The Rancor Pit :: View topic - WEG SW Revised (3E?)

Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics

The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> WEG SW Revised (3E?) - Core Mechanics

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10, 11, 12 Next

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Rerun941
Commander

Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 459
Location: San Antonio, TX

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject:

pops popcorn oh look! 100 posts! I'm a Lt Commander now _________________ Han - "How're we doin'?" Luke - "Same as always." Han - "That bad, huh?"

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

garhkal wrote:

Maybe you need to read up. Humans are 2d-4d... not 1d-4d

PCs are 2D to 4D. Humans are 1D to 4D. Read the GM guide.

R&E page 30 wrote:

Human
Attribute Dice: 12D
DEXTERITY 2D/4D
KNOWLEDGE 2D/4D
MECHANICAL 2D/4D
PERCEPTION 2D/4D
STRENGTH 2D/4D
TECHNICAL 2D/4D
Move: 10/12

2nd Edition page 133 wrote:

Human attribute minimums are 2D, maximums are 4D

If you are old school:

First Edition, page 81 wrote:

No attribute can be higher than 4D or less than 2D(exception: see aliens,below)

because I'm thorough, the Gamemaster Handbook (couldn't find one Titled GM Guide) does have an NPC with dex, str,and tec at 1D, but he is over 100 years old so I think those things degraded from the normal human minimums of 2D.

Maybe I missed something.

People on this board will make mistakes, and own up to them, but if you are going to tell someone on this board that they have made a mistake, please cite your source(s) so we can look it up and learn something new.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:10 pm Post subject:

Rerun941 wrote:

*pops popcorn*

oh look! 100 posts! I'm a Lt Commander now Very Happy

congrats

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

Quote:

You want to knock someone over with brawling, kick their legs, you want to disarm them, grab their weapon or kick their hand. roll brawling or melee combat vs brawling or melee parry.

As I've said before, in theory you can do this with the old system, but in every case you're now asking the GM to make up new mechanics on the fly that didn't exist before, and the ague whether or not those mechanics are fair. For instance, I don't see how Sneak is appropriate.

You invented a mechanism on the fly, which is more complex. Having one core mechanic to handle all of these situations alleviates the need to do that, and makes the game simpler.

How the hell is your way simpler? you want me as the gm to decide that tripping is going to be x number of gambits to your brawling skill and come up with a new difficulty number the player has to hit, as opposed to me saying roll an opposed brawling

enderandrew wrote:

Quote:

Everything I've listed now uses ONLY an attribute or a basic skill to accomplish.

When have I suggested that gambits would be anything different? You still roll an attributes and skills. The only wrinkle is that you allow the player to intentionally raise the difficulty for a desired effect.

Honestly, I'm not sure that you are grasping this.

BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED HOW YOUR GAMBITS WOULD BE BETTER More difficult actions have always had a higher difficulty, I don't see how adding a gambit system improves this.

enderandrew wrote:

Quote:

Trip, con, repair. Your Examples. Please, Please show me how these would work and be SIMPLER in your system. All you have said is that these would be simpler, not why and not how.

I've repeated it about ten times and you continue to ignore it.

NO, you aren't listening. I gave specific examples of how these actions would work in a game I'm running, and asked you to show the same actions in your game using the gambit system to make it better.

enderandrew wrote:

Instead of having a specific series of tables to consult for droid repair to try and do different things, the entire series of tables can be wiped out with gambits. You want to improve the droid's move rate? What want to repair it faster? You want to jury rig it?

Currently, for each specific scenario we require charts to dictate difficulty. I'm suggesting we eliminate all this cruft and give a common framework to make it easier to determine difficulty, and empower the players at the same time.

Again, how is this bad?

Let me repeat myself and others:

Delkarnu wrote:

You don't need a gambit system to get creative actions. All of these actions were simple to figure out, usually only a roll or two to achieve.

You haven't addressed this.

obidancer wrote:

If you want to keep consistency you'll have to create a chart with every single modifier you come up with, for the sake of consistency. Not very speed efficient, and prone to arguments for rule loving players.

You haven't addressed this.

Ankhanu wrote:

Perhaps I'm daft, but I'm not seeing how the Gambit system is different from the current rules. Perhaps you could explain it in a different way? As explained above, you're simply adding conditional modifiers to specific actions and allowing the GM to decide on any bonuses the action generates; which is part of the current d6 rule set.

You haven't addressed this.

Ankhanu wrote:

Perhaps because I'm in a reductionist revision mindset (editing a thesis/journal article submissions) at the moment, I see this as a redundancy. Essentially it looks to me like "Here's Bill wearing a black t-shirt from Target" and then, "Here's Bill wearing a black t-shirt from Walmart"... presenting Bill once is enough Razz

You haven't addressed this.

Delkarnu wrote:

It's in the game already, I don't see anything this adds or simplifies.

You haven't addressed this.

Delkarnu wrote:

Give me one "gambit" that isn't already covered by the rules if you want to show it should be added.

You haven't addressed this.

Delkarnu wrote:

I never said it was detrimental, just completely unneccessary for a good gm or player group. You have not given a single solitary example of how this would improve the game aside from nudging uncreative players to be creative, when it is the GM's job to give players scenarios in which to find creative solutions.

You haven't addressed this.

Delkarnu wrote:

Again, I never said is was bad, just completely unecessary.

once

Delkarnu wrote:

You said it could be used to trip a guard, and I posted how it is already covered by existing rules (and not clutter rules, just sneak and Dex) I have asked you for an example of a gambit that would illustrate your point and you have not given it.

You haven't addressed this.

obidancer wrote:

Nobody said the Gambit rule is detrimental... why would we try to defend this point. Did we say useless... Yes, we may have said that... Embarassed

twice

Ankhanu wrote:

As for the assertion that's been put forth several times: You've yet to come up with one scenario where it would be bad.

Again, as mentioned by other posters, no one thinks it's bad, just that it is redundant and unnecessary. Most examples have demonstrated that it's already covered by the rules... you yourself have stated as much... we're in agreement Razz

thrice

Delkarnu wrote:

Saying a bunch of random actions would work better is not an example, showing how they would work better would be an example. You've listed actions, but not how a gambit system would work better than the basic ruleset. I want to know how your system would improve the game. But all you've said is that it would improve it, and taken it personally everytime someone has questioned how.

Tripping-you want to have a gambit system where the GM figures out an increased difficulty so you can roll and see if you trip and say its simpler. I say tripping is sticking your foot in front of someone without them noticing so they trip over it, so its a simple sneak role to do that. The get a simple per check to notice. No optional rules, or complex ones. If you meant tripping as actively knocking someone over by kicking their feet, roll brawling against their STR.

Martial arts is an OPTIONAL rule in Rules of Engagement if you want more advanced rules.

Quote:

In a gambit system I might suggest it takes three raises to knock a player over in a lightsaber duel, raising your attack three difficulty levels from moderate to heroic. That 15 just jumped to a 35. Do you dare risk it? On the other hand, if you succeed, your opponent is basically defenseless afterwards.

You want to knock someone over with brawling, kick their legs, you want to disarm them, grab their weapon or kick their hand. roll brawling or melee combat vs brawling or melee parry.

Conning- Roll Con against their Con or Perception, bonus for good roleplay, situation, and creativity

Repairs- have parts, roll repair. No parts, find parts. Can't get parts, roll repair at a much higher difficulty to jury rig it to work until you can get parts.

Everything I've listed now uses ONLY an attribute or a basic skill to accomplish. To make them simpler you'd have to get rid of skills and just roll attributes for everything. I punch you, roll STR. I knock you over, more difficult, roll STR. I grab you by arm, swing you around into other guy, ohh, very difficult, roll STR.

Quote:

Raises can be used with Force Powers to enhance the effect of the power, increase the number of targets, make it last longer, use the power quicker, etc.

Already covered. more targets multiple actions, -1D for an average increased difficulty of 3.5. Last longer, keep power up, -1D , making other actions more difficult by 3.5 on average. Quicker, most powers are up in one turn. If it uses multiple abilities, -1D per ability it used or 3.5 per. CS&A skill, takes three rounds to raise but if you want to do it in one, -2D to each roll.

Hide behind an asteroid. make a piloting roll to get behind, if you are fully blocked,they lose you on sensors and need to find you. Partially blocked, they can shoot at you, but its more difficult.

Trip, con, repair. Your Examples. Please, Please show me how these would work and be SIMPLER in your system. All you have said is that these would be simpler, not why and not how.

You haven't addressed this.

Delkarnu wrote:

I felt that it warranted an example of how a player would use creativity to solve the problem in the basic ruleset, so that when enderandrew posts how this would work under gambits, we can see how it is both simpler and inspires more creativity. And honestly, those were off the top of my head, its well past my bedtime.

You haven't addressed this.

Lostboy wrote:

Players can always influence their difficulty modifier, they can atempt a simpler action(Witch lowers the dif.) or they can attempt a more difficult or complicated action(Witch raises the dif.).

If the player has little choice e.g. must shoot an enemy and their is no way for them to change the dif, then that is what character points and force points are fore.

A player can make a volantary raising of their dif in order to increase the impressivness of an action.

I belive these points render your gambit system irrelivent because the system already caters to altering of difficulty classes by both players and gm's, that is unless you want to rebuild the system to fit your "gambit" mod, but i think doing a hatchet job on the system is a bit much.

and fourth assertion that you system is already covered easily in the basic rules

Rerun941 wrote:

From 2nd Ed R&E:

When in doubt, fall back on the Star Wars rule of
thumb:
"Pick a difficulty number. If the character's skill roll
is equal or higher, she succeeds."

I've also seen it as:
"When in doubt, roll and shout."

Everything else is superfluous.

enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject:

Delkarnu wrote:

I'm sitting here with two dead computers and I can't access my PDFs of rules, and I'll but gotten rid of all my roleplaying books when I got married.

However, I've seen numerous examples of NPCs with 1D in stats, not to mention I've seen it explicitly stated that non-hero characters (the rest of the entire race) is 1D-4D.

By your assertion, since non-hero humans have only 12 attribute dice, and all six attributes have a minimum of 2D, then every single non-hero human is exactly 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D and 2D.

Seriously?

Regardless, you're arguing over minutia that doesn't matter here.

In your assertion that the ultimate range between one human and the next, the entire difference is 6 pips. Now the "same" difficulty covers almost that entire range. Clearly that proves your point even more that the difficulty is fair and consistent despite the huge range that all but equals the difference between two extremes.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile.

enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject:

Delkarnu wrote:

First off, you were telling me the you have to make a separate Sneak roll to trip someone. So that is already simpler. The only official rules we have for tripping are complex and cumbersome, and suggest that no one can trip without the martial arts skill.

Having entire books dedicated largely to cumbersome additional skill systems that still only cover a smattering of circumstances, or one simple guideline?

You can't seriously argue that tons and tons and tons of additional rules are simpler than one core mechanic.

Quote:

BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED HOW YOUR GAMBITS WOULD BE BETTER

You're just not telling the truth. You insist I never gave you examples when I gave you ten. You insist I haven't explained the benefits when I have done so about ten times.

1 - You eliminate tons of rules.
2 - You empower players to have more of a say.
3 - You present new challenges to players who don't feel challenged.
4 - The game is more enjoyable.
5 - You never need to consult other books looking for specific rule systems for specific circumstances again.

I have never once met a single player who played in a system like this that didn't absolutely love it. I've had the pleasure of knowing personally some L5R devs, and talking at length with them about playtesting and rule system design. Never has anyone said, man i think this system hurts the game in way, shape or form. And the system is basically always optional because players don't have to utilize it if they don't want.

Again, you have intentionally misquoted me, stated untruths, and are aguing vehemently against something that is optional and has tons of merit with no negatives attached to it at all.

I'll also note that you have not suggested a single mechanic to the thread. You haven't offered one single positive comment or piece of insight. All you've done is act critical without any apparent justification for doing so.

Quote:

More difficult actions have always had a higher difficulty, I don't see how adding a gambit system improves this.

You know what, you're right. We should have absolutely no rules beyond the core mechanic. Since the core mechanic covers everything, there is no benefit to any other mechanics. Why have a specific mechanicism for called shots? It gets in the way, and basically the GM should just handle it with modifiers. The same for cover. And all the starship combat rules. In fact, every single mechanic besides the core one should be tossed because they don't help to clarify, standardize or help in any way shape or form.

I can do anything with the core mechanic.

Except, your point you're arguing is worse than that. You're insisting on keeping tons of cumbersome and useless mechanics that server no purpose as opposed to replacing them with a simple core mechanic.

Quote:

No, you said the rules already cover this. Actually, the rules state you need to consult a chart on martial arts. My system is an improvement on that. You also insist that tripping is covered by Sneak. Please cite a source for that.

Not having to consult martial arts rules is better. Having a clear mechanic as opposed to forcing the GM to make up a random mechanic (such as using Sneak) is better. Having fewer rules is better. Giving the players a specific mechanic to encourage them is better. Challenging players with higher difficulties is better.

Again, you insist I've never explained why it is better. You are flat-out refusing to listen.

Quote:

Martial arts is an OPTIONAL rule in Rules of Engagement if you want more advanced rules.

Except, it is the only rule we have to govern these circumstances right now. The rules were written because people felt the rules were deficient. I've suggested something much simpler that fills the deficiency.

Quote:

Except this is a VERY clear benefit here. Either the GM has to memorize every possible difficulty modifier listed in the books for every possible way to modify Force Powers, or you have one mechanic that covers all of them.

In L5R, you can simply modify spells with raises. You don't need to memorize specifics. Additional rounds are raises. Casting faster means additional raises. Larger target area, or more targets? Raises again.

One mechanic here would wipe away much of the need to specify for each Force Power.

Quote:

Trip, con, repair. Your Examples. Please, Please show me how these would work and be SIMPLER in your system. All you have said is that these would be simpler, not why and not how.

You haven't addressed this.[/quote]

Again, the basic mechanic to sell is a contested roll. If I beat you, then I sell goods to you. However, there is no mechanic for me to attempt a harder sell to make more money. The player has more choice here. Gambits augment skill usage for any skill you can imagine.

Quote:

...that is unless you want to rebuild the system to fit your "gambit" mod, but i think doing a hatchet job on the system is a bit much.

Given that I've run with these rules for years, not a single other change is necessary. You just give new options to players. Not a single other rule, mechanic or stat changes. How is that modifying the entire game, or performing a hatchet job?

If you're simply against change period, and you love the rules, then why even bother enter a thread aimed at looking to change core mechanics for an unofficial revision? You haven't suggested a single change. You haven't offered alternate concepts. You're saying you wouldn't change anything. Then why are you in this thread?

Quote:

"Pick a difficulty number. If the character's skill roll
is equal or higher, she succeeds."

That doesn't change. If anything, the concept of a gambit is bringing the rest of the unnecessary mechanics more in line with that golden rule.

How is that a bad thing?
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

By your assertion, since non-hero humans have only 12 attribute dice, and all six attributes have a minimum of 2D, then every single non-hero human is exactly 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D and 2D.

Seriously?

Stormtroopers all skills 2D except...

enderandrew wrote:

Regardless, you're arguing over minutia that doesn't matter here.

In your assertion that the ultimate range between one human and the next, the entire difference is 6 pips. Now the "same" difficulty covers almost that entire range. Clearly that proves your point even more that the difficulty is fair and consistent despite the huge range that all but equals the difference between two extremes.

No,the ultimate range is 2D-4D for ATTRIBUTES, training raises this to 2D-6D at creation (without specializations).

2D basic human average roll 7, can do very easy things, usually easy things, moderate things if trained, seems reasonable
3D human hero average roll 10.5, can do very easy and easy things consistantly, moderate about half the time (at 11, not 15)
4D human max (or professionally trained) average roll 14, can almost always do easy and very easy tasks. Moderate 11-15 most of the time. at 15, can do them less than half.

Putting moderate at 15, means a human rolling max dex, can hit a target with a DL-18 blaster at 11 meters less than half the time, instead of most of the time with the range of difficulties. I can shoot a target consistantly with a revolver at 11 meters, and I am not rolling max dex. To hit your 15 difficulty more than half the time, a person would have to be

R&E wrote:

5D Above average expertise.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

Delkarnu wrote:

If I wanted to trip you, I would put my foot in front of yours without you noticing it. That is moving without being seen, hence a sneak role and only a sneak roll. No complex rules, no gambits.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

1 - You eliminate tons of rules.
2 - You empower players to have more of a say.
3 - You present new challenges to players who don't feel challenged.
4 - The game is more enjoyable.
5 - You never need to consult other books looking for specific rule systems for specific circumstances again.

1. Eliminate tons of rules, and come up with how many gambits for every situation, the examples given are already covered by core mechanics without the UNNECESSARY gambit system.

2. Players always have a say, they want to try something new. Pick the skill that seems appropriate and roll against a difficulty

3. If you can't provide challenge without a gambit system, thats a problem with you as a poor GM, not the system.

4. The game is more enjoyable. I can't argue a subjective won't try.

5. Consulting books, in this entire discussion, except for specific quotes, I never consulted a book.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

I'll also note that you have not suggested a single mechanic to the thread. You haven't offered one single positive comment or piece of insight. All you've done is act critical without any apparent justification for doing so.

You posted a specific suggestion for a new mechanic, I have posted that I don't agree with it. If you want to see other suggestions for mechanics I have suggested, there is more than one thread on this board with some.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

The rules state pick a difficulty and roll the skill the gm feels is appropriate. If you think tripping is a brawl, roll it. I say tripping is sneaking a foot in front of theirs, or hide if you are using a tripwire.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

Quote:

...that is unless you want to rebuild the system to fit your "gambit" mod, but i think doing a hatchet job on the system is a bit much.

Ummm. I quoted Lostboy on that one, so don't imply that it was me, especially while accusing me of misquoting you.

Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject:

I am now a player in your game. I want to trip a guard. Explain how the gambit mechanic works for me to do that. I have said exactly how I would do the rolls in mine.

Ankhanu
Vice Admiral

Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject:

enderandrew wrote:

Gharkal wrote:

Cover rules already exist in the book. Whether they are using a cargo crate for cover, or an asteroid. The mechanics are the same.

The cover rules are saying if I hide behind a wall while sitting still, I have to roll extra dice to determine the cover, and then we need to roll extra dice to see if you destroy the cover, and then we roll normal damage.

The rules don't specify being able to utilize cover while dodging specifically. Regardless the current cover rules require the GM to make extraneous die rolls, and then determine off the top of their head what the strength in dice would if I hide behind an object.

What is the strength rating of that asteroid?

My suggestion is considerably simpler in this example.

I don't think the rules are designed for a character (or ship) staying still behind cover... cover bonuses also apply to moving targets. It's really pretty simple, there are no complicated die roll additions beyond what you propose with your gambits. To give an example of how I would rule the prior idea of a ship dodging behind an asteroid for cover, let's set some parameters.

1) the ship is in motion, not stopping, intending to gain temporary cover, rather than move and sit behind it.
2) the asteroid is large enough to provide 3/4 cover

Using standard WEG rules, the scenario would work like this:
Pilot makes a Starfigther Piloting (or appropriate pilot skill to the ship type) roll to move behind the asteroid... let's say it's a moderate difficulty. They may try to increase speed to get there faster and increase the difficulty of the manoeuvre, as per normal rules. As Piloting is the same as Dodging, this is a single roll to see if they can get there.

If they meet/exceed the difficulty they get behind the asteroid, gaining a +3D bonus to the difficulty to be hit. If they fail, they get shot at normal difficulty.

Now, let's say the asteroid provides full cover, if they make their piloting roll, they get behind it... and the target then becomes the asteroid instead of the characters. GM determines a reasonable "Hull" rating for the Asteroid, and roll damage/resist as needed.

Single roll needed from both players and GM. Not too difficult.

enderandrew wrote:

Quote:

That is already covered by the Bargain skill.. Opposed against the one you are trying to sell/buy from.

No, it isn't. Are you even reading what I'm writing? A normal bargain check just sees if I can sell the item to you as an opposed check. However, with a gambit I can change the situation. Instead of just selling it, I want to attempt a harder sale to drive up the price, or change the terms of the deal.

That's where modifiers come in... and thresholds. If you beat their roll by 5-9 you get x amount more for your goods, if you beat their roll by 10-14 you get y amount more, etc. Likewise if you are defeated, you would get less money for your goods than you wanted...

This doesn't require tables either, sound GM judgement will suffice.

enderandrew wrote:

You allow players to do more complicated things.

Nothing is stopping them as the rules stand.

enderandrew wrote:

gharkal wrote:

I have YET to see a gm require advanced rules to adjucate the above in any SW game i have been in. And for note the past 11 years i have gamed with a large group that hits practically every mid west convention.

With gambits, such rules wouldn't even need to exist.

I think his point is that such rules don't even need to exist with the core rules as they are, and gambits don't really change this fact.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.

Donate to Ankhanu Press

enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant

Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject:

Delkarnu wrote:

If I wanted to trip you, I would put my foot in front of yours without you noticing it. That is moving without being seen, hence a sneak role and only a sneak roll. No complex rules, no gambits.

Anything that you want to do unseen is Sneak? What about pickpocketing? Or stealing a ship?

Combat moves are not governed by Sneak.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile.

Display posts from previous:

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 5 of 12

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