Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback

 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:23 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
StevekCole wrote:
The Dragon car looks a bit powerful now, I'd probably cut down to one extra ff with ignore cover and maybe, maybe push to 100 points. The trouble with giving this extra attacks is it does somewhat invalidate the Bezerker car. 75 pts for 2 macro ff + 4 AP shots or 50 for the Bezerker is a no-brainer.


Yeah, when I published the dragon car I already was thinking it needed a slight debuff.

Someone did point out that the Dragon Car and the Cyclops Crucible Cannons are almost exactly the same, and in the interest of simplicity, that I should make them the same weapon.

Therefore I am considering the following:

Dragon Car: 75points

Crucible Cannon 2 x AP3+/ AT5+
Extra Attack (1) MW

Remember that Bezerker cars do something that Dragon car's can't do. The WE's are only really vulnerable in CC. They do fine in FF no matter what, with 4+ rolls and the Void shields. But CC attacks like from teleporting terminators can really ruin their day. Bezerker cars can help.

Quote:
Bezerkers, I'd either push to 75 or make it every 2nd bezerker car gives +1 CC.

Are bezerkers too weak or too powerful? If I was going to nerf the zerker car I'd lose the +1 FF first, to make it different to the Dragon car. Still going to wait as I think 50 points as it is might be ok.

Quote:
Not sure why the siege mortar is 2bp? That means you can take 3 for a 9bp macro shot at 575 points? Maybe just restrict to 1bp?


If it's 1BP you will never see anyone carry anything other than just one. This is a tricky one mainly due to the inherent wonkiness in the BP chart.

With 2 BP we get the following

No Mortar Cars: 1 template
1 Mortar Cars: 2 templates
2 Mortar Cars: 2 templates + 1 extra Blast Marker
3 Mortar Cars: 3 templates + 1 extra Blast Marker
4 Mortar Cars: 3 templates + 2 extra Blast Marker

The hard part is to cost them. Is a 9 BP MW shot worth 600 points? How many points is it worth? Reaver titans can take 3 Quake Cannons for 75 points each. Do any titan legion players ever field a triple quake cannon titan? The third template sounds amazing until you think that a lot of the time the formation that you need to shoot at might be small enough to fit under 1 template, especially as the game goes on.

Quote:

Rad bomb looks interesting. Though Slow to Fire could be countered by taking 2. Though that's 450 points and you can buy a Cyclops for that so...


Yeah already checked that one. You can try to make a Land Train into a Cyclops but it will be both less effective (in terms of number of TK hit and short range) and also more expensive.

The Rad Car seems to be working just fine in that you might want one or two, but any more than that you're better off taking a Cyclops.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:24 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Of course I have a lot to say about these ideas but I'll start with this little bit of information.
Elsaurio wrote:
The hard part is to cost them. Is a 9 BP MW shot worth 600 points? How many points is it worth? Reaver titans can take 3 Quake Cannons for 75 points each. Do any titan legion players ever field a triple quake cannon titan?

A Triple Quake Cannon Reaver will actually cost 825pts.
If the Train with 3 mortar carriages costs that much then fine. If not...

11BP MW is crazy. Auto brakes 3DC WE's without even scratching them.
Make them 1BP and reduce the cost. Balance must win out here.

*If Squats want artillery, they can take Goliaths.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1156
Onyx and I for once are in agreement. 11bp mw is hugely powerful. The nearest comparison unit is the Epic UK Majoris which for 550 points can take 6 one shot 2bp mw each indirect fire missiles. So better cos of indirect but limited to a max of 6 templates over 3-4 turns whereas in a 4 turn game the land train could fire 12 templates. Don't forget this also means you're almost certainly going to be able to hit 2 units with each shot so before casualties you're laying down 6bm. Also the Majoris is DC 4 5+ reinforced, 10cm move, 4 void shield, 5+ ff & CC, has a couple of lascannons and dies in a critical so essentially it's a super vulnerable static platform (which activates on a 1+). The land train is 100 points more but way more robust and faster with a better fire output.

_________________
Image


Last edited by StevekCole on Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:17 pm
Posts: 119
Location: Toronto, Canada
Elsaurio wrote:
taiaha wrote:
2) Most (all?) other lists dont allow a WE to transport units from a different formation (with the exception of Aircraft). I did see a reason for that on these boards somewhere, but can't find it now. That might invalidate the Leviathan option as a stand-alone WE?


That is a fair comment to chase up on. The Cadian one has a note that says that the attached Leviathan can only carry units in its own formation. As for the independent Leviathan, we've had one right up to 1.4, and never heard of a major complaints. That's not to say there isn't a broken trick somewhere that I don't know about. Can you dig up the thread or reason?

I found the thread that i was thinking of: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30207
I'm not sure if it applies to what we're trying to do with the Leviathan, but something to consider.
Thanks!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:21 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
taiaha wrote:
Elsaurio wrote:
taiaha wrote:
2) Most (all?) other lists dont allow a WE to transport units from a different formation (with the exception of Aircraft). I did see a reason for that on these boards somewhere, but can't find it now. That might invalidate the Leviathan option as a stand-alone WE?


That is a fair comment to chase up on. The Cadian one has a note that says that the attached Leviathan can only carry units in its own formation. As for the independent Leviathan, we've had one right up to 1.4, and never heard of a major complaints. That's not to say there isn't a broken trick somewhere that I don't know about. Can you dig up the thread or reason?

I found the thread that i was thinking of: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30207
I'm not sure if it applies to what we're trying to do with the Leviathan, but something to consider.
Thanks!

Except any war engine transport can carry units from another formation as long as the entire formation can fit inside.
There is no limit to aircraft only.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:45 pm
Posts: 64
StevekCole wrote:
The Dragon car looks a bit powerful now, I'd probably cut down to one extra ff with ignore cover and maybe, maybe push to 100 points. The trouble with giving this extra attacks is it does somewhat invalidate the Bezerker car. 75 pts for 2 macro ff + 4 AP shots or 50 for the Bezerker is a no-brainer.

Bezerkers, I'd either push to 75 or make it every 2nd bezerker car gives +1 CC.

Not sure why the siege mortar is 2bp? That means you can take 3 for a 9bp macro shot at 575 points? Maybe just restrict to 1bp?

Rad bomb looks interesting. Though Slow to Fire could be countered by taking 2. Though that's 450 points and you can buy a Cyclops for that so...


You could be right about the costing of the dragon car, but I'd like to try some of the others unchanged before making too many nerfs.

I think the berserkers giving an extra cc attack, again you could be right out a point increase.
The mortar car is highly priced, and having 2BP means you can have different builds. ( I.e 1 mortar to get the extra template, 2 two mortars for the extra blast marker, or three for the magic three macro templates.) orks can do similar with supa stompas.
Remember that to combine with the doomsday, the target will have to be in the FxF arc, so you're less likely to be able to sustain at a good target.

Aargh ... I really want to get my squats on the table so I can do less theory and more practice :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
Onyx wrote:
Of course I have a lot to say about these ideas but I'll start with this little bit of information.
Elsaurio wrote:
The hard part is to cost them. Is a 9 BP MW shot worth 600 points? How many points is it worth? Reaver titans can take 3 Quake Cannons for 75 points each. Do any titan legion players ever field a triple quake cannon titan?

A Triple Quake Cannon Reaver will actually cost 825pts.
If the Train with 3 mortar carriages costs that much then fine. If not...

11BP MW is crazy. Auto brakes 3DC WE's without even scratching them.
Make them 1BP and reduce the cost. Balance must win out here.

*If Squats want artillery, they can take Goliaths.


A Reaver with three quake cannons costs 800 points.
A Land Train with the mortar cars and one bezerker car is 650

The reaver is 20cm move, walker, higher cc and ff and has a 1+ activation. Is that worth 150 points? The higher move and activation cannot be underestimated as it really allows the war machine to get into place and fire reliably. If there was a cart that gave that benefit I'd have to price it at least 100 points.

Is the 9BP land train a bit too cheap? My gut feel is yes, but not by much more than 50 or so points

It's more to do with the barrage chart giving discontinuous benefits for a continual BP. You get your benefits at 4, 6, 8 and 10 BP with the 'big' boosts at 4 and 8.

Basically it means that Land Train engine with just 3 BP = costed about right
A land train with one mortar = a bit too cheap
A land train with two mortars = a bit too expensive
A land train with three mortars = a bit too cheap etc.

I'm happy with the three other train cars giving a continual benefit. It's just the mortar making it a bit wonky. I can see four solutions:

1) make the car 1 BP. This means you will never take more than one car

2) make the car 2 BP. This means that you can make a 9BP car that might be a touch too cheap.

3) have a different price for mortar cars depending on the number you by:
One mortar car :150 points
2nd car: 100 points
3rd car: 175 points
4th car: 100 points.

But that seems clunky.

4) We could make the cars 1.5 BP each. That might seem weird but it is not without precedent as mortars are 0.5BP each. It means that
One mortar car : 4.5 BP and the second template
Two mortar cars : 6 BP and the second blast marker
Three mortar cars: 7.5 BP and nothing
Four mortar cars: 9Bp and the magical third template

Mathematically it works out but it makes the train building even more complicated

Feedback?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:28 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
taiaha wrote:
Elsaurio wrote:
taiaha wrote:
2) Most (all?) other lists dont allow a WE to transport units from a different formation (with the exception of Aircraft). I did see a reason for that on these boards somewhere, but can't find it now. That might invalidate the Leviathan option as a stand-alone WE?


That is a fair comment to chase up on. The Cadian one has a note that says that the attached Leviathan can only carry units in its own formation. As for the independent Leviathan, we've had one right up to 1.4, and never heard of a major complaints. That's not to say there isn't a broken trick somewhere that I don't know about. Can you dig up the thread or reason?

I found the thread that i was thinking of: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30207
I'm not sure if it applies to what we're trying to do with the Leviathan, but something to consider.
Thanks!


The Leviathan when bought as a independent unit would be able to pick up any other formation. It's been allowed right up to version 1.4.

The Cadian Leviathan which is bought only as a part of a larger formation has a special rule saying it can only transport its own formation. I am assuming that rule has been put in to stop some of the potential shenanigans and hence might need to be copied across to the 'transport' squat leviathan? I'll ask the Cadian guys where that rule came from


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:31 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Elsaurio wrote:
A Reaver with three quake cannons costs 800 points.
A Land Train with the mortar cars and one bezerker car is 650

No, I was actually right.
A triple Quake Reaver is 825pts (you forgot the same weapon surcharge).
The 3 mortar train costs 600pts (I understand why you included the Berserker Car but it's not necessary in this comparison). You also forgot to mention the extra couple of Battlecannons that the train has.
There is no way that's balanced in comparison.

Option 1 is the obvious solution.

Believe me, I understand the BP chart and it's game effects after developing the Iron Warriors Ordinatus (625pts, 4DC, 4Void Shields, 10cm move, 5+RA, NOT FEARLESS, Siege gun 60cm 9BP/Disrupt/Indirect etc).
Auto-braking Warhounds without taking a shield down is just not meant to be part of the game (sure the chart goes up to 18 but it is almost never seen).

I say let the Squat player be happy with 90cm 4BP (MW) (for only 400pts) and be able to add a few other bits and pieces to the train.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:26 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
Onyx wrote:
Elsaurio wrote:
A Reaver with three quake cannons costs 800 points.
A Land Train with the mortar cars and one bezerker car is 650

No, I was actually right.
A triple Quake Reaver is 825pts (you forgot the same weapon surcharge).
The 3 mortar train costs 600pts (I understand why you included the Berserker Car but it's not necessary in this comparison). You also forgot to mention the extra couple of Battlecannons that the train has.
There is no way that's balanced in comparison.



You're right! I did forget that 25 pt surcharge on the Quake titan. I did include the bezerker cart as a chance to get both warmachines up to 6DC 4 Void shields as we are trying to do a full comparison on costs, not just the firepower, which brings the train up to 650 points. Otherwise we'll just be benefitting the glass cannon units and not getting true costs. That extra speed and activation on the Reaver has to count for something.
I think the reaver is overcosted by 25-50 points - not many people take the 3 Quake cannon setup and there must be a reason for that. I also agree the Land Train might be a bit cheaper than it should, but not by much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge proponent that this army must have a 8 or 10 BP weapon option. In fact, I personally will be taking a 1 rad, 1 mortar, 2 bezerk land tain 90% of the time. But I can't see a reason to limit the army to not having one. I think that high BP barrages look powerful on paper, but on the tabletop you find it's a lot less effective. You quickly run out of large formations that are efficient enough to fire at to make your points back.

I find that a fair few armies that do have the options for high BP barrages don't field them that often, at least not around in my meta. Ordinary old Steel Legion can put together a terrifying 18BP manticore group that even has *disrupt* for a ridiculous amount of barrage (thats 4 templates, 4 extra blast markers plus all the extra ones from the disrupt ability.) That formation can break a 10 unit Leman Russ formation in a single shot.
(Templates cover all ten, hit 5, kill at least one, 9 blast markers, broken)


Quote:
Option 1 is the obvious solution.

Believe me, I understand the BP chart and it's game effects after developing the Iron Warriors Ordinatus (625pts, 4DC, 4Void Shields, 10cm move, 5+RA, NOT FEARLESS, Siege gun 60cm 9BP/Disrupt/Indirect etc).


I hadn't had a good look at the Iron Warriors until now. (Fantastic paintjob by the way). I have to compare it to the ATML Ordinatus Mars that only costs 500 points, and yet is far better than the Iron Warriors one (10 BP wit the amazing disrupt ability again). I can only take a guess at the cost of the Ordinatus Medrengard might have something to do with the fact that it's in a list *stuffed* with a lot of other barrage weapons (I counted at least half a dozen) plus lots more long ranged weapons and units - three types of aircraft, two spacecraft, dreadclaws, teleporting terminators plus the standard hard-as-nails marines that can triple move and still fight - all on 1+ activations.

Squats have none of that. They have precisely two long range weapons - the DoomsDay and the Goliath and absolutely no other 'reach out and touch you' ability. This means that they cannot really capitalize on their barrages - they might be able to break you but they cannot strafe you down with air, or get close enough to shoot a the broken unit.


Quote:
Auto-braking Warhounds without taking a shield down is just not meant to be part of the game (sure the chart goes up to 18 but it is almost never seen).


So we're talking about the hypothetical full 11 BP 4 mortar car Train? This thing costs 725 points so you cannot take any other war engines or golaiths (see there was a reason the engine went up 25 points)

For all their speed and firepower, Warhounds are pretty fragile, especially to being broken. And if a 725 point WE shoots at them I bloody well expect the warhound to get wrecked! The warhound is going to be broken from the extra blast markers, but even if it's in the 75cm battle cannon range so it takes the full blast from the train it's unlikely to even take a scratch, and will run away for a rally attempt.

Almost every other War Engine about that size and cost is going to either destroy or break a warhound.

*quick maths*
Yep
If fired upon, a warhound is going to go down vs
425 Twin Overlords*
450 Colossus
475 Cyclops
500 Twin Warhounds
650 Standard Reaver*
800 Warlord
(Assuming 60cm range, not sustaining, rounding up, ones with * leave it broken, but alive on 1DC).

To make it's points back, the hypothetical super BP land train has to shoot and awful lot of large, tightly packed formations of high armour class space marines for 4 turns, and that's unlikely to happen that often.

Quote:
I say let the Squat player be happy with 90cm 4BP (MW) (for only 400pts) and be able to add a few other bits and pieces to the train.


And that's the real kicker. For a mere 400 points each you can take twin (Land Train + 1 Mortar + 1 Bezerker) set ups and absolutely wreck face. 2 x 4DC 2 Void shield trains, 2 x2 battle cannons and 2x2 templates worth of MW barrage. Oh and it gives you an extra activation and the ability to split fire. Taking this set up is far more efficient and powerful than the super train you called out in about 99% of situations.

That's why I'm leaning more towards the 'option 3' costing setup. It might be a little less neat, but it gives you accurate costs for what the train does. More expensive for the small version too.

Of course, this is all just theory. I'll take it all back after seeing these things ground tested.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:31 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia
Lol, ok.

You had best make sure that this list is properly play tested and that the amazing combinations are seen in the majority of the battle reports. This was a serious problem with the AMTL list and l can see it happening again. You seem to be missing the actual game impact of these super barrages. It's not just 1 formation that will be you target. In most cases you will be able to hit multiple formations with 1 barrage. I have seen this dozens of times and I'm not theoryhammering.

Just because you (as the list designer) wouldn't take the most effective builds, doesn't mean other players will be as generous.

The approval process is not just about playing 18 games with a list and then approval happens.

Oh and you forgot the amazing mole mortars in your comparison with the Iron Warriors. Artillery that can hit the entire board with disrupt barrage definetly classes as long range. I would take mole mortars over basilisks every time. Battle cannons also class as long range and there are plenty of those in the squat list. Of course there is the missiles as well.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am
Posts: 112
Location: Washington State, USA.
Onyx, it says at the bottom of your profile that you are a NetEA Rules Chair. So that must mean you have been there when squat lists were presented to the NetEA Rules team before. So this should also mean that you have an understanding of exactly why the Thurgrim list was denied in the past. Can you tell us what those things were that made the list not become approved?

_________________
Resident Squat Army Fanatic


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:28 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Onyx, it says at the bottom of your profile that you are a NetEA Rules Chair. So that must mean you have been there when squat lists were presented to the NetEA Rules team before. So this should also mean that you have an understanding of exactly why the Thurgrim list was denied in the past. Can you tell us what those things were that made the list not become approved?


I do not know if the list was ever put forward for major approval before. Lists have to go through a certain process where they are playtested and checked before submitting them to the EA big wigs. Squats have always been at the 'experimental' stage.

That being said, the current list has been reasonably stable for some time. I am only going to change spend some time looking at three units - the Land Train (for being stuck with one build), the AA (for being immobile, and the infantry (for being generally useless). The rest of the army I am hesitant to touch.

Once we have gone through the process of creating an updated 1.6 list, I expect it might need quite some time to playtest before we even submit it to the chair.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am
Posts: 112
Location: Washington State, USA.
Elsaurio wrote:
Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Onyx, it says at the bottom of your profile that you are a NetEA Rules Chair. So that must mean you have been there when squat lists were presented to the NetEA Rules team before. So this should also mean that you have an understanding of exactly why the Thurgrim list was denied in the past. Can you tell us what those things were that made the list not become approved?


I do not know if the list was ever put forward for major approval before. Lists have to go through a certain process where they are playtested and checked before submitting them to the EA big wigs. Squats have always been at the 'experimental' stage.

That being said, the current list has been reasonably stable for some time. I am only going to change spend some time looking at three units - the Land Train (for being stuck with one build), the AA (for being immobile, and the infantry (for being generally useless). The rest of the army I am hesitant to touch.

Once we have gone through the process of creating an updated 1.6 list, I expect it might need quite some time to playtest before we even submit it to the chair.


Seriously? Wow, that's just...I don't even know what to say. I had figured there were enough people interested in playing Squats that the list would have been submitted at least once. I mean how long has NetEA been in existence? And in all that time not one Squat list has made the grade?....I'm shocked to say the least.

_________________
Resident Squat Army Fanatic


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:53 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7833
Location: New Zealand
Roadkill Zombie, Squats were a dead list when EA was released. When the edition before that was released in fact. So limited numbers of people had the army, or could get one if they wanted.

There's been bit of a resurge of interest happening in recent years though. Partly perhaps because other lists have been finalised and people want to explore new races, but perhaps also because one can actually start looking at other manufacturers for Squat proxies these days, (e.g. mix of EW, MG, TMG, DW lines). The Squats live again.

Also the NetEA has been around for quite a few years, but the current more streamlined and standardised approval process is a relatively newer thing.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  

cron

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