Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...

 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
They do. Enemies get the -1 to hit. But AV, LV and WE are to big to gain a cover save. Same reason why Tanks, Titans etc don't gain it.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Tanks, Titans etc gain -1 to hit, but don't gain actual saves.

Neither should Tyranid large creatures, but they should also gain the same -1 to hit as is enjoyed by their steel counterparts.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here BL/

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Thats exactly that why i'm trying to say?

And my proposal:
All Tyranids should move like infantry but be shot at like the unit type they are.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 28 2007,20:06)
QUOTE
I tend to ignore the 'large tyranid infantry' rule as just another example of the lack of models amongst playtesters influencing the army list's development.

As in I literally ignore the rule, and base my 'large' infantry 3 to a base, as is allowed in the standard rules.

The Lictor models are simply too big for that. ?How big are the bases you are putting 3 Lictors on? ?Must be huge, or look odd.

I used 7/8" (22mm) round fender washers for all of my 'Nid Infantry (square and rectangle bases just didn't have that "wave of bugs" feel to me, and I like that I can stick them nicely in a magnetic carrying case). ?4 Termagaunts are crowded on it. ?3 Hormagaunts, Warriors, Gargoyles, or Genestealers look pretty good on them. ?1 Lictor looks great. ?3 wouldn't even fit, unless maybe they were all at the edge facing inward.

I like the Large 'Nid Infantry rule. ?Not only does it mean I can make an army that looks nice, with single Lictors, but I don't have to buy 30 Sprues at $20 each or whatever they go for now in order to field my Lictors.

But the idea of making them LV's intrigues me.

Picture this: ?Lictors as LV's with a 4+ RA save.

So, they are vulnerable to ANY weapon (AP or AT/MW/TK), and cannot get a save from being in cover, but the good RA save represents their Chameleonic Scales, and they still get the -1 to hit for being in cover.

Interesting. ?The Dangerous Terrain tests are an inconsistency, but not a huge one, since its very rarely going to happen (1-in-36 to roll double 1's, yes?). ?If it did happen, you could always just assume the Lictor found something much more interesting to do and wandered off... ? :D

As far as packs of Lictors not representing the fluff, well, again. ?Don't get "locked in" the midset that everything must translate from fluff or 40k 1-for-1.

I mean, think about it...Lictors are often seeded onto worlds long before the Hive Fleet ever even arrives, yes? ?Well, what happens to those Lictors AFTER the invasion is underway?

I would think the Hive Mind would do what it is singularly best at: ?Adapt, Mutate, Reorganize. ?So it comes up with a NEW use for it's Lictors. ?Hence the Epic rules.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The Lictor models are simply too big for that.  How big are the bases you are putting 3 Lictors on?  Must be huge, or look odd.


Well, you have to convert the lictor's bigger claws (The clip-on ones), but then you have to do the same conversion to get them to look like 40k lictors in the first place...


I don't have to buy 30 Sprues at $20 each or whatever they go for now in order to field my Lictors.
As I said when I raised the topic, this is the only reason the 'large infantry' rule exists, as far as I'm concerned.


I find the LV proposal interesting, because it removes Lictors from the 'large infantry' category, for one thing.

Not sure if they genuinely qualify as LV's, however.





_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm
Posts: 85

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 28 2007,23:56)
QUOTE
I find the LV proposal interesting, because it removes Lictors from the 'large infantry' category, for one thing.

Not sure if they genuinely qualify as LV's, however.

Well, if Biovores and Zoanthropes can be LV's, Lictors should qualify.   :;):

But, again...don't get locked into the fluff/40k mindset.  LV status might be very appropriate for Lictors from a game mechanics standpoint.  If it works (not saying it does) to represent their abilities, then everything else is of little or no concern.

So, you Lictors arise from the terrain at the bidding of the Hive Mind, who desires obliteration of that artillery company over there (Teleport).  They are spotted by the Infantry and Tanks roaming through the ruins to the east as they approach, and the frail humans open fire with everything they have.  (Light Vehicles).  Numerous "hits" are scored, but the meat-things are shooting at shadows (4+ RA).  Only a couple of the Lictors drop, and the rest make it to the intended target, where they tear apart a few vehicles.  The humans pull back, only to open up on the Lictors with more powerful weaponry (MW attacks), which fells another one or two of the Lictors.  The remainder fall back to the shelter of a nearby forest to await the Hive Mind Imperative again.

Might be very interesting, and work very well.  Don't sweat if the Lictors should be classed as LV's or INF or whatever.  If the mechanics work, the mechanics work, and the rest is semantics.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 28 2007,23:56)
QUOTE
I find the LV proposal interesting, because it removes Lictors from the 'large infantry' category, for one thing.

I have to laugh...

This was another proposal I suggested when I started doing the list and it too was shot down.  *laugh*

One thing with Lictors being LVs... they can't enter Buildings or Jungle, which is wrong, in my opinion...

I *also* suggested a special ability, agility, that allowed Tyranids with it to be treated as infantry for terrain movement purposes (in a nutshell, there was a bit more to it), but that was another one shot down...

So, seems we've almost entered that Tau zone of "Everything gets brought up again eventually"... *laugh*

Keep discussing gentlemen (and ladies!)...

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 28 2007,20:06)
QUOTE
I tend to ignore the 'large tyranid infantry' rule as just another example of the lack of models amongst playtesters influencing the army list's development.

That's precisely why it's there... and it's not a special rule, it's modelling advice!  *laugh*

Since it looks like we'll never be seeing the Tyranid sprues again, we need to stretch them as much as possible, and it has no real effect on game play anyway.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:37 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9539
Location: Worcester, MA

(Kagetora @ Oct. 28 2007,13:41)
QUOTE
Ok, explain to me how the following is the best AA in the game:

I pay 25 points every time I cause a hit, and for that hit, I recieve a Blast Marker, AND lose a Unit from the Formation.  I can get that Unit back, but it costs double the Brood Points of any comparable Unit.

Not to mention that the Aircraft eithe get an Armor Save, or a Jink Save (even for free after their attack run).

Additionally, using my AA prevents me from advancing my Tyranid Swarm at March Speed.

And you think that somehow compares to MW5+ AA on every Feral Ork unit, 6xAA4+ for a group of Firestorms, or a bazillion shots at AA6+ from dirt-cheap Ork Flawagons?  Please.  Not to mention most lists can have their own Aircraft on CAP and also have incidental AA fire from some units.

No, I think that would be pretty far from the best AA in the game.  Pretty far indeed.

True you'll loose the unit, but the BM won't do much to a Tyranid unit. As to the 2 brood cost, that's still a pittance for what you get, considering the upgrade of a AA3+ attack. There would be no point spawning a 'gant back when I could take half as many gargoyles with that kind of AA power.

Not to mention, the AA coverage would be ridiculous. Given even a moderately sized swarm you could probably cover a 1/6 of a tourney table with 4 Gargoyles with a 30cm range, and all for 100 points. Personally, I wouldn't bother taking 'gants when for 25 more points I could take Gargoyles.

As to your comparisons, look at the point costs there. 50 points for Wyrdboy, 175 for the Firestorms, and 35 for the flakwagons. Normalizing to 350 points you get...

Gargoyles: 9.33 hits
Firestorms: 6 hits
Wyrdboys: 2.3 hits
Flakwagons: 1.67 hits

The only thing that comes close when you take range into account are the Firestorms, and you can't take those in every formation like you can with Gargoyles.

That's what I meant when I said best AA in the game. Huge coverage, and lots of hits.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:07 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Kagetora @ Oct. 28 2007,17:21)
QUOTE
But, all of that said, I think the Carnifex is appropriately done in the Epic list, purely from a standpoint of game-balance.  But don't kid yourself...they definitely don't match their fluff OR their abilities in 40k.

So why is that such a big concern with the Lictor?

Is the Lictor better than in 40k?  Perhaps.  Thats debatable, IMO.  So, what would you propose doing with him?  Nerfing the crap out of his attacks?  Losing the MW?

What is he then...nothing but a Genestealer that Teleports.  How does THAT fit the fluff/40k mold?  It doesn't.  And all that will do is turn him from an all-or-nothing unit into a nothing-or-nothing unit.  I don't think thats the way to go.

And if he doesn't Teleport anymore, how does THAT represent a Lictor's stealth and ranging far ahead of the lines?  Again, it doesn't.  So do we come up with more Special Rules for them?  I thought we were trying to avoid that.

As for packs of Lictors roaming the fields, well, theres ZERO choice there.  Either you include them as packs, or you don't include them at all.  You can't have single individual Lictors roaming the battlefields, or it becomes an Activation nightmare.  Not to mention they would never actually DO anything.

Not everything can be a direct, 1-to-1 correlation between Epic, 40k, and the Fluff.  They are three different things, and, within the framework of the Epic rules, you have to do the best you can to represent these other two factors.

I think that has been done in the case of the Lictors.

Lets look at the main points of contention:

Deployability:  Lictors are supposed to be far ahead of the lines, wreaking havoc and sowing confusion.  Unless you make up a new Special Rule, Teleport is all we have to work with.  Thats it.  Deal with it.

Swarms of Lictors:  Again, in the Epic Mechanics, you can't have cheap individuals roaming freely.  Too many Activations.  Lictors are supposed to be "lone hunters," and I think that very small Swarms (2-5 or 2-6) in very limited numbers (0-2), combined with the Scout rule, represents this as well as can be expected with existing Epic rules.

All-or-Nothing:  That is always going to be the nature of Deep Striking, Teleporting, Planetfalling, Air-Assaulting units that drop in far from support.  Thats actually their PURPOSE, IMO...can you earn back their points and take out an important target before you lose them?  Its what they do, plain and simple.

Defensive Power:  Well, +2 Cover Saves is really cool in 40k, but unwieldy in Epic.  Remember, he IS only T4 with a 5+ armor save.  I think a 5+ RA save would be cool, but the 6+ Inv save really represents those "where the hell is it" chameleonic scales as well.  I'm on the fence here.  I could go either way on this issue.

Offensive Power:  Well, a Lictor is generally better than a Genestealer OR a Warrior (Strength 6!, Rending Claws, Scything Talons) in close combat, although not as good as an MC.  I definitely believe a single MW attack is warranted in addition to its normal attack.  Again, its a matter of Epic rules:

Hormagaunt:  1 normal attack.
Genestealer:  2 normal attacks.
Warrior:  2 normal attacks + a ranged attack
Lictor:  1 normal attack, 1 MW attack (S6 Rending Claws)

That is a VERY logical progression.  But then the poor Carnifex gets stuck not going up a rung on the ladder.  Thats NOT the Lictor's fault.  Maybe Carnifex should be more expensive and get 2 MW attacks.  Or, at the very least, a 4+ RA save back.  They are supposed to be hard to kill, after all.  Make them a slower Haruspex with 1 MW attack instead of 2.  It returns to the logical progression...Gaunt, Stealer, Warrior/Lictor, Fex (same as a Lictor with much better armor), Spex, and then onto the WE's.

But all of that is pure Epic Game Mechanics, and, as I said, its a logical and useful progression.  Nothing is generally overpowered if it is point-costed correctly.  Perhaps 3 Carnifex should cost 125 points but come with a 4+ RA save.

Honestly...if I had designed these rules originally, thats exactly the route I would have taken.  I would first strive to emulate the fluff/40k rules as closely as I could within the framework of the Epic Rules, then I would have simply worried about appropriate point costs, NOT stats.

When you start reversing the process (i.e. looking at costs then nerfing to match them, instead of raising costs to match abilities), well, thats where this entire Epic Rules Review process bogs down into oblivion, if you ask me.

Keep it simple.

Still, all of that said, I can't guarantee that, if I had written the original file, I would have given the Lictors a MW attack, despite the fact that I think its appropriate.

I might have gone with +2 normal attacks instead, giving them 3 total.  Again, a step above Genestealers, on Par with Warriors (losing a ranged attack for another CC attack), a notch below Fex.  But I would have made the Fex better, as I described above, as well.  3+ save just doesn't do the "living battering ram" justice, especially when everything that is usually around him has a better save (Haruspex, Tyrants, etc.).

I understand what you are saying about the "all-or-nothing" thing, I really do.  I'm just not sure its actually a PROBLEM.   :;):

If it really is, and everyone else agrees with you that it is, then I'd go along these routes:

Lictor:  0-2 Swarms, 2-5 per Swarm

Inf, 15cm move, 4+ save, CC3+, FF -, Scything Talons (Base Contact Range, Assault Weapon, +2 Attacks), Special:  First Strike, Infiltrator, Scout, Teleport, Reinforced Armor, Independent.

That makes them harder to kill (as you mentioned was a problem), meaning 25% die to normal fire, 50% to MW fire, and 100% to TK fire, and reduces their offensive capabilities quite a bit (enemy RA gets both saves, enemy INF get cover saves, etc.).  A 5+ RA save probably won't be enough...thats a 50% kill ratio from normal AP fire, 67% from MW fire, and 100% from TK fire.  I'm not sure thats resilient enough for what you want, i.e. giving them more survivability.  OTOH, 4+ RA might make people whine, despite it being appropriate.

That should significantly reduce the "all-or-nothing" issue.  But, again, I'm not convinced its a problem.

Man...if adding Special Rules wasn't actually an issue, I'd add TWO to these buggers.

1)  MUST Teleport into Cover
2)  +2 on any Cover Save they make, Always counts as being in Cover even if in the open (-1 to hit, 5+ Cover Save)

But even THAT doesn't work as well as it should, because in Epic, unlike in 40k, MW shots IGNORE cover saves, as opposed to only GETTING a save vs such weapons if you are in cover.  Goofy.  And just another example of how you shouldn't get too locked into the mindset of how everything must be a direct conversion from 40k or Fluff to Epic.

Actually, yes in 40k a lictor is basically just teleporting GS/Warriors - definitely not a carnifex. You are vastly overestimating the importance of an extra ST point or two over those GS and Warriors. The important thing is the rending which both GS and Warriors typically have (and both of those can and often do have scything talons by the way). All three are all about rending - you roll a 6 with an attack you ignore armour saves or roll extra penetration. If not you're just clubbing hard targets ineffectually no matter whether your GS, Warrior, or Lictor. A 1 in 6 chance is nothing to get carried away about.

Not so with monstrous creatures they are automatically ignoring armour saves, rolling double penetration and in carnis adding ST9 or 10. Thus they are well justified getting Macro-weapon attacks, unlike a Lictor (or genestealers, or warriors).

A typical tactical squad will swat a Lictor without blinking they are not that powerful.

In terms of numbers for combat potential, it depends to a small degree on the target type, but 3 CC warriors easily equals if not surpasses 2 lictors. 5 genestealers the same (even genestealers without extra upgrades).


Next point - no 'long ranged fire' exists in 40k (it's all CC FF), so you cannot easily just compare 40k and Epic.  However even in 40k - when a Lictor arrives it's looking at having a 3+ auto save against crack missiles and other badness (only flamer type weapons ignore their auto cover save). I've seen entire 40k armies waste buckets of heavy firepower unsuccessfully trying to take out Lictors, and in EA it's only the long range heavy firepower that is actually shooting in the shooting phase (not the small arms like bolters) . Not just that but they are shooting at greater distances and with arguably much greater problems seeing a camoflaged Lictor than they would have in 40k. That changes the situation even more. Thus extra protection against shooting is well justified, to go with less combat potential.

In terms of combat potential, I've said 3+ x2, or 3+MW x1. Really 4+ x2 would be absolutely fine also. On top of that a boost to armour (and much as I hate to admit it E&C or Kragetora's idea or something similar might actually be worthwhile - perhaps if enough other special rules around instinctive and spawning are stripped). It would make one highly unusual unit in the tyranid army have it's own special rule which wouldn't be too bad for a list (thinking grots in orks, several things in eldar, etc).


Regarding Carnifexes - they were downgraded for two reasons - firstly because a weaker screamer killer type carni is an option in the 40k Tryanid list, but much more importantly it was a decision taken to make the EA tyranid list more hordelike in theme (rather than an elite small collection of super bugs).  Given that -  there is absolutely no good justification to have the Lictor so much better than everything else. If anything it should be toned down below it's 40k abilities to match the rest of the lists theme. So yes something along the lines of stats you suggest, but defintely not +2 extra attacks.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
3 CC warriors easily equals if not surpasses 2 lictors.


Lictors do have higher initiative, and they'll be wounding on 2's versus the Warriors wounding the marines on 4's or 3's (If they take a strength upgrade).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:42 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Evil and Chaos @ Oct. 29 2007,08:13)
QUOTE
3 CC warriors easily equals if not surpasses 2 lictors.


Lictors do have higher initiative, and they'll be wounding on 2's versus the Warriors wounding the marines on 4's or 3's (If they take a strength upgrade).

There are numerous potential differences that could be debated all day, but the important thing is the overall picture I described not trivial details like this that don't change it at all.

Like I said it all depends on context, but suffice to say the difference you are talking about really makes no difference to the situation as I described it. Wounding on 2's vs wounding on 3's/4's, but the 3 warriors have 9(12) attacks, vs 6(8) attacks for the lictors.  And like I said it's the rending that kills the armoured stuff, if against non-armoured units your killing on 2's,  or 2's and 3's. (Not to mention the 2 Lictors would cost 160 points and the 3 warriors 120.)  

Initiative 5 on CC combat warriors vs Initiative 6 on a lictor = no difference in most game situations, ie attacking vehicles or grunts. Even marine heroes are only initiative 5 (and most will eat a lictor for breakfast by the way).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
No need to lecture me, I have a Tyranid army in 40k. :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:02 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Just clarifying what the numbers actually mean for non-40kers  :;):

Ie 2 Lictors are not any better in combat than 3 Warriors or 5 Genestealers (except for the teleport and difficulty in shooting them), in fact the opposite is often true.

40k Genestealers by the way - Initiative 6, and with 5 of them somewhere between 10(15) attacks and 15(20) attacks (if Scything Talons). Wounding on 4's or 3's vs armoured types (but once again rending more important against these), or 3's or 2's against non-armoured types.  Genestealers are truly the masters of ripping things to pieces in the 40k bug army... much hated.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Some questions on the units in the 8.4 rules...
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Markconz @ Oct. 29 2007,10:02)
QUOTE
Ie 2 Lictors are not any better in combat than 3 Warriors or 5 Genestealers (except for the teleport and difficulty in shooting them), in fact the opposite is often true.

How's this for a Lictor stand:

Lictor
Type/ Save/ CC/ FF
Inf/ 5+/ 3+/ -
Weapons/ Range/ Firepower/ Notes
Vicious Claws/ (Base Contact)/ Assault Weapons / Extra Attacks (+1), first strike, sniper
Notes: Infiltrator, Invulnerable Save, Reinforced Armour, Scout, Teleport, Independent

No MW, but they can cut through some armour with the -1 from sniper, the first strike is only on that "special attack" to represent their ambush ability, and it decreases the "fear factor" of them, the reinforced armour *and* invulnerable save makes them better survivors.

Thoughts?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net