SFR, Inc. Forum Index SFR, Inc.
Forums that relate to SFR products
 
 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Half-turn start
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Half-Turn Start possibly diminishes the importance of winning the Horde roll. It may even suggest (as Mr. Burkley theorizes) that the ability to select the Frontier becomes the objective of someone still trying to win the roll. How often is the game functionally ended by a devastating first turn? I know it can be frustrating when it happens, and in a turn-based game it's hardly fair to the second player that s/he might not have a chance to act with anything close to a full complement of troops. At first blush it would appear to have the potential to be a significant change, but it could be for the better if it promotes fairness. It bears testing, at the very least.

Every race has access to resurrection magic.

stormywaters wrote:
I don't recall seeing any other solutions to turtling being proposed.

One That Was wrote:
(The others seem to have just dropped out of discussion)


This doesn't mean the ideas stopped existing. Some were not yet tested and some were. I'm not sure what to make of the apparent stance that if you're not seeing something right now, it's gone from the world.

One That Was wrote:
and in a mechanics sense [army capping] would seem to work well.


It's an arbitrary limitation on play introduced for the exclusive purpose of preventing players from pursuing a single tactic. If we are to make a change, better that we see to it simply that this tactic is not the ultimate than that we cut off its head and look for the next villain.

One That Was wrote:
it *would* complicate the game further . . . until everyone gets used to doing it


There is no "everyone gets used to it" as we are ideally constantly introducing new players. Forcing the player's hand on troop placement throughout the entire game is unwieldy and restricting.

Astonishing as it is to find myself agreeing in any part with Mr. Rayborn, the capacity to mass one's entire force at one location is not a problem so long as it is not a superior tactic to all or most others. As long as the potential for losing the two abandoned territories is high enough that such a maneuver represents a non-negligible risk, there is no reason to introduce rules to proscribe the action. This leads back to the arguments brought up in other threads.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:55 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Allow me to clarify an earlier post. The ideas proposed to correct a potential flaw in current gameplay were not designed to combat the existence of the "turtle" (how loathsome that we are reduced to video-gamer terms) but rather its efficacy, and therefore popularity. If a player wants to gather all his/her dice at one terrain, that's fine, as long as it isn't always a better idea than an alternative. If the player is gambling on generating enough damage to wipe out his/her opponent before the opponent can capture the other terrains, and in so doing undertakes legitimate risk, commensurate with other viable strategies, then it is not a problem.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
stormywaters
rare



Joined: 22 May 2011
Posts: 1403

usa.gif
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:07 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
This doesn't mean the ideas stopped existing. Some were not yet tested and some were. I'm not sure what to make of the apparent stance that if you're not seeing something right now, it's gone from the world.


Hold the phone. Just stop right there.

Who, exactly, said "I'm not seeing it right now, so it must be gone from the world"? This is so infuriating, and I am astonished that you would even suggest that it was either of our intent. How condescending can a person possibly be? Apparently very.

What we were both saying, quite obviously, was "I don't see those proposals, can you point to where they are please?" I can't even fathom how you reached the conclusion you posted here.

Quote:
There is no "everyone gets used to it" as we are ideally constantly introducing new players. Forcing the player's hand on troop placement throughout the entire game is unwieldy and restricting.


I don't see how this holds water. All games have rules; that's what makes them games instead of play-time. All new players have to learn all the rules. They have to learn the mage restriction. They have to learn what the SAIs do. They have to learn how dragon attacks work.

Adding a rule that says "At the start of each game, and at the end of each of your turns, you may have no more than 50% of your total points at any one terrain" doesn't introduce a slew of new things to learn. It's one simple rule among many simple rules.

Complex rules? How about "Take half your magic results. No, you don't count Cantrip yet, you count that later. Oh no, you count IDs as normal results, then you can double them after you subtract half. Okay, now add the Cantrips back in." Yeah, we've already got mathematics way more complex than "No more than half". There aren't crazy exceptions and convoluted doubling schemes involved in imposing a terrain-health cap.

And "Forcing the player's hand... throughout the entire game"? That's a bit of a heavy-handed analysis, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Allow me to clarify an earlier post. The ideas proposed to correct a potential flaw in current gameplay were not designed to combat the existence of the "turtle" (how loathsome that we are reduced to video-gamer terms) but rather its efficacy, and therefore popularity. If a player wants to gather all his/her dice at one terrain, that's fine, as long as it isn't always a better idea than an alternative. If the player is gambling on generating enough damage to wipe out his/her opponent before the opponent can capture the other terrains, and in so doing undertakes legitimate risk, commensurate with other viable strategies, then it is not a problem.


And as posited in numerous threads, the turtle player doesn't undertake legitimate risks, nor is it a lesser decision. A 36-point army with 18 points of mages will consistently generate enough magic to stop any army from recovering.

As has been stated numerous times, the game rewards min-maxing. Maximizing your damage output, your save rolls, your magic totals; those are the things that the game wants from you. "You only get one march" or "you leave two terrains unopposed" are not nearly important enough considerations. The only army that is hindered by sitting in a turtle is a melee-only army. Missiles can maximize damage against an army that is not turtled, and mages can maximize spell output. Your opponent's only option is to turtle as well. Then it's just a game of "who rolls the biggest number", so we might as well just play Yahtzee and call it a day.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
chuckpint
White Dragon
SFR President
Site Admin



Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 9124
Location: Evanston, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:12 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, while I like to see discussion about a topic, and understand that you might get a bit heated about your point of view, I expect everyone to stay civil on this forum. I'm not talking about one person here, I'm see a bit from several people. Please try not to take anything said here personally. It's simply possible that the person did not really say what they wanted to say in the most diplomatic way. So give them the benefit of the doubt. No one here needs to be "called out".

So back on topic: yes, this game has some complex rules. We have many examples to pull from. Magic doubling has been discussed elsewhere, and it is still an open subject. To put it simply: we haven't figured out how to fix it. However, that does not justify adding a new rule that adds complexity. For a rule change to happen the following need to get done:
  1. Completely define and agree on the problem.
  2. Throw some ideas at fixing the problem.
  3. Word up the agreed upon fix and put it into the rules.

So first we need to agree that a "turtled" army is really a problem. From what I've seen, the turtling is not the real problem. It is the symptom of another problem. For example: turtle your army at your first eighth face so you can generate enough magic to Path and TRtM to win the second eighth. If we fix the Path problem, then there is one less reason to turtle. The other reason to turtle is to just be able to sling deadly magic (or missile) at other armies while being untouchable yourself. While those are harder to fix, there are threads that are talking about ways to fix those.

However, the topic of this thread is really about the proposal to somehow limit the turn of the person going first. Honestly, I don't see how limiting a player to only one march will fix the problem of another player getting wiped out in before they take a turn. Here's an example: If the player going second has their mages at their home, and the player going first has placed an army of heavy melee at that home, and the terrain comes up on melee, then that mage army could still get wiped out. So you don't get to cast magic with your mages, and instead simply take a melee attack with your heavies vs. mages. I think we all know how that will go in most cases.
_________________
You can never have too many dice.
First Place at the first ever Daemon Diceâ„¢ sealed starter tournament.
Battlefest tied for first GenCon 2012
Single Race Champion GenCon 2008-2009, Sealed Box Champion GenCon 2007,2009,
My collection is 21,500 Dragon Diceâ„¢, 20,000 Daemon Diceâ„¢, and others (too many to count).
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10777
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:24 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

chuckpint wrote:
If we fix the Path problem, then there is one less reason to turtle. The other reason to turtle is to just be able to sling deadly magic (or missile) at other armies while being untouchable yourself. While those are harder to fix, there are threads that are talking about ways to fix those.
Agreed, there is a thread discussing path and a possibly solution.

slinging magic (FoD, HS, etc. ) is harder to fix.
amazon missile army is also harder to fix.

but I'll stop for now and get that on the appropriate threads.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:34 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

On review I did want to go deeper into something Mr. Burkley brought up -- that halving first turn marches eliminates certain strategies -- and ask after a bit of elaboration so we all understand. Are you referring to constructing an army around the idea of making this first turn "lightning" attack? Or just the strategy one may come up with if fortune happens to give him first turn and favorable terrains? Or a combination of the two -- an army designed to take advantage of first turn opportunities, should they arise? I can see how a 1-march first turn could take the wind out of the sails of any, but one is hit harder than the others (the first).

I think, if I'm reading it right, Mr. Pint's post is reminding us to keep cognizant of such rules' impact on multi-player games. If only Player 1 is restricted, this does not prevent Player 3 or 4 from being destroyed before s/he marches. If there is a real concern that a 2-march first turn regularly imperils a later player, one could even propose limiting every player to a single march on each one's first turn. I'm throwing it out there, but I'm not crazy about it myself, as: 1) it's kind of weird and forced; 2) the real danger is that a player who hasn't gone yet has not had an opportunity to pull troops out of danger, so Player 1 is never at risk and Player 2+ is further disadvantaged; 3) I'm not in possession of numbers behind the idea that the first-turn death is a big/frequent enough problem to warrant attention. Still, I figure there could be something I'm missing.

Again, it seems worthy of testing, at least, since we have free labor!
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
dburkley
rare
Director



Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1200
Location: Hillsborough, NJ

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:41 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
On review I did want to go deeper into something Mr. Burkley brought up -- that halving first turn marches eliminates certain strategies -- and ask after a bit of elaboration so we all understand. Are you referring to constructing an army around the idea of making this first turn "lightning" attack? Or just the strategy one may come up with if fortune happens to give him first turn and favorable terrains? Or a combination of the two -- an army designed to take advantage of first turn opportunities, should they arise? I can see how a 1-march first turn could take the wind out of the sails of any, but one is hit harder than the others (the first).

I'm going to let Tips, Tricks, and Secrets #76 explain some of my 1st turn strategies.

dburkley wrote:
#76 Opportunities to Gain a Local Superiority (always roll your dice)
The Gryphon, medallions, and Unicorn all have the ability to suddenly move themselves and a companion die to another terrain. This can provide opportunities to gain a local superiority at a terrain to make a critical maneuver or action that could be a game-changing move.

My examples use the Unicorn and Gold Medallion. Their effects trigger at different times. The Wayfare SAI activates during a maneuver, while the Teleport SAI activates during a non-maneuver action, so having both of these pieces in an army gives you two chances to get the appropriate SAI. When it happens, look at your situation. Does this army have everything under control? Can you afford to peal off two units? Is there an opportunity worth taking right now?

During the GenCon 2009 Worlds and Battlefest competitions I had three games that afforded "opportunities" on the first turn. In each instance, I activated the Horde army first, which had the Gold Medallion and Unicorn. (As a side note, I was the only one that did not have at least 50%+ magicians in their Battlefest army. Three players had 100% magician armies, making me wonder if I was the one that brought a knife to a gunfight...)

Example #1: The opposing army was a single common die. He elected to counter-maneuver. He looked at a partial roll of my dice and said I could stop, but you should always roll ALL your dice. There are opportunities waiting to happen. In this instance, the Wayfare SAI came up. The situation was well in hand, so I could afford to take the Gold Medallion and another die to my Home army to confront the opponent's Horde army with an advantage of 24-25 health to 18 health. My Home army won the maneuver and launched a very successful melee attack, with 10 damage contributed by the Medallion's Sortie SAI and the Leopard Rider's Rend SAI followed up by an ID icon.

Example #2: The opposing army was 29 health. During the Melee action the Unicorn rolled its Teleport SAI and a Leopard Rider had rolled missiles. The opportunity existed to move these two units to my Home army (anticipating another melee), but before I do that, will I need them for the opponent's counter-attack? After choosing to resolve the Rend SAIs, I had 4 Smites and 28 damage. I felt comfortable that whatever opposing magicians survived that would not be too difficult for the remaining 23 health army to deal with - so I moved the two units to my Home army to gain a 36 health to 30 health advantage. After committing to this move, the opponent had a less-than-average save roll and lost most of his Home army. My newly reinforced Home army won its maneuver roll, moved the terrain die up and butchered the opponent's Home army of magicians.

Example #3: Similar situation to #2, but the Gold Medallion had also rolled a Wayfare SAI during melee, which was useless in the melee - so I used the Teleport SAI to move the Unicorn, taking a Leopard Rider along, and the Leopard Rider brought the Gold Medallion. Now the Home army has 40 health vs the opponent's 30 health army. The Home army wins the maneuver roll, moves the terrain die to a melee face and delivers another devastating attack to the opponent's army - most of which don't survive.

I went on to win the games in each of these three examples, because I was able to to generate opportunities to re-deploy my units to gain a local advantage that proved critical in first turn melee actions, whether it be to change the terrain to an important face for my strategy or conduct the action itself. Although the examples used melee actions, it would apply just as well to a missile action or magic action. The opportunity presented itself to use assets that were otherwise useless at that point in time and give them another chance of contributing something towards my strategy and goals.


If I am currently using a strategy that relies on Cantrips, Ferry, Firewalking, Teleport, and/or Wayfare to attempt to gain a local superiority for a 1st turn attack, whether it is by missiles or melee, I would not be able to attempt this strategy on the 1st turn if I start the game with only one march - but the ability to suddenly transfer units to reinforce another army will still has value during the game.
_________________
Daniel Burkley
US National Champion (DEXCON 2007, 2009, 2010)
World Champion (GENCON 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014)
Battlefest Champion: DEXCON 2008, 2011, GENCON 2009, 2010 (co-champion), 2011, 2017)
"No Magicians": GENCON 2008
"Single Race": DEXCON 2008, GENCON 2010, 2011, 2014 (co-champion), 2017


Last edited by dburkley on Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:11 pm GMT; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7870
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:17 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real issue for the examining the half turn is that it does not allow the starting player to pin out of place armies in the opening of the game.

The opening of the game is too unbalanced if the terrains come up if favor of the starting player.

To me this problem happens far too often.

END
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:40 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The last time I was playing, I had an idea on the starting round. What If instead of a first turn, it was a first march? During the first round players can march, but not make attacks. Armies could maneuver terrains jockeying for position, but no one attacks until the players have the opportunity to send units to the reserves.

The starting sequence would be: determine 1st player, place armies, roll terrain dice, then each player gets one march to attempt to maneuver a terrain, afterward each player may take turns moving units to reserves. That ends the first round, each succeeding round is played normally.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:13 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing I wanted to bring up is an alternate start sequence. I play like this every time I play so I have tested it a lot, so It really works well in the environment I play in. I have a new player almost every time I play, so this I how I start them out.

Everyone creates 3 armies (I usually suggest a fighter army an archer army and a magic army for new players.), chooses terrain dice etc. Then each player rolls for maneuvers with each army and totals the results. Highest total goes first, and chooses the frontier terrain. Each player rolls their home terrain, and the first player rolls the frontier terrain. Then players take turns placing armies.

There is no home, hoard or anything, just armies, you can place them where you want. You can see where the melee, missile and magic terrains are going to be, and can plan accordingly. I think this helps speed game play by reducing the amount of moving armies from one place to another to find a good place to start. It is also beneficial to new players because there is more flexibility in where armies are placed. If this is the first time you have played, and you have to send your campaign army to a battle at the wrong range, they get mashed because you put them on the wrong card, that is a big turn off.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10777
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:24 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

J.T.Silversmith wrote:

The starting sequence would be: determine 1st player, place armies, roll terrain dice, then each player gets one march to attempt to maneuver a terrain, afterward each player may take turns moving units to reserves. That ends the first round, each succeeding round is played normally.


The only way this would work is if you had balanced all three armies.

For example: A heavy maneuver army will out maneuver any other army consistently.

So if a terrain comes up a 6 (which it will twice as often as any other number), then on my initial march I can move it to a 7 and on my first turn I can capture the 8th face.

That would actually make the start of the game worse.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:34 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cliffwiggs, thanks for responding. As I see it we have a slight difference in terms we are using. The initial march as you called it I would call a first turn, then on your second turn you could capture the terrain. If it is captured on the second turn, then it is almost the same as a normal game. the only difference is that your opponent(s) could still have their army. I think I can explain why I think it could work if I give two examples, in essentially the same circumstances, one under the current rules, the other in my suggested start-up.

This is the set-up: Your home army is a missile unit, and the army on the frontier is a cavalry unit. You won the chance to move first. The terrains are rolled, your home comes up missile range, and the frontier is a 6. This example is a worst case scenario for player two.

In the current rules: On your first march you use your archers to attack the opposing army on the frontier, weakening them. On your second march you use the Cavalry unit, win the opposed maneuver roll because the archers killed some of the opposing units, and then attack the remaining troops. If any survive the double attack, on your second round you wipe them out, and take the terrain. The end result, you capture a terrain, and wiped out your opponents melee army, crippling his forces and ultimately you win the game.

In my suggested start: On your first turn you can make one maneuver attempt, and you decide to try and take the frontier first. You roll an opposed maneuver test to see if you can catch the opposing army off guard. You succeed, and move the frontier terrain to 7. Your opponent gets one chance to maneuver a terrain, and wants to take the 8th, so he attempts to maneuver. You oppose and you beat his roll. it stays at 7. Now each player has a chance to move units to the reserves. You decide to keep your armies in place, and he has the option to decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and withdraw his troops. Since your cavalry army has out maneuvered his army twice, he decides that there is little chance of capturing the terrain now, and withdraws. On your second turn (your first full turn) you can capture the terrain, but the opposing army is still out there, waiting for a chance to attack. End result you gain a terrain, but your opponents melee army escaped unharmed.

As the rules stand, you capture the terrain on your second turn, and could have four opportunities to attack the the army. In my version you move the terrain on your first turn, and capture the terrain on your second turn. but your opponent could still have his melee army in reserves, or he could stay, and risk being attacked twice on your second turn, either way he has a better chance than the original rules. While your melee army is capturing the frontier, he could have moved to another terrain, (one without your cavalry army) giving the second player a fighting chance.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10777
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:59 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me propose this situation to you.

One of the current valid strategies for an all missile or all melee army is to get in that strong first turn attack.

For example: I put all missile units on a coastland at my home. Thus it is very likely to come up as missile. I only put a common in my horde so you win the maneuver roll. Now you have to decide to let me go first (taking a damaging missile action) to get your terrain or do you give up your terrain for the opportunity to go first and move to reserves before I can attack?

This proposed setup would mean there is no danger, so you can always choose to take your terrain and then move out of danger range prior to being hurt.

It discourages certain army builds because they can't get that quick first blood.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
J.T.Silversmith
dragonfoal



Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 23
Location: California

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:32 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

cliffwiggs, I thought that was why there was this discussion about a half turn start, to reduce the "player who goes first always wins" scenario, to make it harder for the first player to get an overwhelming lead.
It sounds like what you are saying is that my suggestion will do just what I wanted it to.

As far as your example goes, I have been playing by house rules for so long on the start up that I forget the newer rules that you have to choose between going first, or picking the terrain. I have never seen choosing the terrain to be that important (unless you are playing Coral Elves), the advantage for going first seems to valuable. But I will admit that you have far more experience with that sort of thing.

Honestly what I would really be interested in trying would be more like choose first player, roll terrains, place armies, do a 1/2 turn start, and then let each player take a march with each army they have, but since this was a topic on a half tun start, I didn't want to complicate things further in this discussion.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10777
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:39 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking back, this topic started 15 months ago as a suggestion from a player.

Forgive me that i lost the context, I have a lot of 'proposed' rules that I'm balancing as part of scoping out a major rules modification. I'm infamous for remembering proposed and discarded rules.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group