Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Split Fire (Titans)

 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
semajnollissor wrote:
What about limiting split fire to the carapace weapons, as if they were controlled by a separate fire control system. that way Reavers could fire one big gun at a different unit, and warlords could fire two.

It’s arbitrary, but it achieves the desired results.


I'd really like a rule that "scales" over different lists, such as the Gargant and Eldar Titan list. The way I look at it, the issue is that almost all big WE in Epic are problematic in one way or another (except possibly the Tyranid ones), not just the Reaver, the Warlord and the Emperor Titan.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Galicia
Vaaish wrote:
Every titan has plasma points equal to it's current remaining DC. Warhounds start with 3, Reavers 6, Warlords 8.
Scout titan weapons cost 1 plasma point to fire
Battle titan weapons cost 2 plasma points to fire.

The hope was that this would help armies that struggle against titans to have a meaniningful effect even if they can't outright kill a titan and have a moderating effect on weapon selection for titans.


That looks like a good way to get deteriorating mechanics and keep them simple and easy to track. They just need to incorporate movement and assault into the degradation to be complete. Adding Marshall and Sustain inot the equation should be advisable but i doubt there is a way to add that without complicating the mechanics too much.

The other side of it is while it deals with one of the problems with big Titans, it not deals with how uncommon they are to see due to activation disadvantage, even more the Warlords and Emperors, but the reduced cost that would go with the plasma mechanics would help but i think won't be enough for those two.

Vaaish wrote:
There was no official testing to my knowledge. Generally anecdotal evidence from house rules. What generally carried/s more weight is that this ability to split fire was intentionally left out of the Epic rules system. House rules are fine, but nothing will go into the lists "officially".


I understand, but i was referring mostly to TacCom testing more than to official one.

Vaaish wrote:

I haven't followed gargants quite as closely but they tend to have more DC than titans so it may need to be adjusted for them to work well... or it may just balance nicely with their worse shooting. I hadn't really intended this for outside of AMTL.


The Gargants are more tricky: The problem is that Supa Stompas uses the same weapons as the Gargants, and that Great Gargants have the same number of weapon systems as the other two. There is also the issue that they come with lesser weaponry (Gaze of Mork, and also 2 Big Guns in case of GG). It can be done but it will need several more lines of text that for Imperial Titans. The plasma points can be changed to steam points as Gargants use boilers to power up the systems.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5467
Location: London, UK
An interesting idea Vaaish
Perhaps a simple way around this would be to say that AMTL titans lose weapons when their DC gets down to the relevant numbers (ie bottom up), whilst Ork ‘titans’ (Gargants etc) lose their weapons when they lose any DC (ie ‘top down’). In all cases, round down, so a battle Titan needs to lose 2DC before a weapon is lost, and then use a simple dice throw to determine the weapon lost.

Tau and Chaos titans can work like AMTL (unless there are reasons not to)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:36 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4161
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
They just need to incorporate movement and assault into the degradation to be complete.


I would never include any form of movement degradation on titans. They are a very slow army as it is and tend to win on points. Movement reduction is just insulting to them.

Assault degradation could be looked into but I'm on the fence with it. Even if it's nearly ready to blow up, it's still a pretty huge construct and between chunks of armor falling off, stomping on things, or smaller point defense weapons that wouldn't require the same resources as the bigger stuff, I think its a bit unnecessary to adjust their base attacks. Any CC or FF enhancing weapons would fall under the plasma rules so you'd already lose a good bit.

On the other hand, it doesn't really change a lot wouldn't be hard to just say you use current DC instead of starting DC for attacks.

Quote:
The Gargants are more tricky:

Yeah, I looked at them a bit last night and thought maybe splitting it by weapon point cost. 75 point weapon needs at least 4 points to fire, 50 needs 2, and 25 needs 1. That would make it something like a great gargant would have to lose 5DC before losing a weapon... dunno though still a bit wonky.


Quote:
Perhaps a simple way around this would be to say that AMTL titans lose weapons when their DC gets down to the relevant numbers (ie bottom up), whilst Ork ‘titans’ (Gargants etc) lose their weapons when they lose any DC (ie ‘top down’). In all cases, round down, so a battle Titan needs to lose 2DC before a weapon is lost, and then use a simple dice throw to determine the weapon lost.


That could work, but it's an entirely negative mechanism and I don't like the random loss of a weapon. One of my goals with the plasma rules were to make the AMTL player think about the weapons he chooses. A Titan armed with lighter weapons will have full output longer than one that takes all battle titan weapons. I guess we could go with a titan loses a weapon for every two DC lost, but that does kind of lose some of the thought process with what weapons to take. I'd stil go with the controlling player choosing which weapons aren't fired each turn. Too random and too debilitating otherwise.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Galicia
Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
They just need to incorporate movement and assault into the degradation to be complete.


I would never include any form of movement degradation on titans. They are a very slow army as it is and tend to win on points. Movement reduction is just insulting to them.

Assault degradation could be looked into but I'm on the fence with it. Even if it's nearly ready to blow up, it's still a pretty huge construct and between chunks of armor falling off, stomping on things, or smaller point defense weapons that wouldn't require the same resources as the bigger stuff, I think its a bit unnecessary to adjust their base attacks. Any CC or FF enhancing weapons would fall under the plasma rules so you'd already lose a good bit.

On the other hand, it doesn't really change a lot wouldn't be hard to just say you use current DC instead of starting DC for attacks.

.


I understand it, but first, if you look at it NetEA AMTL is on the speed side (6-7 out of 10 i would say) compared with other Titan lists, and even more compared with IG lists, and second if you don't add something for assaults and movement that rule can be avoided and it is incomplete, even if they still get affected by it as they have to change their behaviour, and assaulting is not precisely a bad or uncommon thing in EA. It also seems a bit silly that they don't have energy for shooting but can march around as much as they want from both fluff and gameplay side.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:58 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4161
Location: Greenville, SC
Quote:
It also seems a bit silly that they don't have energy for shooting but can march around as much as they want from both fluff and gameplay side.


I'm not sure I follow you on the first half of what you're saying there, but I don't think it is silly titans would still be able to march around or have good FF/CC. It's not like them stomping on something would cover fewer troops or hurt less because the titan is damaged.

The concept here is that titan crews shift power around for critical needs. If you're getting heavily damaged and your power reserves are dropping, you're going to want to be able to move as fast as possible and shunt energy to regen shields even if that means you don't have power to fire all your primary weapons too. It's more likely that main weapons wouldn't be able to fire than point defense weapons as point defense bolters and lascannons would have far lower power requirements. In epic terms that means Titans would have power to move at normal speeds and maintain basic assault capabilities.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:44 am
Posts: 163
Woah, Vaaish! People are interested in our discussions on the plasma rule again! (Since I brought it up last time…)

I think Epic:A (like many games) has rather poorly-developed rules for multi-hit entities. To me, the problem of ‘critical existence failure’ (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) is one of the key dissonances between large war engines and normal formations, like Vaaish mentioned.

When a normal formation gets shot, they get suppressed and lose firepower as they take damage. When a titan gets shot, it has a small chance of taking high damage but otherwise keeps plinking about like normal. As a result, titans become a bit of a binary thing: either they’re killing lots of stuff, or they’re dead. How do you balance that? Usually, people go with the underpowered side; probably better for the gaming community, but it leaves you with a relatively poor Titan Legion experience (as we’ve heard in this thread).

So I think degradation is a key factor, and totally in keeping with the other design principles of EA, and I’ve never really understood why a war engine’s starting DC is used for so much instead of its current DC. When war engines can be degraded, it’s easier to balance them like other formations, and they can be cheaper, leading to better balance (hopefully). I think the more ‘natural’ degradation given by Vaaish’s plasma rules and by reducing Assault attacks to current DC (as well as various other DC-related things that would be sensible to degrade) or Doomkitten’s 3DC idea provide much more interesting results than a critical damage mechanic.

In my own tinkering, I found that for the plasma rules to work, I think there are a couple of issues to surmount. One is how you classify weapons into different classes (I think an ‘arbitrary’ definition is the only way it would work). The other is how small war engines are handled (e.g. Baneblade versus Warhound), or how strange allocations of weapons to hit point values seem to work (e.g. Baneblade versus Shadowsword).

I’m not sure how those would be best addressed, but maybe grouping ‘small’ weapons into batteries (or just leaving them unaffected by plasma) would work, as might dividing the war engines category into two (which is probably not a bad idea, generally, given the diversity of war engines).

Before anyone says it again :P I do acknowledge, too, that it’s unlikely these ideas will be incorporated into any ‘official’ EA ruleset, at least not for a while—but I don’t think that’s a reason to not fiddle around and try out some of these things, especially if there are eager people wanting to give it a go! At worst, you get some optional, considered rules that make titans cooler in Epic games, and people can choose to use them if they like them.

PS: It also strikes me that one partial solution to the problem of titan shooting overkill is to make Intermingled count for allocating Shooting hits, too. This probably isn’t the place for that discussion, but I think it cognitively follows well from the existing Intermingled rule.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 241
Location: Galicia
Vaaish wrote:
Quote:
It also seems a bit silly that they don't have energy for shooting but can march around as much as they want from both fluff and gameplay side.


I'm not sure I follow you on the first half of what you're saying there, but I don't think it is silly titans would still be able to march around or have good FF/CC. It's not like them stomping on something would cover fewer troops or hurt less because the titan is damaged.

The concept here is that titan crews shift power around for critical needs. If you're getting heavily damaged and your power reserves are dropping, you're going to want to be able to move as fast as possible and shunt energy to regen shields even if that means you don't have power to fire all your primary weapons too. It's more likely that main weapons wouldn't be able to fire than point defense weapons as point defense bolters and lascannons would have far lower power requirements. In epic terms that means Titans would have power to move at normal speeds and maintain basic assault capabilities.


Well the silliness is first from that they are not being able to do something but they have complete freedom for the rest, but your argument is solid: if we say that they need all the power for a double, makes sense that they direct more power to move and repair than to shoot. Here i was thinking on a more part by part reasoning, not as the action as a whole.

About the assault is that is not the same walking than fighting, it requires to be swifter, more precise and powerful. Anyone can move or run but fighting requires a lot more movement, attention and precision, even if it is just stomping infantry, not talking dodging and parrying attacks against other Titans which would be even harder and require a lot more attention, meaning if that they cannot move as fast, the stomping will be easier to avoid. The mechanic that was pointed out of them using their actual DC for assaults sounds fine and it simple and easy to track.

Thinking Stone wrote:

So I think degradation is a key factor, and totally in keeping with the other design principles of EA, and I’ve never really understood why a war engine’s starting DC is used for so much instead of its current DC. When war engines can be degraded, it’s easier to balance them like other formations, and they can be cheaper, leading to better balance (hopefully). I think the more ‘natural’ degradation given by Vaaish’s plasma rules and by reducing Assault attacks to current DC (as well as various other DC-related things that would be sensible to degrade) or Doomkitten’s 3DC idea provide much more interesting results than a critical damage mechanic.

Yeah, degradation is to me the most important factor to make them work, with activations the second. Using the actual DCs for assaults sounds fine too, but i am not so sure for the rest of cases.

Thinking Stone wrote:
In my own tinkering, I found that for the plasma rules to work, I think there are a couple of issues to surmount. One is how you classify weapons into different classes (I think an ‘arbitrary’ definition is the only way it would work). The other is how small war engines are handled (e.g. Baneblade versus Warhound), or how strange allocations of weapons to hit point values seem to work (e.g. Baneblade versus Shadowsword).


Then i think that there is no issues, at least from my point of view: Weapon clasification Vaalsh has dealt with that already, and given that they do fine on EA, that they die relatively fast and that keeping track of degradation on lots of small WE would be a pain, i think it is not a problem if we ignore small WE and concentrate on the DC6 where the issue is noticiable.

Thinking Stone wrote:
Before anyone says it again :P I do acknowledge, too, that it’s unlikely these ideas will be incorporated into any ‘official’ EA ruleset, at least not for a while—but I don’t think that’s a reason to not fiddle around and try out some of these things, especially if there are eager people wanting to give it a go! At worst, you get some optional, considered rules that make titans cooler in Epic games, and people can choose to use them if they like them.

Of course, that's why Mrdealot dea of putting those on lists instead of on the game itself is a good idea, and also as a way to prove their usefullness for expnding them. It is OK if a list uses diferent rules to others, Titan list or not.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:26 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:32 am
Posts: 393
Location: Eastern PA
I like the point about AT players buying in to that game for the sake of EA, because I fall into that category. I sold out of EA almost completely last year, but kept a sizable OGBM selection with a smattering of foot orks and vehicles. When AT dropped i was delighted to see the ability to create and AMTL force again, despite the scale being a bit off.

I like the ideas I am seeing for Split Fire and Degrading systems for titans. Once i get my Titans painted i plan on testing more in EA, maybe offer some feedback.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
studderingdave wrote:
I like the point about AT players buying in to that game for the sake of EA, because I fall into that category. I sold out of EA almost completely last year, but kept a sizable OGBM selection with a smattering of foot orks and vehicles. When AT dropped i was delighted to see the ability to create and AMTL force again, despite the scale being a bit off.

I like the ideas I am seeing for Split Fire and Degrading systems for titans. Once i get my Titans painted i plan on testing more in EA, maybe offer some feedback.


We've got quite a few suggestions lined up for testing, so glad to hear there's some interest!

With all the really nice models that GW will be releasing, and with the enormous difference in complexity between WE in A-T and in E:A, I think it would be criminal not to try and find some compromises between that ruleset and the E:A one.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
On the topic of plasma points: I like the general idea around it, but someone needs to formulate a clear rule around it before we see if it's practical. And as I've said before, I'm concerned whether the rule scales between different armies.

I'd much prefer there to be one rule that could be used by many lists instead of there being one rule per list. Having one would also make it possible to refer to it in a short-hand kind of way, much like Void Shields or Lance can now be used in pretty much any list without having to be defined (because they've spread to so many lists). This is a sneaky way of introducing new rules into E:A.

On the topic of having a linear degradation instead of a clear cut-off like the Crippling Damage is currently formulated: That might be too big a departure from how WE work right now, and would make the Titans really odd compared to every other WE in the game.

Now, the linear degradation could probably work for things like Blast Markers or FF/CC, but it would be hard to get negative modifier to armour and initiative into such a system. The current Crippling Damage rule makes this possible. I definitely agree that it's a bit of a compromise, but I think it's well worth testing.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:54 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4161
Location: Greenville, SC
The base rule for plasma is pretty easy, it's the points that need set on a per army basis. AMTL works nice because of the two groupings and DC numbers. Eldar I think functions well too. Not sure about TTL or OBGM though. The later is messy due to the high and variable DC between units.

Plasma: Each <unit type> has plasma points equal to the unit's remaining DC. Each primary weapon system the <unit type> equips requires the number of plasma points determined by <the list> to fire each turn.

AMTL:
Scout Titan Weapons = 1 point
Battle Titan Weapons = 2 points

TTL:
Same as AMTL?

Eldar:
Revenants: 1 point
Warlock/Phantom: 2 points

OGBM:
Not sure... was thinking maybe 4 points per weapon due to high DC.

Tau, Crons, Nids:
Ignore.


Quote:
Now, the linear degradation could probably work for things like Blast Markers or FF/CC, but it would be hard to get negative modifier to armour and initiative into such a system.


Irrespective of how it's implemented, I really think initiative and armor adjustments are well beyond the scope here. Epic is fairly abstracted and both of these feel too granular for the epic system as a special rule. We have initiative degradation in terms of BM giving -1 to activation and armor values for skillful maneuvering to generate crossfire. I don't think more is needed or warranted to affect how big WE work.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 pm
Posts: 722
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
AMTL:
Scout Titan Weapons = 1 point
Battle Titan Weapons = 2 points


And support weapons? Also there's one-shot weapons such as barrage missiles. Should CC weapons take plasma points as well? TTL and Eldar has a lot of auxillary weapons such as tails and other fixed armament, as does the Emperor Titan in AMTL.

Quote:
Irrespective of how it's implemented, I really think initiative and armor adjustments are well beyond the scope here. Epic is fairly abstracted and both of these feel too granular for the epic system as a special rule. We have initiative degradation in terms of BM giving -1 to activation and armor values for skillful maneuvering to generate crossfire. I don't think more is needed or warranted to affect how big WE work


Well I disagree. In my opinion the No 1 problem that the designers of E:A has saddled us with is that the WE rules are a bit crap. Perhaps this would have been fixed as the game evolved but now we're stuck with a ruleset that doesn't change (which has its positives as well). Playing Knights according to RAW is a pain in the ass (so no-one does it), and most people find the big titans to be annoying at best and destructive of the game at worst. I think it's really sad that the Emperor Titan doesn't really work in the game system, while the Warlord or Great Gargant barely does so. I think these models should be a lot more common than they are, and not as impossible to kill as they are.

While the Plasma Point system as outlined above would potentially provide the opponent with a way to make the Titan less effective, it wouldn't help them in killing it, making it easier to break, prevent it from rallying or making them less effective when engaging or supporting (which lets face it is what you should be doing with Titans, especially Eldar).

Not saying that the Crippling Damage rule is the only way to go, but I think in order to make Titans and Titan lists more viable and playable we need to think about the titans in more than one dimension (using weapons for shooting). Maybe there's a way to do it with Plasma Points, I don't know.

Got a playtest of the Crippling Damage and Split Fire rules coming up tomorrow with Questoris Mechanicus, we'll see how it goes.

_________________
AC for Traitor Titan Legion and Hive Fleet Dagon


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:32 am
Posts: 393
Location: Eastern PA
once i get my titan list up to 3000 points painted im going to pressgang a local into learning epic so he can be my testing buddy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Split Fire (Titans)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:44 am
Posts: 163
I broadly agree with @Vaaish on the armour save degradation and Initiative not being necessary, for three reasons. (1) Other, non-WE, formations don’t lose armour or initiative when damaged. To me, this is the most important aspect (preserving mechanical continuity). (2) New, relatively complex rules are needed, and the degradation doesn’t happen naturally based on existing mechanics (i.e. the change doesn’t depend on remaining DC). (3) I’m not sure if degrading armour and initiative really reflect actual titan damage any better than existing EA mechanisms do, and I’m not sure if titans actually need to be easier to kill if they can be effectively suppressed (this could be debated, of course, so it’s the least persuasive—and I’m not trying to start a quibble-fest over it!).

But that all doesn’t mean that it’s not an idea worth trying! I just find it more elegant the plasma way, and I don’t think a critical damage threshold is necessary to represent multi-DC units well. (Like I’ve noted before, another critical existence point doesn’t really help the existing critical existence failure issues a whole lot)

As a compromise with some of @Mrdiealot’s points, I think degrading Assault performance with damage/plasma capacity works well. I’m not sure about the effects of blast markers; I have seen past discussions on the Fearlessness of WE causing issues, too.

One-shot weapons costing plasma might be considered a useful feature of the list. For support weapons, perhaps blast markers (or damage sustained) could suppress weapons systems like units are suppressed in formations? Or perhaps they don’t need extra suppression. I do think the ‘all or nothing’ suppression of titans is a bit wonky, though, but with main weapons needing plasma, this issue is lessened.

On the topic of Knights and other WE versus titans: this discrepancy is why I suggested another class of WE might be useful. Knights, Baneblades, Thunderhawks, &c. all seem to be supposed to act quite differently to titans. Are there any ideas for rules that might help these smaller WE that aren’t appropriate for big WE?

==========

For the peace of mind of the other EA community members (and reflecting my rant elsewhere :P) I advise not worrying about inclusion in the ‘official’ EA rules for the time being. It only seems to cause angst, and detract from the actual work of seeing if these new ideas work. I don’t think it’s even really necessary, in the big picture. If the rules work really excellently then people will want to use them regardless of where they find them, and, as the appointed AMTL person, @Vaaish is already pretty supportive of ideas testing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cyguns and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


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