Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Baneblade
The stats below (with whatever concensus) 62%  62%  [ 18 ]
Other stats (suggest below) 38%  38%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 29

Baneblade

 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:48 pm
Posts: 681
Location: Australia
Has anyone actually tried a baneblade with the suggested upgunning of 3 TL HBs and a Baneblade cannon at at3+/ap3+?

I hoped to but had to work on our usual games night. I'd like to see some actual reports on this before we go adding everything plus a kitchen sink.

with the extra HBs and a better to hit with the main gun i think this would be a great multi-role tank. It would certainly make a mess of mixed formations.

I think we need just little changes on this beast. Nothing too major


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I've tried it (way back when it was last proposed and Jervis walked amoung us)

War Engine
Speed 15cm
Save 4+, 3DC, Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour
CC 6+
FF4+
Demolisher Cannon
Autocannon
Two Lascannon
Three twin heavy bolters
BattleCannon, 75cm, AP4+/AT4+

It worked ok - I used a few times as a company, mainly to double twice forwards to take the two take and hold objectives, sustaining turn 3 (with variations of course). Still second choice to shadowswords but I guess thats the game.

Upping the main gun would be nice, certainly give a bit more punch as I roll in. No idea how often TRA came into play as this is over a year ago now so I can't be that sure!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Chroma @ Jun. 05 2007,17:31)
QUOTE

(Blarg D Impaler @ Jun. 05 2007,21:52)
QUOTE
Baneblade Cannon
Range: 75cm
Firepower: 3BP
Notes: Macro Weapon

A Baneblade Company would then be dropping 9BP of MW for 500 points... that, to me, is nutz! ?*laugh*

Better to-hit value would be fine, but making it MW means it's going to be hitting a lot of Grots...

The Baneblade has a lot of guns, against a mixed formation, it can hit a lot more targets than a Shadowsword. ?I think just a little "up-gunning" of the weapons would make it a respectable choice.

What's so nuts about it?  A 650 point artillery company with 9 Basilisks can drop 9BP barrages at 120cm, almost double the 75cm range I propose.  Never mind that those same Basilisks can indirect out to 240cm and have the option to fire their guns as standard weapons.  (That would be the same as 9 battlecannons with 120cm range.)  The 150 point cost difference does not make up for the differences in firepower between the Basilisk Company and the Baneblade company.

Let's compare items that are a lot closer in abilities: the standard Tank Company of 1x Vanquisher and 9x Leman Russ to the 3x Baneblade Super-heavy Tank Company.

Tank Company (compared to the Baneblade Company)
Speed: 20cm (5cm more than the Baneblades)
Armor: 4+ w/ Reinforced Armour (same as Baneblades)
Close Combat: 6+ (same as Baneblades)
Note: 10x CC attacks -vs- 9x CC attacks for Baneblades
Firefight: 4+ (same as Baneblades)
Note: 10x FF attacks -vs- 9x FF attacks for Baneblades

Weapons:
1x Vanquisher Cannon (none for the Baneblades)
9x Battle Cannon (3x Battlecannon for the Baneblades)
10x Lascannon (6x Lascannon for the Baneblades)
20x Heavy Bolters (3x per book, or 3x and 6x Twin-linked as assumed to be for the Baneblade)
Zero Autocannons (3x Autocannons for the Baneblades)
Zero Demolisher Cannons (3x Demolisher Cannons for the Baneblades)

Granted, the Tank Company costs 150 points more, but that cost difference does not account for the gross differences in firepower.

Seriously, why would anybody take a company of Baneblades?  Even if you do change the to-hit of the Baneblade's Battle Cannon to AP3+/AT3+ would you really make them more worth taking over something else?

I can understand the concern with MW creep.  But I dare say that the suckiness of the Baneblade really outweighs concerns about MW creep.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
Baneblade should have more firepower (agreed 3+/3+ BC would be great), but when compared to shadowswords it is not baneblades weapons that is wrong, but shadowswords are damn cheap for their abilities!

For Russ comparison, I think 150pts difference makes them quite equal as hena pointed out.

_________________
Rats Keep Running...

Dark Eldar Dracon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Hena @ Jun. 06 2007,13:23)
QUOTE

(Blarg D Impaler @ Jun. 06 2007,17:07)
QUOTE
Tank Company (compared to the Baneblade Company)
Speed: 20cm (5cm more than the Baneblades)
Armor: 4+ w/ Reinforced Armour (same as Baneblades)
Close Combat: 6+ (same as Baneblades)
Note: 10x CC attacks -vs- 9x CC attacks for Baneblades
Firefight: 4+ (same as Baneblades)
Note: 10x FF attacks -vs- 9x FF attacks for Baneblades

Weapons:
1x Vanquisher Cannon (none for the Baneblades)
9x Battle Cannon (3x Battlecannon for the Baneblades)
10x Lascannon (6x Lascannon for the Baneblades)
20x Heavy Bolters (3x per book, or 3x and 6x Twin-linked as assumed to be for the Baneblade)
Zero Autocannons (3x Autocannons for the Baneblades)
Zero Demolisher Cannons (3x Demolisher Cannons for the Baneblades)

Add few more things into calculations.

Commissar gives fearless to 1/3 in Baneblades, but only 1/10 in Russes.
1 or 2 BM will lower the guns of the Russes by 1 or 2 tanks, while Baneblades ignore them.
1 or 2 damage will lower the guns of the Russes by 1 or 2 tanks, while Baneblades ignore them. Even more so as Baneblades can distribute damage with unit placement to make them survive more than 2 damage.

OK, I can play that game also.

Whenever a Baneblade takes a point of damage there is a 1/6 chance that the entire tank will be destroyed by a critical hit.  Whenever a Leman Russ is hit there is no chance that any other tanks will explode.

The Baneblades are more vulnerable to TK damage.  

If a TK(D3) weapon is fired at a Baneblade company and hits there is a 1/3 chance that an entire SHT will be lost with an additional chance that a critical hit will be scored that will destroy the tank.

If one of the rare TK(D6) weapons hits then there is a better than 2/3 chance that an entire SHT will be lost with an additional chance that a critical hit will be scored that will destroy the tank.

Whenever a Leman Russ is hit by a TK weapon only one tank will be destroyed, limiting tha total damage.  Let's take this a little further - since the most you will ever get out of firing a TK weapon at a Leman Russ company is one tank destroyed you are effectively limiting, maybe even wasting, the firepower of the weapon.  This makes it illogical to fire it at the Leman Russ company if there are war engines that can be fired at, reducing the likelihood that they will be fired at.  Since the armor protection of both tank types is the same, the SHT effectively become magnets for the TK weapons.

The Baneblades are more vulnerable to artillery / BP fire.

Since most players will space out their units to some extent (nevermind tight terrain or stupid players) most single template artillery attacks will only be able to attack 2 Leman Russ, with a slight possibility of attacking 3 Leman Russ depending on the situation.  The Baneblades will always suffer 3 attacks from an artillery / BP attack.  To ensure that at least 3 Leman Russ are attacked more BP have to be put into the attack to generate the extra template needed.

The Baneblades have the advantage of being able to disperse themselves enough so that the they are invulnerable to extra barrage templates, something the Leman Russ cannot do due to the unit coherency rules.  But, if the Baneblades do spread out they then become more vulnerable to assaults if the attackers concentrate on the outer side of the formation.  Since the Baneblades can only follow-up move 5cm they might be too far away to FF any assaulters.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Charad @ Jun. 06 2007,14:28)
QUOTE
Baneblade should have more firepower (agreed 3+/3+ BC would be great), but when compared to shadowswords it is not baneblades weapons that is wrong, but shadowswords are damn cheap for their abilities!

For Russ comparison, I think 150pts difference makes them quite equal as hena pointed out.

Whether the Shadowsword is underpriced for its abilities can be debated.  My problem with the Shadowsword / Volcano Cannon is that the Volcano Cannon is significantly more powerful than any of the other weapons found in Epic, making it difficult balance it with other weapons.  It has a range and to-hit probability that is superior to roughly 95% or more of the weapons in the game.  Combine that with the TK(D3) ability and you really need to add together a lot of firepower to make any collection of weapons equal.  (I ran into this problem when trying to balance AMTL titan weapons against each other.)

I don't care if the group decides on making the battlecannon an MW weapon, or changing the to-hit to AP3+/AT3+, or adding thick rear armor, or all of the above.  Whatever is decided along these choices will still be insufficient to make the Baneblade equal to the Shadowsword.  After a decision has been made, you should sit back and ask yourself: "Do I still want to take a Shadowsword instead of a Baneblade?"  Unless a radical change is made to the cannon on the Baneblade your answer will probably be "Yes."

I appreciate the points that Hena made, I'm glad that he contributed to the discussion.  But, I respectfully disagree that those points were sufficient to bring the Baneblades up to the 150 points cost difference.  The firepower difference is very significant and a lot of his arguments can be countered with good tactics.  Even if what he said was sufficient I think that my discussion points about critical hits, TK weapons, and artillery weapons puts them back on a lower level of desire.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
In assaults one enemy model don't block WE:s change to use  4+ FF and so usually baneblades are able to use that all the time. (no that I want to see my SHT:s in combats...) :)

I personally have that feeling too blarg, there is no room for baneblades, because others are better in many situations. I would use ShadowS. over BaneB. all the time even it would cost 100pts more for company. And russes are mandatory! :D  :D  :D

_________________
Rats Keep Running...

Dark Eldar Dracon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(ortron @ Jun. 06 2007,09:47)
QUOTE
Has anyone actually tried a baneblade with the suggested upgunning of 3 TL HBs and a Baneblade cannon at at3+/ap3+?

I've tried it with 3x Twin Heavy Bolters... I'll try it with AP3+/AT3+ next chance I get.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Charad @ Jun. 06 2007,16:22)
QUOTE
In assaults one enemy model don't block WE:s change to use ?4+ FF and so usually baneblades are able to use that all the time. (no that I want to see my SHT:s in combats...) :)

I personally have that feeling too blarg, there is no room for baneblades, because others are better in many situations. I would use ShadowS. over BaneB. all the time even it would cost 100pts more for company. And russes are mandatory! :D ?:D ?:D

There's room for Baneblades, they just need to be upgraded more than what anyone else here wants to do.  It should be obvious that all of the small changes that people advocate are not enough because of the stalled discussion.  How many posts are we into this thread and no definate change has been agreed upon?

A lot of people want to have WH40K constrain what we do here when it should only act as a guide.  It has gotten to the point with the Baneblade where the constraints are winning over the innovation, so the drive to bring the Baneblade to where it should be has been ground to a halt with nobody else willing to step up and think differently. (Remember when Epic told WH40K what to do?)  That is OK though.  The way things are at GW/SG has effectively made Epic: Armagedon a do it yourself game now.  

So that is what I am going to do: make a giant MS Excel spreadsheet file that will have all of the army lists and unit listings.  I will use Tactical Command and the SG website as a general guide for what things should look like and what changes need to be done.  Some units, like the Baneblade, will be the same stats as what others use except for the changes that my friends and I think are needed.  I will scan the rulebook into a MS Word file and have my own living rulebook that I can incorporate generally agreed upon changes and additions into.  (I'm tired of waiting on the ERC to bless the obviously needed changes, and I know that the online rulebook will not be changed anytime soon.)  As long as my group and I are happy then we'll be fine.

I think I've seen all of the good discussion about the Baneblade that I can expect, it has made me think about it, and I've said what I've wanted to say about the Baneblade.  I'll generate a couple of solutions, present them to my group, and we'll go from there.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:58 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
The real point here is not Baneblade v. Shadowsword.  The two tanks fill different roles in the army.   You might as well be comparing Baneblades to artillery because Shadowsords are that specialized in comparison to the Baneblade.  Direct comparison between the two is not all that great of a standard by which to judge.  If you want to determine internal balance, pick something with a comparable role.

The Baneblade is a mid-range fire support platform, with good armor and staying power.  Ergo, the real competitor of the Baneblade for internal balance issues is the Leman Russ.  The Baneblade needs to be competitive with the Russ to be internally balanced.

On a point-for-point comparison, WEs will be lower in firepower and higher in toughness than their AV competition.

A company of Baneblades is roughly as tough as a Russ Company due to total DC (9 v 10) and the advantages that come from being WEs (there are disadvantages like crits as well, but overall it's still better).  At equal toughness, to justify a 30% point cost differential of 500 v 650, the russ company should have about 60% more firepower.  At the moment, Russ have closer to 100% more firepower.

Baneblades need to gain about 20-25% firepower to be point-comparable to Russ at the company level.

Or, if you prefer, compare 3 Baneblades to ~7.5 Leman Russ for comparable points.  3 Baneblades are about 30% tougher in my estimation.  For the Leman Russ to be comparable, they need to have about 30% more firepower.  Right now they have about 45% more.  Again, to be at the firepower level they should to equal the same points in Russ, the Baneblades need to gain ~20%.

==

The 3x TLHB and upgunned battlecannon option looks awfully close to that to me.

I would probably also say screw the 40K stats and go for TRA for purposes of style.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
The real point here is not Baneblade v. Shadowsword.  The two tanks fill different roles in the army.   You might as well be comparing Baneblades to artillery because Shadowsords are that specialized in comparison to the Baneblade.  Direct comparison between the two is not all that great of a standard by which to judge.  If you want to determine internal balance, pick something with a comparable role.


Valid point about comparing the Shadowsword to the Leman Russ.  Yet, considering the similar platforms and points cost it is unavoidable.

Normally I'd agree with you about the artillery comment, but the Basilisk presents an interesting situation because it can conduct non-BP attacks as well as barrages.  The ability to conduct 9 battlecannon attacks at 120cm is worthy of note and should be kept in mind.  While the Leman Russ might be an MBT, the Basilisk is starting to look more like a WW2 assault gun or tank destroyer and less of an artillery piece.

The Baneblade is a mid-range fire support platform, with good armor and staying power.  Ergo, the real competitor of the Baneblade for internal balance issues is the Leman Russ.  The Baneblade needs to be competitive with the Russ to be internally balanced.

No problem there, I agree.

On a point-for-point comparison, WEs will be lower in firepower and higher in toughness than their AV competition.

I'm not sure, but I'll work with you on that.  At the very least you should get something of interest for your reduction in firepower for the points.

Here is where the Baneblade has a problem with the Leman Russ.  Both tanks have a 4+ armor save with reinforced armor.  This has the effect of making both designs roughly equal in ability to resist damage.  To get any increases in toughness you then have to go to the war engine rules to find any inherent differences that would relate to toughness.

So I pull out the 3.0 War Engine rules and look them over.  If you look over the rules while keeping in mind the similarities between the Leman Russ and the Baneblade you realise that most of the rules pretty much tell about how Baneblades are just like 3x Leman Russ smushed together into one tank.  This is good because it helps to highlight the differences between the taking WE -vs- AV.  The way I see it, rules-wise here are the major differences:

Allocating Hits to War Engines (artillery attacks)
Critical Hits
Titan Killer Weapons
Barging (Charge Moves)
Close Combat and Firefight Attacks (selecting between making CC and FF attacks)

If I missed something please correct me.

Allocating Hits to War Engines (artillery attacks)

If the Baneblade was the target of a barrage template then it will be attacked three times, otherwise it will get attacked twice.

Depending upon spread between units and Line of Sight (LOS) Any where from 1 to 3 Leman Russ will get attacked by a barrage template.  Personally I'd place the average at 2 Leman Russ since that is how many should be able to be targeted based upon the unit coherency rules in an open field situation.  (Technically  many more could be targeted, but I'd argue that those circumstances are exceptionally rare.)

Interpretation: Take from it what you will, I see it as a minor disadvantage for the Baneblade since it is a concentration of mass compared to the Leman Russ.

Critical Hits

This one is pretty easy: it is a disadvantage for the war engines.  Everytime a Baneblade takes a point of damage there is a 1 in 6 chance that the tank will explode and be destroyed.  Leman Russ don't suffer this problem.  Imagine that if one Leman Russ were to be destroyed there was a 1 in 6 chance that 2 other Leman Russ would be destroyed also.

Titan Killer Weapons

As I stated in a previous post this is more of a problem for war engines than armored vehicles.  Because the Baneblade is such a concentration of mass there is more of a chance of losing more combat potential with one shot.  By having your combat mass spread among the three Leman Russ it is like having bulkheads preventing damage from spreading.

Barging (Charge Moves)

This is obviously an advantage for war engines.  What is interesting, though, is that this is more of an offensive advantage than a measure of toughness.

Close Combat and Firefight Attacks (selecting between
making CC and FF attacks)


Yet another advantage for war engines.  I'm curious if this rule is an effort to simulate realism or to compensate the war engine since it is a concentration of mass.

Unless I missed something, which I very well could have done, I'm not seeing any toughness advantages for the one Baneblade versus the 3 Leman Russ.

A company of Baneblades is roughly as tough as a Russ Company due to total DC (9 v 10) and the advantages that come from being WEs (there are disadvantages like crits as well, but overall it's still better).  At equal toughness, to justify a 30% point cost differential of 500 v 650, the russ company should have about 60% more firepower.  At the moment, Russ have closer to 100% more firepower

With the Baneblade and the Leman Russ both being Armor Save 4+ and reinforced armor, combined with my discussion above, I'm having trouble agreeing with you that there are advantages with being a Baneblade instead of three Leman Russ.  

This isn't a challenge, this is a request for help: How is it better to be a war engine?  What am I missing in this discussion?

I understand where you got the 30% point cost differential, can you explain where you got the 60% number from?  Is this a gut feeling SWAG or is this based on some formula?

Baneblades need to gain about 20-25% firepower to be point-comparable to Russ at the company level.

Or, if you prefer, compare 3 Baneblades to ~7.5 Leman Russ for comparable points.  3 Baneblades are about 30% tougher in my estimation.  For the Leman Russ to be comparable, they need to have about 30% more firepower.  Right now they have about 45% more.  Again, to be at the firepower level they should to equal the same points in Russ, the Baneblades need to gain ~20%.

I'm not going to question your percentages, because I'll admit you lost me on them.  But, I do have a bit of a problem in that in your discussion here you are basing it upon a company versus company comparison.  What about when you start looking at the 1x Baneblade support formation for 200 points versus the 3x Leman Russ company upgrade for 200 points?  

Part of your discussion is based upon the fact that the Super Heavy Tank Company can get 9 DC at 55 points per point of damage that it can absorb while the Tank company has to pay 65 points per point of damage that it can absorb.  That is going to skew your analysis towards giving the Baneblades less of an increase in firepower.

The 3x TLHB and upgunned battlecannon option looks awfully close to that to me.

I would probably also say screw the 40K stats and go for TRA for purposes of style

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saying "screw the 40K stats..." but I have to disagree with the thick rear armor for the Baneblade based upon previous editions of Epic.  If you look at the stats for the Imperial Guard super heavy tanks in Space Marine / Titan Legions there was only one that had an equivelant of Thick Rear Armor: the Leviathan where the armor save was not modified based upon the side of the tank that was hit.  The Storm Hammer comes a close second in that there was no -1 to the armor save for shots on the side and only a -1 to the armor save (instead of the normal -2) for shots that hit the rear.  (The three Ordinatus also had armor like the Leviathan, but it was weaker.)

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Dont forget that if the Baneblade Company looses 2DC it is not destroyed and canuse its full firepower. Whereas the Leman Russ Company has decreased permanently in firepower because of the loss of two tanks.
Same goes for BMs and supression.





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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
The 3x TLHB and upgunned battlecannon option looks awfully close to that to me.

I would probably also say screw the 40K stats and go for TRA for purposes of style.


I'm with you on the upgunning.

I'll fight you to the death if you want TRA.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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