Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

The Great Points Formula Debate!

 Post subject: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

As I get a little more time I wanted to kick-start the debate on a points formula for the platinum version of net epic.

Note that the gold version, as intended, stays as is. This points formula will be an integral part of what Mattman and I will propose as an army construction system.

I understand and realize no points formula is perfect, however I believe it is not a very high bar to create a better one than GW did originally (which is to see none, since balance is not a strong suit for them games design-wise).

I will start the debate with my points system I devise with the Heresy game and we can start from there.

When I though about a formula first I thought of a basic unit which I would deconstruct into its basic components, figure out that units base points cost and work outward from there.

Also note that the numbers used are totally arbitrary. They could be large, smaller or in between. That is really more taste than anything else. As long as it is uniformly applied to all units.

In my original musing the base unit was the IG guardsmen.

It's stats are:

Move 10cm
CAF 0
Save none
Attack dice 1
To hit number
Range 50cm
save modifier none
morale 4
Special abilities none

This is as basic a unit as you can get. Nothing special or overpowering about it, but it is a good test unit to formulate how things should be priced.

Also, we must acknowledge that different unit types have different goals. As infantry they are generally less resilient than armored vehicles. But more maneuverable in the sense of terrain types it may navigate.

So let's go down the line of stats.

1. Move

Movement is important for all units. The quicker you move that quicker you get towards your goal with less probability of being pinned down and shot to pieces.

I would stratify the movement and assign a cost related to how useful a move in that category is. The brackets would be in increments of 5cm movement

5cm or less, 10cm, 15cm, etc.....

For simplicities sake lets say every 5cm of movement is 1 point of cost, so 10cm is 2 points, 50cm is 10 points.

But movement is not only speed, but means of propulsion. Two units of the same speed where one is a skimmer and the other not, makes a difference.

There are only really 3 categories of note.

Skimmers
Non-skimmers
Flyers

I would add a flat point cost to skimmers and fliers (none for non skimmers which are the base movement means).

Let's say +10 points for skimmers and +25 points for a flier (per unit).

So a non skimmer with movement of 50cm costs 10 points for movement, a skimmer of the same move capability would cost 20 (move + skimmer cost) and a flier would be 35 (move + flier cost).

2. CAF

We could do this on a 5 point per +1 CAF basis. Units with an additional close combat die has an additional +15 points (as the average on a d6 is between 3 and 4).

3. Armor saves

These are fairly important. Perhaps a 5 point cost per point of save, 10 points per cost of a FIXED save.

4. Attack dice

We could assign 5 point per attack dice and or BP point. Units with random determination of these would be priced as the average on the die they use (an artillery die of up to 10 dice would be prices at the average of 5 +25 points).

5. Range

Range is a much more powerful indicator of effectiveness than attack dice. Many attack dice of low range is less effective than few dice of long range. There are only a few brackets of range of note as the game is currently played.

Up to 25cm max range
Up to 50cm max range
up to 75cm max range
100cm + range

Since range has such a large effect I though it should be a modifier that is multiplied by the attack die value.

Up to 25cm range multiply the attack dice total by 0.5
Up to 50cm range multiply the attack dice total by 1
Up to 75cm range multiply the attack dice total by 1.5
100cm+ range multiply by 2

Always round up.

6. To hit number

6+ - x0.5
5+ - x1
4+ - x1.5
3+ - x2
2+ - x3

Like range and save modifiers this has a multiplier effect.

5. Save modifier

Like range this is a multiply for the power of the weaponry, so we apply a modifier to multiply to the attack dice total equal to the armor save penalty.

No armor save modifier no modifier (no change in base attack die cost)
-1- x1
-2 - x2
-3- x3
etc.

6. Morale

Give the lack of granularity of a d6, there is a marked difference between a unit of a morale 4 and one with a morale of 1.

I stratified them as followed.

Morale 6 - zero points
Morale 5 - 3 points
Morale 4 - 5 points
Morale 3 - 8 points
Morale 2 - 10 points
Morale 1 - 13 points

As a side note fearless would be a special ability and given a separate cost.

Therefore the unit cost formula would be:

Armor save + Move + CAF + Morale + Weapon (which is the sum of attack die, save modifier, to hit number and range costs ) + special abilities = total per model cost.

Using our guard example it would be:

0 (armor) + 2 (move of 10cm) + 0 (CAF) + 5 (morale) + 1 (weapon cost) + 0 (no special abilities) = 8 points per model.

We can for the sake of easier math round up to the nearest 5 points, so in this case it would be 200 points for 10 IG guardsmen.

As I mentioned before the actual numbers themselves don't matter, its just and example, its the soundness of the formula that needs scrutiny.

I did not get into special abilities because that would need to make a list of them and assign a flat cost (or even a multiplier). These should be done LAST. Once a base formula is determined we can make the list with cost easily.

Let's apply this to a basic tactical marine:

10 (armor) + 2 (move) + 10 (CAF) + 10 (morale) + 1 (weapon) + 0 (no special abilities) = 33 round it up to 35 points per model.

210 points per 6 tactical stands.

These are my ideas, lets hear from everyone on these and ANY other ideas or formulas you may have.

This part is extremely important, so lets vet this thoroughly.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Seems like a good starting point.
I guess there is an argument that some stats are more valuable than others, but that might come out in time.
There are also intrinsic rules and a value associated with the type of model (infantry obviously have 360 fire arcs, vehicles don't unless special rules say otherwise, fliers have a bucket load of additional rules, each have different ways they interact with terrain and what can pin them).
It might be best to say that the basic model of each type has these stats and rules (to be determined), for X cost and then you build on them.
So a basic infantry model has these stats, these included rules (pinning, terrain effects, fire arcs, etc.) for X cost, a basic tank has these stats, these included rules for X cost, a basic walker has these stats, these included rules for X cost etc.

Not sure how different your formula is compared to the one on that Excel sheet that was kicking around, but I will try and get round to pulling the formula out of it and seeing how it compares (though I suspect it will be very similar even though they may have gone about it in a roundabout sort of way).

One thing I will say, what ever system we end up using, we work in 5pt increments for final unit costs. None of this rounding up to 50pts. We are all old enough and ugly enough to be able to construct army lists that have costs of things in 5pt increments and it will provide significantly more accuracy for the costs of things. So from Primarchs example above, the Space Marine detachment would cost 210pts, final, we wouldn't then round up to 250.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Mattman wrote:
Seems like a good starting point.
I guess there is an argument that some stats are more valuable than others, but that might come out in time.
There are also intrinsic rules and a value associated with the type of model (infantry obviously have 360 fire arcs, vehicles don't unless special rules say otherwise, fliers have a bucket load of additional rules, each have different ways they interact with terrain and what can pin them).
It might be best to say that the basic model of each type has these stats and rules (to be determined), for X cost and then you build on them.
So a basic infantry model has these stats, these included rules (pinning, terrain effects, fire arcs, etc.) for X cost, a basic tank has these stats, these included rules for X cost, a basic walker has these stats, these included rules for X cost etc.

Not sure how different your formula is compared to the one on that Excel sheet that was kicking around, but I will try and get round to pulling the formula out of it and seeing how it compares (though I suspect it will be very similar even though they may have gone about it in a roundabout sort of way).

One thing I will say, what ever system we end up using, we work in 5pt increments for final unit costs. None of this rounding up to 50pts. We are all old enough and ugly enough to be able to construct army lists that have costs of things in 5pt increments and it will provide significantly more accuracy for the costs of things. So from Primarchs example above, the Space Marine detachment would cost 210pts, final, we wouldn't then round up to 250.

Matt


Hi!

I wanted to keep the base formula very simple to deal the commonalities of the units.

Everything else, I would prefer to keep to a "special abilities" table of flat cost or multipliers.

In other words the intrinsic benefits (or lack thereof) of fliers, infantry, etc, could be represented by a global added cost under the ability "fliers", "infantry", etc.

That way the things that make all units the same (move, attack dice, etc) would cost the same but then an additional cost or multiplier would modify the base cost for that unit type.

Make sense?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I'm very interested to see how this project works out but I'm not that good at number crunching. I'll probably be able to give a better assesment once I've seen how the costs come out for a large variety of units. So far so good though! ;)

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
The Bissler wrote:
I'm very interested to see how this project works out but I'm not that good at number crunching. I'll probably be able to give a better assesment once I've seen how the costs come out for a large variety of units. So far so good though! ;)


Hi!

That is okay. I actually think the formula part is the "easy" part.

The list that will require tons of tweaking will be the special abilities table. This will require gauging its relative worth in comparison to other. I will try to get the initial list on its own thread by this week end.

Note I have not yet said anything about unit organization. This will occur with Mattman's help once the formulas have been established.

I wholeheartedly agree that rounding will be to the nearest 5 points. Its about time we ditched that 50 point approximation.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
primarch wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree that rounding will be to the nearest 5 points. Its about time we ditched that 50 point approximation.

Primarch


Woot :spin


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11104
Location: Canton, CT, USA
primarch wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree that rounding will be to the nearest 5 points. Its about time we ditched that 50 point approximation.

I heartily approve.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1474
This looks really nifty. Sorry for not commenting before, but I've been ... busy.

You do have a mathematical error and a logical error in your first post.

The logical error is that you state that a unit that has an attack with a TSM of 0 has no effect on the cost. Then you state that a TSM of -1 has a modifier of x1, which is the same as saying it has no cost. This seems odd to me, as a TSM of -1 is significant, so it should have a cost. Therefore, I suggest adjusting all TSM cost modifiers up by 1. Thus a -1 would have a modifier of *2, and so on.

The mathematical error comes in the computation of the Tactical Marine's cost. In the section about the cost of an Attack Die, you say 5 points per, but the calculation uses 1 point per. Thus your calculation should return a value of 37 for the Tactical Marine.

I've done a quick study of this system, and while I know that you said that the values above are just for example, they may work well. However, you have left off a few things that are fairly basic. (I apologize if any of this has been gone over already, but nothing has been posted, so here we go.)

First, if the unit requires a "chain of Command" system of any type, it should have a base value of zero (Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc). Not requiring such a system (Marines, Eldar, Squat, etc) should have a cost. I'm using 1 point at the moment.

Under Movement types you left off Jump Packs and Teleport. Having Jump is better than walking, but not quite as good as actually being a Skimmer, so I'd guess +5. While Teleport is really useful, it is generally only used once per game, so perhaps +10 for that.

A few things that modify weapons:
Ones with Ignores Cover: *1.5
Psychic: *1.5
a Barrage that combines fire with other like units: *1.5
Turret: *1.5
must fire at same target as another weapon: *0.5

You left off an entry of "-" from the Morale table. I'm considering that to have a value of 15.

Thus, using your system as presented and the few modifications I have suggested above, I've gone through the Astares and calculated preliminary values. I'm not certain if I've incorporated any recent errata, so I'll have to double check that before posting anything, but most of the values I'm getting so far are very similar to the GW ones. I consider that a good sign.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I like the sound of this. Please continue...

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
MagnusIlluminus wrote:
This looks really nifty. Sorry for not commenting before, but I've been ... busy.

You do have a mathematical error and a logical error in your first post.

The logical error is that you state that a unit that has an attack with a TSM of 0 has no effect on the cost. Then you state that a TSM of -1 has a modifier of x1, which is the same as saying it has no cost. This seems odd to me, as a TSM of -1 is significant, so it should have a cost. Therefore, I suggest adjusting all TSM cost modifiers up by 1. Thus a -1 would have a modifier of *2, and so on.

The mathematical error comes in the computation of the Tactical Marine's cost. In the section about the cost of an Attack Die, you say 5 points per, but the calculation uses 1 point per. Thus your calculation should return a value of 37 for the Tactical Marine.

I've done a quick study of this system, and while I know that you said that the values above are just for example, they may work well. However, you have left off a few things that are fairly basic. (I apologize if any of this has been gone over already, but nothing has been posted, so here we go.)

First, if the unit requires a "chain of Command" system of any type, it should have a base value of zero (Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc). Not requiring such a system (Marines, Eldar, Squat, etc) should have a cost. I'm using 1 point at the moment.

Under Movement types you left off Jump Packs and Teleport. Having Jump is better than walking, but not quite as good as actually being a Skimmer, so I'd guess +5. While Teleport is really useful, it is generally only used once per game, so perhaps +10 for that.

A few things that modify weapons:
Ones with Ignores Cover: *1.5
Psychic: *1.5
a Barrage that combines fire with other like units: *1.5
Turret: *1.5
must fire at same target as another weapon: *0.5

You left off an entry of "-" from the Morale table. I'm considering that to have a value of 15.

Thus, using your system as presented and the few modifications I have suggested above, I've gone through the Astares and calculated preliminary values. I'm not certain if I've incorporated any recent errata, so I'll have to double check that before posting anything, but most of the values I'm getting so far are very similar to the GW ones. I consider that a good sign.



Hi!

I still have to post the special ability table and the related cost, so that is why things like "jump packs", "teleport" and the relative value of command was not addressed, since I think those things are "Add-ons" to the basic formula of things all units share. Which were mentioned in the original post.

I agree on the TSM difference. My first impulse was to give TSM of zero a cost bonus (multiply by 0.5 of something like that). I may still go there, but I'l hold off until the special abilities list is done.

Now the special abilities cost table will vary from straight flat cost additions to multiplies depending on the use and relative worth on the tabletop. You've touched upon a few like (jump packs and teleport), all I need to decide is whether those abilities are an "Additive effect" of "multiplicative" effect.

I'm mostly going on my experience during play trhough out the years to decide, but some fine tuning will no doubt be needed.

Thanks for the analysis Magnus, much appreciated! I hope you'll have more time to review and discuss these points. :)

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 461
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
I've been meaning to post some comments here as well.

For Movement categories. It seems to me that non-skimmers should be broken up into infantry (or walkers) and ground vehicles. Foot slogging troops are going to move very differently to treaded tanks, particularly when it comes to assorted terrain types.

On weapon ranges, you say "There are only a few brackets of range of note as the game is currently played". Is there any reason to leave it like that? I'm not suggesting we open it up hugely, but I would think making it 5 or 6 bands would allow for some additional diversity. It always bugged the heck out of me in 40K that almost every basic trooper weapon in the game had a 24" range.

If we are going to round everything up to the nearest 5 points, why not then divide everything by 5 to make the final math easier?

_________________
Thanks,
Troy


Once Upon a Midnight Dreary....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 3111
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Re varying weapon ranges... I think there are already 6 bands;

15cm
25cm
35cm
50cm
75cm
100cm

7 if you count LOS weapons. Plus I'm not sure if I'm missing any, this is all off the top of my head...

_________________
Proud to be described by CyberShadow as Tactical Command's "...biggest threat in recent times..."!

Clickable links for Epic hijinks:
Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27034
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
ForgottenLore wrote:
I've been meaning to post some comments here as well.

For Movement categories. It seems to me that non-skimmers should be broken up into infantry (or walkers) and ground vehicles. Foot slogging troops are going to move very differently to treaded tanks, particularly when it comes to assorted terrain types.

On weapon ranges, you say "There are only a few brackets of range of note as the game is currently played". Is there any reason to leave it like that? I'm not suggesting we open it up hugely, but I would think making it 5 or 6 bands would allow for some additional diversity. It always bugged the heck out of me in 40K that almost every basic trooper weapon in the game had a 24" range.

If we are going to round everything up to the nearest 5 points, why not then divide everything by 5 to make the final math easier?


Hi!

All good points.

I've not yet decided what to do with movement and pinning categories, as there are advantages in some over others. I still have to mulling to do over these. ;D

As for diverse weapon bands, is there any you would suggest?

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1474
For the calculations I have done so far using this, I'm calculating the range multiplier by dividing the range (in cm) by 50. Thus a range of 50cm is a *1, 25cm is *0.5, 35cm is *0.7, 150cm is *3, etc. While this holds to the spirit of what is posted above, it allows for more granularity.

Hmm, you make a good point, at least about Teleport. It really doesn't affect the model once the model is on the table, so it should be considered a SA rather than movement. I'm still leaving Jump in at +5 as that does affect the model while it is on the table.

Though I haven't really thought about it in detail as yet, it seems to me that the various Movement/Pinning classes are (or at least, should be) reasonably balanced in respect to each other. Thus any cost should be minor.

I do agree with rounding to the nearest 5 points once the FINAL values are determined, including SA's, pinning, etc are included. The main reason to NOT divide final values by 5 would be continuity with the previous versions of Epic. Epic has always had armies valued in thousands of points, and dividing would change the feel. Dividing by 5, while it would simplify the math in one way, could also make it more complicated in others.

It seems to me that some cost is needed for formations that have better than normal (IE 50% for companies or 2/3 for support that have 3 units) Break Point values. Not sure if this should be considered a 'base' thing or not.

So far, for Space Marine units with no SA (other than Jump, Skimmer, Turret, & Ignores Cover), I have the following values:
Unit: formula value (GW/NE value)
Assault squad: 46.5 (35)
Devastator squad: 58 (50)
Flamer squad: 40.5 (35)
Tactical squad: 38 (35)
Attack Bike: 47 (35)
LS Tornado: 62 (40)
LS Typhoon: 59.5 (40)
Land Speeder: 67 (40)
Marine Bike: 38.25 (30)
Predator: 88.5 (65)
Sabre: 54 (35)
Vindicator: 85 (50)
Rapier: 28 (25)
Thudd Gun: 42 (35) No SA, but added a *2 to weapon value
Whirlwind: 75 (50)

As (nearly) all of the formula values are higher than the current ones, something should be reduced. I'll tweak a few things and report back.

Also, I have no idea of how to value a weapon that uses a Template (and no BP), as there is no number of attacks. Need opinions on this.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Great Points Formula Debate!
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:37 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1474
I've had a couple more thoughts about this.

As to pinning, I was looking at the list of pinning classes on page 23 of the rules PDF and it struck me that there are the costs right there. That is:
Infantry and Light Artillery cost 1 point
Cavalry and Walkers cost 2 points
Vehicles and Heavy Artillery cost 3
Super Heavy and Knights cost 4
Praetorians and Titans cost 5

Alternatively, these costs could stack. By stack, I mean that I&LA would still cost 1, but C&W would cost 3 (1+2), V&HA would cost 6 (1+2+3), SH&K would be 10 (1+2+3+4), and P&T would be 15.

Either way these points are done, if the unit is a Skimmer or Flyer the Pinning cost should double.

For Movement class, things are a bit more complex, yet really not. Again, I was looking at the chart on page 30 when it hit me that we could say that each green box is 1 point, yellow is 0, and red is -1. This results in:
Infantry & Light Artillery: 2 (3 G, 1 R)
Cavalry, Walker, & Knight: -1 (1 G, 2 R)
Vehicles & Heavy Artillery: -4 (1 G, 5 R)
Titans & Praetorians: 3 (7 G, 4 R)
There is no category for Super Heavy on the movement chart. This needs to be fixed.

Combining these means Unit Type costs of:
Type: linear or stacking
Infantry & Light Artillery: 3 or 3
Cavalry & Walker: 1 or 2
Vehicle & Heavy Artillery: -1 or 2
Super Heavy: ? or ?
Knight: 3 or 9
Praetorian & Titan: 8 or 18

What do people think about these?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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