Go. There is a depth and subtlety there that is near perfect.
One side effect of that is if two people of differing skill levels play the lower skill player is going to get stomped. EG: all of the "problems" that ham mentioned aren't problems if everyone is making mistakes of comparable severity. But if you have one player who isn't making such simple mistakes then yeah they are going to utterly crush the other players.
So it's not a party game. And it's not a game where randomness is going to let someone win despite worse plays. And there is a bit of an issue in that it is a game that can just break people with analyses paralyses. Such people can ruin many games but especially this one.
I was witness to a 20 minute argument about First Class not too long ago, in which every expression of frustration with the game's design, the type of interaction that was available and the decisions that were offered, was met with advice on how said player could improve their strategy. It was one of the more elaborate displays of "you're just too dumb to enjoy my favourite game", which one of the two gentlemen having the argument never picked up on.
I mean, if they had issues with the design being too difficult or limited which were mitigated by other strategies and considerations, then this is a valid response and isn't calling another person dumb. It depends on what their actual issues were. I have definitely had conversations where someone complained about not liking a game because of a certain quirk of the strategy, but they hadn't considered a certain tactic which I suggested. I wasn't calling them dumb either!
Not every defense of a complicated or difficult game is condescension. I will agree that saying that 'the game doesn't play for you' is not an example of that, but I think you're swinging too far the other way. Some games are designed to be very complicated and with dense strategies, and you're not going to get everything about them in one or even a couple plays.
Imagine the reaction if saying "The Empire Strikes Back isn't all that great" was met with instructions on how to watch the movie better.
You might not say to watch better, but you might talk about certain aspects of the movie they might have missed, like any deeper meaning to certain lines or scenes, repeated themes, small aspects of the mise-en-scene that are easy to miss. There's a reason why critical analysis is a thing, and it's because not all meaning or quality in a work is inherently obvious.
Elitism has always been the quiet scourge of board gaming.
Snarky contentless single line posts have long been the scourge of message boards too. So many scourges to go around!
Props for proving your own point there.
But the issue with gaming's elitism is that it is so deeply ingrained in the entire notion competitive gaming. I've had long and heated debates about whether winning a game makes you better than another player or not. This unspoken assumption of proving your intelligence through winning a board game reverberates all the way into self-identifying as a "serious" or "heavy" gamer. It's deeply annoying, and while not outright harmful, it does send out this vibe of "you must be THIS smart to enjoy our hobby". That is exclusionary and considering the social nature of gaming very counter-productive.
It can't be a coincidence that whenever somebody criticises a well-regarded game, the knee-jerk reaction always seems to be "well, you played it wrong". I was witness to a 20 minute argument about First Class not too long ago, in which every expression of frustration with the game's design, the type of interaction that was available and the decisions that were offered, was met with advice on how said player could improve their strategy. It was one of the more elaborate displays of "you're just too dumb to enjoy my favourite game", which one of the two gentlemen having the argument never picked up on. Because among gamers this kind of interchange is considered normal. Imagine the reaction if saying "The Empire Strikes Back isn't all that great" was met with instructions on how to watch the movie better.
for that to be an even remotely applicable analogy you would imagine the reaction to someone saying "The Empire Strikes Back isn't all that great because Captain Kirk could have just used that go-back-in-time-around-the-sun trick to rescue Han when he was captured by Daenerys Targaryen". A lot of people come up with bad impressions of games because they really just didn't understand something. Often because they were taught wrong or the rulebook was unclear (both very common).
It's reasonable, when presented with criticism of a game's design, to assert that someone would get more out of a game by playing it differently. Pretty much all games have an intended style or set of styles the designers want players to use, and that's fine. Some games are fairly inaccessible for that reason, which is fine and also a legitimate criticism, even if you believe the result is worth that particular drawback. See: Monster hunter for instance.
However, if you want to use that argument, you must take care to frame it in such a way that you do not sound condescending, because otherwise you both hurt your argument and become hostile in the space of the discourse.
We've seen examples on both sides of appropriate in this thread let's just try and keep it on the good one.
Also, to be honest this discussion, at least the parts that weren't actively hostile to someone, has piqued my interest. Where would I look for a good, in depth look at TTA?
Gave the Pandemic Legacy Season 2 Prologue a run tonight. Takes a minute to get used to what you need to do and the weird Infection deck is especially treacherous as mentioned, but we're ready to start the campaign proper next week I think.
But first we had to put Battle for Hogwarts to rest. Game 7 defeated us yet again, but we felt like we were making good progress. Decided to give it one more shot... and obliterated it. Never lost the first location (which helps; only getting one Dark Arts flip a turn is so much easier). We were unloading truly ridiculous amounts of damage; Ron one-shotted the Basilisk, Neville finished off both Quirrell and Crabbe/Goyle on the same turn*, and I was able to deliver 9 damage to Voldemort in one turn after dispatching his last shield that same turn. Once we were down to just Voldy I said "if we lose from this position I am burning this game."
*
And then wasted the rest of his built-up Bolts since we still had Horcruxes left and Voldemort was the only villain.
You know, I was wondering what the ideal board game mechanic to represent Dragonball-level shouting is.
I could see some sort of adaptation of the Paint the Line escalation being used, playing cards back and forth to increase power and either a dice roll or some other mechanic that would trigger the actual attack before another build up. Even better if it's all tongue in cheek and broken down into silly things like poses or syllables of screams.
Finally got my 1.5 KDM upgrade pack...odd since i never got a shipping notification...but not complaining. such a nice box, and the upgrades for the hunt boards are really nice.
If only they could ship out people to play the damn game with...
Hoorah! My Kingdom Death 1.5 update pack also arrived.
Looking at the changes to saviours I'm not so sure I want to upgrade any more! They did rather steal all the oxygen from the room before though, I can see they needed to change.
I'll have to dive in and see how feasible a mid-campaign upgrade is, but it looks doable.
Do I retroactively award myself bonuses like the extra level 2 antelope kill spoils though...?
So Queen Games, after swearing up and down that Merlin and The Pioneers offered in their last KS would not be available again in that form, just launched another KS selling the exact same fucking shit, just focusing on the mini-expansions with the games as an add-on.
Not to mention, all the games were already printed for their previous KS, they shipped stuff immediately. They weren't trying to raise funds at all; all they wanted was to fuck over distributors and game stores.
I forget which game soured me to them, but I vividly know I swore off kickstarting anything by them.
I don't even understand why larger companies use Kickstarter anymore. Is it that hard/expensive to throw up a store front?
Just run a pre-order system, or copy P500 and list how many pre-orders need to be placed before it gets printed.
I forget which game soured me to them, but I vividly know I swore off kickstarting anything by them.
I don't even understand why larger companies use Kickstarter anymore. Is it that hard/expensive to throw up a store front?
Just run a pre-order system, or copy P500 and list how many pre-orders need to be placed before it gets printed.
It's not that hard or expensive, but having risk-free interest-free financing for your next print run is a pretty sweet fucking deal regardless.
I forget which game soured me to them, but I vividly know I swore off kickstarting anything by them.
I don't even understand why larger companies use Kickstarter anymore. Is it that hard/expensive to throw up a store front?
Just run a pre-order system, or copy P500 and list how many pre-orders need to be placed before it gets printed.
It's not that hard or expensive, but having risk-free interest-free financing for your next print run is a pretty sweet fucking deal regardless.
... and also, Kickstarters come with HYPE ENGINES that likely drive preorders higher than they otherwise would have been.
Yeah, from their perspective, Kickstarter is a really good, proven, all in one platform for running a preorder marketing campaign, so why go to the extra effort?
Yeah, from their perspective, Kickstarter is a really good, proven, all in one platform for running a preorder marketing campaign, so why go to the extra effort?
And it's not even a pre-order.! They shipped stuff out immediately, they;re just using it as a storefront now while lying about the stuff ever being available again.
Isn't that in violation of Kickstarter's ToS or something? Or is there some loophole that technically lets them call it a new project (even though all the stuff is done and ready to go)?
Isn't that in violation of Kickstarter's ToS or something? Or is there some loophole that technically lets them call it a new project (even though all the stuff is done and ready to go)?
If it is, KS wouldn't do anything about it. They're as bad as Twitter in enforcing any kind of policy. Besides someone would have to prove it and really who would bother?
Yeah, from their perspective, Kickstarter is a really good, proven, all in one platform for running a preorder marketing campaign, so why go to the extra effort?
And it's not even a pre-order.! They shipped stuff out immediately, they;re just using it as a storefront now while lying about the stuff ever being available again.
ARGH ALL MY HATE GLANDS ARE FIRING AT ONCE
I empathize with your anger, but....aren't you singlehandedly propping up the entire Kickstarter board game market?
Sit amongst your towers of Kickstarted board games and meditate on the failures of capitalism, comrade!
Yeah, from their perspective, Kickstarter is a really good, proven, all in one platform for running a preorder marketing campaign, so why go to the extra effort?
And it's not even a pre-order.! They shipped stuff out immediately, they;re just using it as a storefront now while lying about the stuff ever being available again.
ARGH ALL MY HATE GLANDS ARE FIRING AT ONCE
I empathize with your anger, but....aren't you singlehandedly propping up the entire Kickstarter board game market?
Sit amongst your towers of Kickstarted board games and meditate on the failures of capitalism, comrade!
... contemplate it on the Kickstarter Limited Edition Tree of Woe.
So Queen Games, after swearing up and down that Merlin and The Pioneers offered in their last KS would not be available again in that form, just launched another KS selling the exact same fucking shit, just focusing on the mini-expansions with the games as an add-on.
Not to mention, all the games were already printed for their previous KS, they shipped stuff immediately. They weren't trying to raise funds at all; all they wanted was to fuck over distributors and game stores.
God I hate them.
Given how often that its the distributors doing the fucking over of the content creators, I find it hard to think this was a terrible idea. Look at Gloomhaven. Distributors knew they could not handle the number of pre-orders from the game stores they were letting happen and then the producers of the game were the ones looking bad because they did not meet the demand dispite them having a set quantity of product to distrubte from the kickstarter.
Stercus, Stercus, Stercus, Morituri Sum
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Yeah, from their perspective, Kickstarter is a really good, proven, all in one platform for running a preorder marketing campaign, so why go to the extra effort?
And it's not even a pre-order.! They shipped stuff out immediately, they;re just using it as a storefront now while lying about the stuff ever being available again.
ARGH ALL MY HATE GLANDS ARE FIRING AT ONCE
I empathize with your anger, but....aren't you singlehandedly propping up the entire Kickstarter board game market?
Sit amongst your towers of Kickstarted board games and meditate on the failures of capitalism, comrade!
*The second pillar upon which Kickstarter's tabletop games division rests waves sadly*
So Queen Games, after swearing up and down that Merlin and The Pioneers offered in their last KS would not be available again in that form, just launched another KS selling the exact same fucking shit, just focusing on the mini-expansions with the games as an add-on.
Not to mention, all the games were already printed for their previous KS, they shipped stuff immediately. They weren't trying to raise funds at all; all they wanted was to fuck over distributors and game stores.
God I hate them.
Given how often that its the distributors doing the fucking over of the content creators, I find it hard to think this was a terrible idea. Look at Gloomhaven. Distributors knew they could not handle the number of pre-orders from the game stores they were letting happen and then the producers of the game were the ones looking bad because they did not meet the demand dispite them having a set quantity of product to distrubte from the kickstarter.
I'm not that upset they use it as a pre-order system, more at how often they lie during the fund raising and fail to deliver a massive amount of stuff.
But if that's what you're doing, say so. Very few people care. Don't invent these elaborate lies that you yourself disprove in the space of a few weeks.
0
Options
GuibsWeekend WarriorSomewhere up North.Registered Userregular
I see your point and TTA would not be a game for you. It won't take you by the hand and play for you. All of those things you mention, are part of the game and to be good, you need to be able to strategize and plan for them and learn to deal with them.
There is a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking snowball mechanics that allow players in the lead to create a greater lead for themselves. There's also a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking an inability to go back and fix your mistakes, even if it's at cost.
It's pretty aggressive to tell someone a game isn't for them because it doesn't "take you by the hand and play for you," especially when that's not even remotely the complaint being levied.
What the hell warrent this comment? I don't see where how my comment can be classified has aggressive. I'm just stating a fact. It wasn't meant to degrate HamHamJ, it was to mention that the game is hard and it's not great for new comer who aren't good at it. I'm even stating I'm not great at it either.
I'm getting tired of over senstive people assuming meanings to words they have not written in negative and personal attacks all the time.
mysticjuicer[he/him] I'm a muscle wizardand I cast P U N C HRegistered Userregular
edited November 2017
"X won't hold your hand or play for you" is hard to read as a neutral comment in English, especially over text where tone is especially difficult to read.
I see your point and TTA would not be a game for you. It won't take you by the hand and play for you. All of those things you mention, are part of the game and to be good, you need to be able to strategize and plan for them and learn to deal with them.
There is a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking snowball mechanics that allow players in the lead to create a greater lead for themselves. There's also a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking an inability to go back and fix your mistakes, even if it's at cost.
It's pretty aggressive to tell someone a game isn't for them because it doesn't "take you by the hand and play for you," especially when that's not even remotely the complaint being levied.
What the hell warrent this comment? I don't see where how my comment can be classified has aggressive. I'm just stating a fact. It wasn't meant to degrate HamHamJ, it was to mention that the game is hard and it's not great for new comer who aren't good at it. I'm even stating I'm not great at it either.
I'm getting tired of over senstive people assuming meanings to words they have not written in negative and personal attacks all the time.
You're being pretty aggressive and a real silly goose. If people are constantly telling you that you are coming off as aggressive then you should reflect on how you communicate.
I see your point and TTA would not be a game for you. It won't take you by the hand and play for you. All of those things you mention, are part of the game and to be good, you need to be able to strategize and plan for them and learn to deal with them.
There is a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking snowball mechanics that allow players in the lead to create a greater lead for themselves. There's also a difference between wanting a game to play itself for you and not liking an inability to go back and fix your mistakes, even if it's at cost.
It's pretty aggressive to tell someone a game isn't for them because it doesn't "take you by the hand and play for you," especially when that's not even remotely the complaint being levied.
What the hell warrent this comment? I don't see where how my comment can be classified has aggressive. I'm just stating a fact. It wasn't meant to degrate HamHamJ, it was to mention that the game is hard and it's not great for new comer who aren't good at it. I'm even stating I'm not great at it either.
I'm getting tired of over senstive people assuming meanings to words they have not written in negative and personal attacks all the time.
When you say "[The game] won't take you by the hand and play for you", it's very possible that you mean something like:
"The game will push you to your limit, and will require you to work as hard as you possibly can; if you do so, the depth and breadth of the game will open up to you, and you'll see what's so cool about it; however, if you don't put in the sweat, you won't see as much of a reward, either."
However, when other people see "[The game] won't take you by the hand and play for you", I suspect that they interpret it as:
"You're intellectually lazy, and therefore unwilling to delve into the depths this game offers. It sounds like you need something that doesn't require input from you, and will play itself without your involvement. Maybe Ludo."
(I suspect this because that's how I interpreted it when I saw it.)
I believe that your intent is completely innocent, but the phrase "[x] won't hold your hand" is used in like 90% of cases to disparage someone, to imply that they're either a baby or dumb, and can't handle Complex And Sophistcated things. So, even if you don't intend for people to read it that way, it's hard to avoid. Phrases have associations, and this one's isn't very positive.
Is Kingdom Death worth the 400 MSRP? I was thinking of getting into Shadespire, but some last minute temptation coming from KD.
Maybe, but probably not unless you really want it.
Pointers towards yes:
The miniatures are cool, so if you like building and painting them, that's a plus.
It's got a legitimately solid AI system I haven't seen elsewhere.
There are extra little modules to add on.
It has equipment, and the equipment matters, in a way that similar games like Descent don't do as well.
Pointers towards no:
Are you well-fixed for multiplayer co-ops already? If yes, stick with those - it's a big time-consuming game and won't play nicely with any others you're involved in. Gloomhaven killed it for me.
Sometimes it just kicks you in the teeth on a single die roll and that's a bummer.
$400 is a lot!
The mechanics for the players really aren't that interesting.
The art style is Clive Barker's ideas meet Akira / anime generally and that doesn't work for everyone.
I'd actually really enjoy Kingdom Death I think, but it's just impossible to justify $400 for a co-op dungeon crawler for me. Especially because the $400 doesn't come with all the extra add ons.
Here's hoping that in 8 years everyone decides they hate it and there are a bunch of copies on ebay I can pick up cheap.
Posts
One side effect of that is if two people of differing skill levels play the lower skill player is going to get stomped. EG: all of the "problems" that ham mentioned aren't problems if everyone is making mistakes of comparable severity. But if you have one player who isn't making such simple mistakes then yeah they are going to utterly crush the other players.
So it's not a party game. And it's not a game where randomness is going to let someone win despite worse plays. And there is a bit of an issue in that it is a game that can just break people with analyses paralyses. Such people can ruin many games but especially this one.
Or several. Eaten over many hours of Twilight Imperium.
Many hours? Why such a short game of TI?
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
We break for lunch, but generally have a game done in 6 hours. Might change for TI:4
I mean, if they had issues with the design being too difficult or limited which were mitigated by other strategies and considerations, then this is a valid response and isn't calling another person dumb. It depends on what their actual issues were. I have definitely had conversations where someone complained about not liking a game because of a certain quirk of the strategy, but they hadn't considered a certain tactic which I suggested. I wasn't calling them dumb either!
Not every defense of a complicated or difficult game is condescension. I will agree that saying that 'the game doesn't play for you' is not an example of that, but I think you're swinging too far the other way. Some games are designed to be very complicated and with dense strategies, and you're not going to get everything about them in one or even a couple plays.
You might not say to watch better, but you might talk about certain aspects of the movie they might have missed, like any deeper meaning to certain lines or scenes, repeated themes, small aspects of the mise-en-scene that are easy to miss. There's a reason why critical analysis is a thing, and it's because not all meaning or quality in a work is inherently obvious.
for that to be an even remotely applicable analogy you would imagine the reaction to someone saying "The Empire Strikes Back isn't all that great because Captain Kirk could have just used that go-back-in-time-around-the-sun trick to rescue Han when he was captured by Daenerys Targaryen". A lot of people come up with bad impressions of games because they really just didn't understand something. Often because they were taught wrong or the rulebook was unclear (both very common).
However, if you want to use that argument, you must take care to frame it in such a way that you do not sound condescending, because otherwise you both hurt your argument and become hostile in the space of the discourse.
We've seen examples on both sides of appropriate in this thread let's just try and keep it on the good one.
Also, to be honest this discussion, at least the parts that weren't actively hostile to someone, has piqued my interest. Where would I look for a good, in depth look at TTA?
But first we had to put Battle for Hogwarts to rest. Game 7 defeated us yet again, but we felt like we were making good progress. Decided to give it one more shot... and obliterated it. Never lost the first location (which helps; only getting one Dark Arts flip a turn is so much easier). We were unloading truly ridiculous amounts of damage; Ron one-shotted the Basilisk, Neville finished off both Quirrell and Crabbe/Goyle on the same turn*, and I was able to deliver 9 damage to Voldemort in one turn after dispatching his last shield that same turn. Once we were down to just Voldy I said "if we lose from this position I am burning this game."
*
You know, I was wondering what the ideal board game mechanic to represent Dragonball-level shouting is.
Reads like it's King of Dragonball to me.
Reports?
Also does anyone have an opinion on the DLC scenarios?
I could see some sort of adaptation of the Paint the Line escalation being used, playing cards back and forth to increase power and either a dice roll or some other mechanic that would trigger the actual attack before another build up. Even better if it's all tongue in cheek and broken down into silly things like poses or syllables of screams.
If only they could ship out people to play the damn game with...
Looking at the changes to saviours I'm not so sure I want to upgrade any more! They did rather steal all the oxygen from the room before though, I can see they needed to change.
I'll have to dive in and see how feasible a mid-campaign upgrade is, but it looks doable.
Do I retroactively award myself bonuses like the extra level 2 antelope kill spoils though...?
Not to mention, all the games were already printed for their previous KS, they shipped stuff immediately. They weren't trying to raise funds at all; all they wanted was to fuck over distributors and game stores.
God I hate them.
I don't even understand why larger companies use Kickstarter anymore. Is it that hard/expensive to throw up a store front?
Just run a pre-order system, or copy P500 and list how many pre-orders need to be placed before it gets printed.
It's not that hard or expensive, but having risk-free interest-free financing for your next print run is a pretty sweet fucking deal regardless.
... and also, Kickstarters come with HYPE ENGINES that likely drive preorders higher than they otherwise would have been.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
And it's not even a pre-order.! They shipped stuff out immediately, they;re just using it as a storefront now while lying about the stuff ever being available again.
ARGH ALL MY HATE GLANDS ARE FIRING AT ONCE
If it is, KS wouldn't do anything about it. They're as bad as Twitter in enforcing any kind of policy. Besides someone would have to prove it and really who would bother?
I empathize with your anger, but....aren't you singlehandedly propping up the entire Kickstarter board game market?
Sit amongst your towers of Kickstarted board games and meditate on the failures of capitalism, comrade!
... contemplate it on the Kickstarter Limited Edition Tree of Woe.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Given how often that its the distributors doing the fucking over of the content creators, I find it hard to think this was a terrible idea. Look at Gloomhaven. Distributors knew they could not handle the number of pre-orders from the game stores they were letting happen and then the producers of the game were the ones looking bad because they did not meet the demand dispite them having a set quantity of product to distrubte from the kickstarter.
*The second pillar upon which Kickstarter's tabletop games division rests waves sadly*
I'm not that upset they use it as a pre-order system, more at how often they lie during the fund raising and fail to deliver a massive amount of stuff.
But if that's what you're doing, say so. Very few people care. Don't invent these elaborate lies that you yourself disprove in the space of a few weeks.
What the hell warrent this comment? I don't see where how my comment can be classified has aggressive. I'm just stating a fact. It wasn't meant to degrate HamHamJ, it was to mention that the game is hard and it's not great for new comer who aren't good at it. I'm even stating I'm not great at it either.
I'm getting tired of over senstive people assuming meanings to words they have not written in negative and personal attacks all the time.
PSN: Guibs25 | XboxLive: Guibs | Steam: Guibsx | Twitch: Guibsx
You're being pretty aggressive and a real silly goose. If people are constantly telling you that you are coming off as aggressive then you should reflect on how you communicate.
"The game will push you to your limit, and will require you to work as hard as you possibly can; if you do so, the depth and breadth of the game will open up to you, and you'll see what's so cool about it; however, if you don't put in the sweat, you won't see as much of a reward, either."
However, when other people see "[The game] won't take you by the hand and play for you", I suspect that they interpret it as:
"You're intellectually lazy, and therefore unwilling to delve into the depths this game offers. It sounds like you need something that doesn't require input from you, and will play itself without your involvement. Maybe Ludo."
(I suspect this because that's how I interpreted it when I saw it.)
I believe that your intent is completely innocent, but the phrase "[x] won't hold your hand" is used in like 90% of cases to disparage someone, to imply that they're either a baby or dumb, and can't handle Complex And Sophistcated things. So, even if you don't intend for people to read it that way, it's hard to avoid. Phrases have associations, and this one's isn't very positive.
Maybe, but probably not unless you really want it.
Pointers towards yes:
The miniatures are cool, so if you like building and painting them, that's a plus.
It's got a legitimately solid AI system I haven't seen elsewhere.
There are extra little modules to add on.
It has equipment, and the equipment matters, in a way that similar games like Descent don't do as well.
Pointers towards no:
Are you well-fixed for multiplayer co-ops already? If yes, stick with those - it's a big time-consuming game and won't play nicely with any others you're involved in. Gloomhaven killed it for me.
Sometimes it just kicks you in the teeth on a single die roll and that's a bummer.
$400 is a lot!
The mechanics for the players really aren't that interesting.
The art style is Clive Barker's ideas meet Akira / anime generally and that doesn't work for everyone.
Here's hoping that in 8 years everyone decides they hate it and there are a bunch of copies on ebay I can pick up cheap.