The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Tactical Combat
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Tactical Combat Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
No, in the game, cover is something which obstructs the shooter's view of the target, such as smoke or darkness.

You mean Concealment. Cover is an umbrella term for Protection and Concealment.

Incorrect. Look at R&E p.93-94.

Quote:
Characters are harder to hit when they’ve got cover: something that hides them from attackers.
Quote:
Characters can also hide themselves behind objects — such as walls and speeders — which provide cover and protection (see "Protection")...

Cover and protection are the two game terms, and there is no third term describing the combination of them. Some cover does not have any protection (so it is cover-only), and some cover also has protection. The term "concealment" is not a game term in these rules at all.

I think Naaman's objection to the game terminology has in part unnecessarily confused this discussion. It's fine to discuss modifications to RAW, but it is vital to these discussions to be clear on what RAW is in the first place. Above, MrNexx was describing RAW, and he had used the term cover to describe RAW's protection.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Okay, you're right. I was absolutely sure there was a separate category for Concealment, but it's obviously not there.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Based on that, I'm siding more with Naaman. In context, "Cover" is much more appropriate than "Protection". After all, if there's an airstrike coming in, nobody yells "Take Protection!"; "Take Cover" is much more common. Concealment, in turn, is a better conceptual fit for what the RAW describes as Cover.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found this on a quick Google search: US Army Field Manual FM-21-75, Chapter 1: Cover, Concealment and Camouflage. The following stands out:
    "Cover gives protection from bullets, fragments of exploding rounds, flame, nuclear effects, and biological and chemical agents. Cover can also* conceal you from enemy observation. Cover can be natural or man-made."

    "Concealment is anything that hides you from enemy observation. Concealment does not protect you from enemy fire. Do not think that you are protected from the enemy's fire just because you are concealed. Concealment, like cover, can also be natural or man-made.

    Natural concealment includes such things as bushes, grass, trees, and shadows*."

    *Emphasis mine.

The takeaway for me is that 1) Cover gives protection, but while it can provide concealment, this is not an absolute; and 2) the definition of Concealment is a better fit for what the RAW calls Cover, specifically mentioning one of the aspects (light levels) that the RAW Cover provides.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But in-universe, no one also ever says, "I wonder if we will win initiative" or "We'll have to try that next round." There is no rule that says game terms much exactly match how the concepts would be discussed in real life. However, everyone should call it whatever you want in the game, and maybe renaming them will help a GM remember the rules for them better.

Regardless, we need to keep RAW straight for discussions of modifications to RAW. We need to use the RAW terms when referring to RAW. We shouldn't have a situation where a user says, "When I say this, I mean that." RAW is the common frame of references regardless of the individual changes we each make to the game. Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
But in-universe, no one also ever says, "I wonder if we will win initiative" or "We'll have to try that next round." There is no rule that says game terms much exactly match how the concepts would be discussed in real life. However, everyone should call it whatever you want in the game, and maybe renaming them will help a GM remember the rules for them better.

Regardless, we need to keep RAW straight for discussions of modifications to RAW. We need to use the RAW terms when referring to RAW. We shouldn't have a situation where a user says, "When I say this, I mean that." RAW is the common frame of references regardless of the individual changes we each make to the game. Thank you.

True, but this would hardly be the first time we've changed game terms to better fit what they do. For example, we've proposed changing the names of multiple skills to better encompass the scope of the skill itself. And practically my entire modus operandi on this forum could be summed up by the words "just because the RAW does it this way doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed."

Anyway, to each their own. I've reconsidered my earlier position and am mostly on Naaman's side on this one, with the exception that (as noted above), Cover doesn't necessarily have to also provide Concealment.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
MrNexx wrote:
To an extent, the argument about "cover" becomes something of an inverse ludic fallacy... while the Ludic Fallacy assumes the rules of the "game" apply the real world, this assumes that the rules of the real world apply to the game.

"Cover" may have a definition in the real world, but that definition doesn't necessarily apply in the game. The definition that applies in game is the game definition, which is "cover is something that provides some resistance (i.e. an increase to difficulties to attack) to direct fire, and some damage resistance if the cover is struck where the character would be."

No, in the game, cover is something which obstructs the shooter's view of the target, such as smoke or darkness. Mechanically, it adds to the shooter's difficulty to hit. Protection is the game term referring to something that may block a shot from providing full or any damage to the target. Part of Naaman's issue is that they do not use the terms exactly the same way in his military.

https://rancorpit.com/jotw/damage.html


My issue is simply this:

In order for me to communicate fluently and naturally, I make a specific distinction between "cover" and "concealment." And rather than trip myself up, I have disclaimed that because in my mind, "cover" has a specific definition, I will always use the word "cover" to mean something that competely stops weapons fire.

Anything short of that, I will call "concealment."

As to how this applies in the game, I would not allow a dodge bonus to someone who exposes himself (even partially) to take a shot IF the person shooting back has a weapon that is capable of defeating his "protection." Instead, I would make the attack roll as normal, and then add the "protection" value to the soak roll.

That is how I would choose to handle situations involving what I would call "false cover."

According to my current understanding of gun fights, this is the best and most efficient way to represent the dangers/risks of a gun fight within the basic mechanics of the game.

I also believe it is a superior way than RAW. I realize not everyone will agree.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
However, everyone should call it whatever you want in the game, and maybe renaming them will help a GM remember the rules for them better.

Regardless, we need to keep RAW straight for discussions of modifications to RAW. We need to use the RAW terms when referring to RAW. We shouldn't have a situation where a user says, "When I say this, I mean that." RAW is the common frame of references regardless of the individual changes we each make to the game. Thank you.


It's your house, Whill.

I am assuming that since we are in the house rules forum in a thread I created, that its okay to set a working definition that applies to the this discussion, which is a discussion about how to modify the rules to make them better represent the nuances of combat.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I will always use the word "cover" to mean something that completely stops weapons fire.

Okay, here's my problem; you're speaking in terms of "x material will stop attacks up to a value of y, and anything above y will not be stopped at all". How often will the objects characters take cover behind be composed of a uniform material with a non-variable penetration resistance value, and how often will they be hiding behind complex structures where unknown and unpredictable variables can affect the level of damage resistance?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I were GM, I would not spend a bunch of time assigning "protection values" to all the various types of materials that might be present in an environment. As the GM, I would make a rapid decision in each individual case about what will, what might, and what won't penetrate a given thickness of a given substance.

Also, I would allow a player to make a knowledge check (or tactics, or engineering or physics, or other relevant skill check) as a free action to see if his character knows that a material will or might or won't stop the blaster shots that are being fired at him.

Also, depending on how cinematic you want to be, you may want to use some other rule or terminology than what I use here.

For example, people in movies love to hide behind sofas in a gun fight. A sofa offers 0 protection against gun fire in reality. Wooden furniture will aslo be cleanly penerltrated by even pistol bullets (which actually are pretty pathetic at penetration). So wood of a practical-practical-for-furniture thickness is out. So are doors, for that matter. Walls of a house (both internal and external) offer 0 protection against even the weakest bullets.

Cinder blocks do offer "limited" cover against small caliber (that is, small diameter) bullets, even rifle ones. But will be essentially destroyed by a single shot from a heavy caliber rifle or from a shot gun slug. .30ish caliber bullets may require 3 or so shots to destroy a cinder block. 5.56 may require 8-10... then again, cinder blocks have large holes/openings in them which provide 0 protection.

I addressed this earlier, but here is an example:
A block wall may provide protection against a limited number of shots. If the wall is big enough, the defender can simply move to an undamaged portion of the wall to maintain "cover."

But as a shooter, it would take A LOT of ammo (and therefore, a lot of turns) to completely destroy such a wall to the point that it offered no more protection. In the case of, say, a mini gun, which would be the ideal firearm for such a task, we can reasonably rule that the block wall is merely concealment, and not cover.

But even in the case of a block wall, if it is strong enough to weaken the shot, but weak enough to still be penetrated, then the defender now has the hazard of wall fragments/"shrapnel" blasting him in the face at high speeds (creating a secondary source of potential injury).

And even still, in order to "get through" the wall or other protection, you have to shoot it in the same spot multiple times. If shooting it "weakens" it, it only does so in the exact spot where the impact is. It will take another shot in very close proximity to the previous one(s) to eventually penetrate.

In case anyone doesn't know, it is extremely unlikely that a gunshot can be deliberately delivered to the exact same spot (even if the muzzle is only inches from the target). Add the fact that the target is actively fighting back and there is a near zero (that is, essentially 0) chance that any shooter would be able to penetrate "protection" simply by shooting it over and over again. And even if so only a 1-2cm square will be "destroyed."

There are loads and loads of tests on what makes good "cover" and what does not on youtube. Like I said before, Paul Harrell does some pretty extensive practical testing on these kinds of things, though he is far from the only resource.

In general, it boils down to this:
Yes, an object either stops weapons fire completely, or it allows the round through without diminishing its lethality. There are very obscure scenarios where gradiants may exist.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
But in-universe, no one also ever says, "I wonder if we will win initiative" or "We'll have to try that next round." There is no rule that says game terms much exactly match how the concepts would be discussed in real life. However, everyone should call it whatever you want in the game, and maybe renaming them will help a GM remember the rules for them better.

Regardless, we need to keep RAW straight for discussions of modifications to RAW. We need to use the RAW terms when referring to RAW. We shouldn't have a situation where a user says, "When I say this, I mean that." RAW is the common frame of references regardless of the individual changes we each make to the game. Thank you.

CRMcNeill wrote:
True, but this would hardly be the first time we've changed game terms to better fit what they do. For example, we've proposed changing the names of multiple skills to better encompass the scope of the skill itself. And practically my entire modus operandi on this forum could be summed up by the words "just because the RAW does it this way doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed."

Naaman wrote:
It's your house, Whill.

I am assuming that since we are in the house rules forum in a thread I created, that its okay to set a working definition that applies to the this discussion, which is a discussion about how to modify the rules to make them better represent the nuances of combat.

Please re-read the last sentence of my first paragraph. Change names of things for house rules as you see fit. But it is imperative that when referring to RAW, we use the RAW terms correctly.

Review what lead to this. There was a "when I say this I mean this." Then there was a post confused by this referring to RAW using incorrect terms. Then I pointed it out. Then I was erroneously told what I really meant using incorrect terms, including invention of a concept that doesn't even exist in RAW. Then I corrected that. My additional comment responding to the invokation of real word terminology goes back to the heart of the misunderstandings here.

Again, for house rules change the terms to whatever you want, but I am always concerned about user experience here. Someone reading this thread could be thoroughly confused by multiple references to RAW concepts by incorrect terms that lead to erroneous attempts to correct corrections. What I also saw happening here is the construction of house rules from scratch instead of actually knowing the RAW rules and modifying them as a basis. I ask that you all please learn the RAW rules before sharing your house rules ideas for it, and then refer to RAW rules correctly in the process. (And since we are all only human and mistakes can happen, people will politely point out mistakes so please try to be sure before correcting them.)

For maximum elucidation, it would be good to repost proposal drafts here that are mapped back to RAW, such as, "What RAW calls this, I call this, and here is how I do it." I don't think that is too much to ask for. Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
If I were GM, I would not spend a bunch of time assigning "protection values" to all the various types of materials that might be present in an environment. As the GM, I would make a rapid decision in each individual case about what will, what might, and what won't penetrate a given thickness of a given substance.
Quote:
In general, it boils down to this:
Yes, an object either stops weapons fire completely, or it allows the round through without diminishing its lethality. There are very obscure scenarios where gradiants may exist.

Okay, but even if you assign a fixed Difficulty value to Cover (which is only a step removed from rolling the dice anyway), you still haven't eliminated the random number generator aspect of the dice on the Damage roll, so there is still a chance that something that "won't stop" a round will still actually stop it, all because the shooter rolled low on the damage. The reverse is also true, if a shooter with a low-damage weapon rolls high enough.

I understand what you're saying; I just don't think the D6 system can replicate it without fundamentally changing the system.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other words, I could concievably play the Kid template, and punch through a duracrete wall with my fist, provided I roll high enough, and still have enough power left in the punch to destroy the Star Destroyer hiding behind it. (snicker, snicker!)

Razz Cool

But in all seriousness, the way that we actually play the game, do we say to players who are taking cover, "okay, the stormies are shooting at you. You are completely hidden behind the bar, so that's a +4D to your dodge and the wood plus mugs and kegs provide some protection... let's say, +2D all together. But the protection has a body strength of 6D mostly because of its overall size and volume. So, first, lets make the attack roll.... a 16, roll dodge... Okay, with the 4D bonus you rolled a 28, but without it, you only have 15, so the shot would have hit you. So that's 5D damage against the protection... which totals at.... 18. Now, I'll roll the protection's body strength.... I got 16, so it's lightly damaged, but it absorbs the blast and you take no damage.... THIS TIME, but even if it would have penetrated, you would have gained a +2D to your soak roll which is normally 3D for strength and 1 more D for your armor, which would have been a total of 6D to soak against their 5D blaster rifle."

There's really no value in providing a dodge bonus and a protection bonus for the same thing. The dodge bonus implies that the target is harder to hit BECAUSE he is obscured. If you miss due to the cover, but still get to roll damage because you were within the value that was above the base dodge, then you're not really rolling against a concealment bonus.

Just have the target roll dodge, and if he fails, he gets his protection bonus to soak (that is ultimately what we are doing by having a "consolation" damage roll that "beat the base dodge" but not the boosted dodge).

On the other hand, being harder to hit means being harder to hit. If cover is the reason, then a miss should be a miss.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
In other words, I could conceivably play the Kid template, and punch through a duracrete wall with my fist, provided I roll high enough, and still have enough power left in the punch to destroy the Star Destroyer hiding behind it. (snicker, snicker!)

Well, there's a difference between possible and probable. Is it possible for this to happen? Sure, under the RAW, if the Kid gets a massive cascade of exploding D6s. But how probable is that?

(On a side note, I generally rule that Brawling attacks inflict Stun Damage, save for special circumstances or martial arts training).

Quote:
But in all seriousness, the way that we actually play the game, do we say to players who are taking cover, "okay, the stormies are shooting at you. You are completely hidden behind the bar, so that's a +4D to your dodge

Do the characters even have room to Dodge behind the bar? I'm pretty firmly in the camp that dodging should only come into play if the characters are able to make at least a Full Move. In this situation, I'd probably allow each character to roll 4D regardless of their Dodge / Agility skill. I'd also probably factor in some modifier based on the size of what they're taking cover behind, but I digress...

Quote:
and the wood plus mugs and kegs provide some protection... let's say, +2D all together. But the protection has a body strength of 6D mostly because of its overall size and volume.

The RAW gives Blast Doors a Body of 6D. I'd give a bar a 3D at most. That means there's a decent chance that bolts from blaster rifles will penetrate. If they were looking to destroy the entire bar, I'd probably give it a +2D Scale bonus, but since the size also increases the amount of available space behind the bar that the characters might be in, I'd probably also give them the +2D to avoid being hit.

Quote:
So, first, lets make the attack roll.... a 16, roll dodge... Okay, with the 4D bonus you rolled a 28, but without it, you only have 15, so the shot would have hit you. So that's 5D damage against the protection... which totals at.... 18. Now, I'll roll the protection's body strength.... I got 16, so it's lightly damaged, but it absorbs the blast and you take no damage....

Sounds normal.

Quote:
THIS TIME, but even if it would have penetrated, you would have gained a +2D to your soak roll which is normally 3D for strength and 1 more D for your armor, which would have been a total of 6D to soak against their 5D blaster rifle."

Why bring this up in such detail until it actually happens? Just say something along the lines of "the bar shudders and starts to crack as multiple blaster bolts hit it from the other side. It's protecting you at the moment, but that's not gonna last.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see a different set of problems than others, I suppose.

When the RAW says that a given piece of protection is "destroyed" that means that it can no longer provide a protective benefit at all. So, hiding behind a house or a giant pile of trash or some other thing that may be the size of a space ship or a speeder or whatever (something much larger than the character), we have a serious problem when placing a tiny hole that is a fraction of a cm in diameter can "destroy" that piece of cover, especially when said cover has no means of sustaining secondary damage (such as by hitting a fuel line).

Giving a scale bonus to the damage resistance (instead of just giving it a die value) won't actually change the difficulty of destroying it,though. The only thing that changes the difficulty is changing the die code, which is what a scale modifier is.

My main problem is this, and so far, I have not heard it addressed:

When a thing provides both a concealment bonus and a protection bonus, it makes no sense. If you can still hit someone who is hiding simply by beating their base dodge roll, then the concealment bonus isn't actually doing anything. All you're really doing is comparing the base dodge roll to the attack roll, and if a hit is scored, they roll to soak. This is exactly how armor works: Get hit while wearing armor? Roll strength plus armor rating to resist.

A concealment bonus is useless if the weapon "might" penetrate the concealment AND the attacker knows where the target is (for example, if the target is partially exposed for the purpose of shooting).

Is that making sense?
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 22 of 24

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0