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 

A simple suggestion to help a bit monsters
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
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:20 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:

You present an alleged fact, which you then immediately undercut in the same sentence. What is your source for this fact? Did you poll players around the world? Did you take notes at a tournament? Did you just browse the on-line games? What is your sample size? What is your margin of error? How did you define "underplayed"? We are given no reason to believe this is a fact. It is an invention.


First, it's neither an invention or a fact. It's an opinion, because they can't be non-subjective for ideal figure of monster presence in army. We can be both true at the same time if we both have different figure of what the monster representation should be. Almost each point in favor or against monster cannot be fact, because their values and the gravity of the imbalance is subjective.

Now, the idea that monster are considered pretty weak is backed by a lot of thing. My personnal experience, the forums games (where dice availability is less of a bias), and a lot of conversations in this forums (I am seen either Chuckpint or Cliffwigs talking about improving monster odds as a side note on another topic, for example)

Now why I have added some statistics about points repartition ? Because it's the best way to see whether the buff is big or not. It's important to me because monster are not that weak. They are subpar, not unplayable (while some are playable, less than five of them are really playable in my pinion), and I believe that their numerous drawbacks are not outweighted by SAI.

If in your local game people regulary play 4+ monster - or play only one monster and that's already enough for you - of course the whole argument seem a lot weaker. It's not what I see : I very often see people playing only one monster or zero monster. I also see irregulary people with 4+ monster, which are raped extremely fast in most case. You can see this extreme example in the forum : http://www.sfr-inc.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3938&start=200

The sad thing is, it have hold its ground significantly better than army with 4-6 monster in my experience, but thoses extremes strategy have the same problem : they are just overwhelmed and their SAI tricks just can't keep up with good ol' dice (and not only because statistic inferiority). Having full monster army is not my goal, far from it, but I find monster not really worth the hassle. They are too often the weak spot of an army, not an awesome specialized dice which is the idea monster convey. In fact, I believe several small improvement would be best for them, and I believe adding thoses improvement one after the other will avoid having a rollercoaster of monster being a weigth to being overpowered.

Now, you believe that monster are already good enough. It's good and all, it's not a stupid idea at all, but in the end, it mean that for you the change is at best useless, and I cannot change your opinion, just explaining why I have mine.

As a last note, the only argument you have is that SAI are strong enough to compensate their drawback. It's fundamentally a non-statistical and subjective one, which does not mean it have to be dismissed, or that it is weaker than my opinion. It just outline that, no, there cannot be definitive statistic truth that lead to the conclusion "monster are weak". They are arguments against and pro, and a solution that will help them being stronger, hopefully without overpowering them.

@DEEPBLUEB2 : since your idea seem significantly differently from mine, maybe it will have better visibility in another topics ? I believe that adding spell is a bad idea because magic is too powerful already, but I am no designer.


Last edited by TheLazyhase on Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:45 am GMT; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:37 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheLazyhase wrote:
First, it's neither an invention or a fact. It's an opinion, because [...]


TheLazyhase wrote:
Now, the fact that monster are considered pretty weak is backed by a lot of thing. My personnal experience, [...]


Huh?


F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:47 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

DialFforFunky wrote:

Huh?


F


You're right, it's a strange way to say it.

"Monster are weak" => an opinion
"A lot of people think monster are weak" => a fact.

But both to make the thing less strange to read and because it can be argued (what is "a lot" ?), I have changed the phrase.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



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

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:48 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not arguing against the idea. I have at no point argued against the idea. I have at no point claimed that Monster results or presentation are fine as is. I have not suggested that any army-construction strategy is consistently superior to any other. I have not tried to shout down or quash the idea. Stop trying to use me as your strawman. In plainer terms: Stop claiming that I said things that I did not say, and then arguing against those things.

If the reply in no way logically responds to what I wrote, please have the decency not to invoke my name. Let us also be decent enough not to employ "rape" as casual slang like so many uncultured hooligans of the web.

If a forum is not the place to seek a better presentation and sounder premise than those given in support of an idea, then it becomes a place where the burden of proof is laid on the audience, wherein we become servile to whim. I agreed that the idea merited testing. Clouding the production with opinions and other non-demonstrable claims, half-truths and readily falsifiable hokum, and impassioned nonsense is juvenile and apt to disincline people from granting the notion due consideration.

These items fueled my insistence that the accuser provide his own evidence, and my critique. I understand that I often expect too much.

I've begun running numbers on some of the Monsters, in terms of expected results, average production, and my own indeces I developed for unit measurement, to get a handle on the impact of the proposed change. As a gesture toward a cooperative effort, I will take Goblins and Undead (I am more familiar with their respective units than I am with any other races, I would wager, and much of my army-construction experience involves those two races) to start. I can probably post something by Sunday evening.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:07 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC, I love you.


F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7885
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:54 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://sfr-inc.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=56035#56035

As expected...
sure the fireshadow only rates +2
but the troll is +5 which is one more than 4 commons..
and the death naga is +7

so this is why I suggested the concept be applied to a spell, as not to permenantly enshrine the power, rather you would have to pay for it.

In addtion, I'm suggesting that the spell be stackable.

+4 would be equal to 2 uncommon's power...of 4 commons, without the ability to double.

and No...
I'm not starting a new thread...it's called a discusion.

I prefer the guidance of a "private room" to abolish this childish behavoir.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:55 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
I am not arguing against the idea. I have at no point argued against the idea. I have at no point claimed that Monster results or presentation are fine as is. I have not suggested that any army-construction strategy is consistently superior to any other. I have not tried to shout down or quash the idea. Stop trying to use me as your strawman. In plainer terms: Stop claiming that I said things that I did not say, and then arguing against those things.


I say more about that in the following point, but your requirement of additional data and fact do point out as you being unconvinced that monster are weak. If you say you have no opinion, it's fine, but it then confirm for me that you rely too much on mathematicals datas. Especially since I am not trying to make a mathematical model to "resolve" Dragon Diceâ„¢, which mean statistics are not hard datas either but subjectives way to churn out comparisons numbers.
AC wrote:

If the reply in no way logically responds to what I wrote, please have the decency not to invoke my name. Let us also be decent enough not to employ "rape" as casual slang like so many uncultured hooligans of the web.

Let us be decent enough to not treat people of being uncultured hooligans by proxy, too. I do take offense for that, and for me it's way more important that a metaphor for army rout.
AC wrote:

If a forum is not the place to seek a better presentation and sounder premise than those given in support of an idea, then it becomes a place where the burden of proof is laid on the audience, wherein we become servile to whim. I agreed that the idea merited testing. Clouding the production with opinions and other non-demonstrable claims, half-truths and readily falsifiable hokum, and impassioned nonsense is juvenile and apt to disincline people from granting the notion due consideration.

It's not like I didn't bring them when you asked for them.
TheLazyHase wrote:

* less ID
* in most case, less reliability because monster tend to be less focused and they have 10 differents face instead of 6. Also, you roll 1 dice instead of 2 or 4 (or 4/3 for rare :p)
* less "peak" result. 4 common can do 8 combat ; a monster do 4 at most, rend notwithstanding. The consequence is you are less able to do a very good roll that overwhelm your opponent.
* less body mean it's harder to fragmente your army when needed. It show mainly when you try to have 4 or 5 monster.
* harder to be retrieved from the DUA (except via troll or medallion). Doing 12 magic at once is in my opinion a big commitment, and you cannot use your cantrip or leftover point after big spell for that.
* for some specific monster, being strictly less good than their common counterpart. The Skeletal steed is a good example : on each possible dice roll, you get on average the same or better result with four wraith.

I have also precised that not all thoses point are equal drawbacks and insisted several time that the monster drawback are pretty small.
AC wrote:

These items fueled my insistence that the accuser provide his own evidence, and my critique. I understand that I often expect too much.

I mainly think you try to get way too mathematic on the issue. I tried to not include too much number on the original post because people have way too much confidence with thoses ; they are not undisputable fact any more than opinions.

Statistics here have the same role as opinion polls : they are indication of a problem, and they can be bended to any result you like. There will be subjectives opinion on how you create them and read them, because mathematics and statistics does not give only one way to get number, nor only one way to interpret them.

Also, the most important thing about monster weakness is if monster feel weak. It may seem irrational, but that's for me the most important point, since it both point at weaknesses that are not theorized well and at player enjoyments. In fact, I am not sure a set of data that would convince you is not certain to convince me.
AC wrote:

I've begun running numbers on some of the Monsters, in terms of expected results, average production, and my own indeces I developed for unit measurement, to get a handle on the impact of the proposed change. As a gesture toward a cooperative effort, I will take Goblins and Undead (I am more familiar with their respective units than I am with any other races, I would wager, and much of my army-construction experience involves those two races) to start. I can probably post something by Sunday evening.

Thanks, but beware of relying too much on number. Having the exact way you get them is also helpful, so I can run it on my program too ; for now I believe human to be more reliable, but it will help iron out bugs.

On the strategy forum, I have put some number about reliability, with some explanation as how I have got them, which do show that as far as reliability go, rare are on line (or sometime a little bit better) than common and uncommon, while monster are a significant bunch of the time less reliable on melee and save, and almost alway on missile and magic. Of course, that ain't hard data in any sense ; while there is mathematic behind that, there is also human decision on deciding that "Surprise" does not help for melee reliability but "smite" does.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:14 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEEPBLUEB2 wrote:
but the troll is +5 which is one more than 4 commons..


So ? Have you demonstrated that the troll was significantly more powerful than before ?

The troll gain 10% more melee power and save (2.2 each), and 12.5% maneuver (to 0.9 average). A troll is still with a very real margin under a Marauder in melee power (and maneuver power), and very real margin behind a Filcher in both melee power, save power, and maneuver. If you just want melee power, commons dices have an even bigger gap. I don't see people suddenly running more troll ; after all, their main appeal will still be Regenerate.

The death Naga being at +7 is even easier to deal with: he is still bad at about everything with the boost, and still count as a 2-point mage while being wholy inferior.

To talk again about the wolf pack, he is boosted to be about on par with the leopard rider, and become de facto the best Frostwing unit for melee power, while being tied with bearmaster for maneuver. For me, it look like they are a significant risk of making the frostwing cavalry useless, and the melee common dubious. (on the precise case of the Wolf Pack, I believe it may be due to Rend which is already a good pretendant at "best SAI", and maybe, if the problem is real but limited to rend monster, the solution is to lower rend a bit ; then again weak monster with rend exist too)

That's why number are not by any mean a definitive response for me. It can be interpreted in a lot of different fashion, and the subjective reasonment behind is a lot more important than the number.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Urfaes
dragonmount



Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 32
Location: Maryland

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:55 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheLazyhase wrote:

That's why number are not by any mean a definitive response for me. It can be interpreted in a lot of different fashion, and the subjective reasonment behind is a lot more important than the number.


TheLazyhase wrote:
The troll gain 10% more melee power and save (2.2 each), and 12.5% maneuver (to 0.9 average). A troll is still with a very real margin under a Marauder in melee power (and maneuver power), and very real margin behind a Filcher in both melee power, save power, and maneuver. If you just want melee power, commons dices have an even bigger gap. I don't see people suddenly running more troll ; after all, their main appeal will still be Regenerate.

The death Naga being at +7 is even easier to deal with...


TheLazyhase wrote:
On the strategy forum, I have put some number about reliability, with some explanation as how I have got them, which do show that as far as reliability go, rare are on line (or sometime a little bit better) than common and uncommon, while monster are a significant bunch of the time less reliable on melee and save, and almost alway on missile and magic. Of course, that ain't hard data in any sense ; while there is mathematic behind that, there is also human decision on deciding that "Surprise" does not help for melee reliability but "smite" does.


TheLazyhase wrote:
One of their drawback is that their icon to health ratio is the lowest of all die class (an average of 1 result per face per health, vs 7/6 result per face per health for common). Offsetting this drawback seem for me the easiest way.

For that, I propose a small change : while ID and SAI for monster are still worth 4 icons, non-SAI, non-ID icon will be worth 5 icon. For example, a fireshadow would still generate 4 melee with his Create Fireshadow and 4 smite with its smite, but he would produce 5 melee with his melee face.

The good thing is that this change tend to advantage mainly "weak" monster (since most of them only have 1 to 3 SAI), and only help minimaly powerful monster.

To speak with number, here are the icon per face per health ratio
Common icon ratio : ~1.16 (7/6)
Uncommon ratio: ~1.08 (13/12)
Rare ratio : ~1.05 (19/18, with the conqueror as exception)
Monster on current rule : 1

With this modification, monster would go from 1.2 to 1.05.


It has always been about numbers. The whole thread started because of numbers. It hits upon a very solid point: I agree with you, there are sub-par monsters. I disagree with your solution. I need to abstract and super simplify because the number of faces don't matter, the result does:

Take five monsters and call them 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. We want 1 to equal 5, so we say, 1 + 4 = 5. However, by adding 4, 5 gets an indirect benefit as well as proposed by the non-SAI, non-ID results solution. So, we say, 5 ... you get 30% of what 1 received which is 1.2. 5 + 1.2 = 6.2. We can all agree that 6.2 is greater than 5, which is what 1 has become. A shadow of what 5 used to be.

Math doesn't solve "bad" monsters. Changing the die faces to align with how the monster "should" behave fixes "bad" monsters. Which would probably require recasting dice. That's probably an expensive undertaking but the most logical response. Or it requires really analyzing SAIs and scaling them back since I highly doubt changing what one basic result represents would be a better alternative.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:07 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Urfaes wrote:

It has always been about numbers.


I think you're wrong, and you interpret wrongly thoses quotes. Number are at best a tool ; people just recongnize more easily an affirmation like "troll gain 10% melee power but stay under a lot of other alternatives" than "troll don't gain much melee power", when both say the same thing.

Urfaes wrote:
Take five monsters and call them 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. We want 1 to equal 5, so we say, 1 + 4 = 5. However, by adding 4, 5 gets an indirect benefit as well as proposed by the non-SAI, non-ID results solution. So, we say, 5 ... you get 30% of what 1 received which is 1.2. 5 + 1.2 = 6.2. We can all agree that 6.2 is greater than 5, which is what 1 has become. A shadow of what 5 used to be.


So, all monster must exactly equal in "numerical value" ? It's impossible, if only because of fly. It's not desireable either. The troll is then again a good example : he is pretty weak icon-wise compared to regular troop, but he give the very desireable regeneration effect. If thoses were save face, the troll would be worthless. And if he keep regeneration and is bumped to numerical level of the filcher, you would never want to use filcher again.

You also forget that numerical egality is not needed either. If it was truly attained, you would have every race and monster identical ; to have varied army, SAI, and stuff, you must shoot for being more or less equal, not perfect equality.

That being said, I propose to split topics : since the interrogation on monsters is a lot more heated debate, let's do a topic on analyzing monster strength and weaknesses, and let on this discussion about this particular solution.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



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

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:20 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the main reasons we reduce items to numerical comparison is it enables us to take advantage of the universality of the language. If I refer to something as being "20%" then anyone who employs Arabic numerals and the Base Ten system immediately understands what I mean. Subjective terms will encourage lengthy debate which can only end if the participants agree on objective definitions for the terms -- which leads them to a shared language. Normal math is the product of a prior dialectic of which we are taking advantage.

Statistics can be abused by intellectually dishonest people. Medicine can kill you. We don't stop using them; we use them correctly.
-----

So far, pursuant to my previously stated intent, I have just done a rough rundown of the Goblin Monsters and how they would be impacted by the proposed change. I'm going to gloss over some of the methodology for now because for part of it I used my own measure and I don't want to take up the space explaining it.

(In the interests of good scientific procedure, let me list my own tendencies so we can be on the lookout for unconscious bias: I usually use between 0 and 3 Monsters per 36-point army, with a heavy mode around the mean of 1 to 2. I do not own all the Monsters in DDice -- nor even most -- but I tend to use the same ones recurrently. There are definitely some that I do not use because I think they stink. I'd rank Goblin Monsters as a set as pretty good relative to the lot, but not top tier. I consider the Troll to be one of the best Monsters in the game. I have probably never made good use of a Death Naga.)

Assuming I can get the formatting right, what will follow is a table listing simply the Rate of Favorable Result (%) (from the Dice Browser on this site) and the Adjustment to Mean (+) the change would produce. For illustration clearer than simply the numbers, I have tried to locate a suitable "player comp" for the adjusted Monster from among all 6-siders. Since my measurement considers results per unit health, the indication is that said Monster will perform similarly to a correlate 4-point version of the comp die, understanding slight variations.

MeMiMnMaSv
Cannibal7020201030
.1.1--.2
Death Naga5010303020
.2-.2.2.1
Harpies6010401050
.3---.1
Shambler7010101040
.3---.3
Troll7030203050
.2---.2


This doesn't tell us much that we didn't know, and probably wasn't worth the time it took to encode, but it makes a handy visual.

The Cannibal is largely as he was. He used to give Saves like an Enchanter (i.e. slightly below average for a die with a Save face) and now it's more like a regular die, if not a tad tougher. (Note that he Saves himself at a 40% rate.) I fear I have no good comp (off to a good start). There is a benefit, but the Cannibal is an SAI powerhouse and a fabled Fifth: Was there much risk of him being neglected?

The Death Naga benefits handily from the boost in terms of pure increase of output, though it remains rather fragile. The bonus to the magic is not to be discounted. While this doesn't make it a reliable source of magic, a good comp might be one of the Undead Light Magic units, sans the Saves: A little punch, a little dazzle. Would you bring her over a Vampire (also worth 2 Magic in army construction)? That's not so sure.

Harpies already swung a good stick, abetted no small amount by the Group ID. The increased Melee power makes the ladies a sort of hybrid: a shade under a Light Rare's pop and a tick under an Eagle Knight/Wyvern Rider's toughness. The Harpies may have been a borderline case before. Difficult to say if this makes them sufficiently appealing to play.

Good, ol' Shambler does one thing and that one thing is melee fights. Because the change would produce a concentrated effect in the Shambler's only functions (hit and be hit), he benefits noticeably. The best comp for the post-adjustment Shambler is the Annihilator (Swamp Stalker Heavy Rare). In fact, it's rather striking how well they line up. Do you want a 4-point Heavy?

The Troll sees modest gain. There is no perfect comp, but if you could picture a Noble Willow (Treefolk Light Rare) that didn't maneuver, that'd be about right. The Troll's potency, of course, comes not from numerical output, but from its Favorable Result figures. As long as you have something dead, Regenerate is valuable, and it can happen in every action. I'm not sure that the Troll was in danger of being left off the table, but I could be mistaken.
-----

Honestly, in running these numbers and doing some preliminary stuff with Undead (and a few others), the conclusion forming is that the change really doesn't do much, except in select cases. If one were already disinclined to employ Monsters, it is unlikely such a meager increase as I'm finding would push the notion over the threshhold. Thus far I am definitely not seeing any Monster made unreasonably powerful, but I haven't look at everything. As others have suggested, it may not be worth the confusion the 4-health/5-points may engender among players. Still, I'll keep digging for now.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:11 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will take here some discussion that seem to be on another random topic.

DialFforFunky wrote:

I agree with these sentiments. Even though I think the idea is quite interesting in itself, it adds something that doesn't seem quite in-line with the design of monsters in general. With the rules being tricky enough as they are, I think adding another unintuitive aspect (even if it is tiny like this one) should be avoided.


I agree it's a real drawback of the proposition. My belief is that it's acceptable because they are already special rule similar to that for item health cost, and some SAI are hardcoded to a specific value (think flame for example), but the benefit should be worth it.

AC wrote:

Honestly, in running these numbers and doing some preliminary stuff with Undead (and a few others), the conclusion forming is that the change really doesn't do much, except in select cases. If one were already disinclined to employ Monsters, it is unlikely such a meager increase as I'm finding would push the notion over the threshhold. Thus far I am definitely not seeing any Monster made unreasonably powerful, but I haven't look at everything. As others have suggested, it may not be worth the confusion the 4-health/5-points may engender among players. Still, I'll keep digging for now.


I have done some real-world testing yesterday, which have more or less the same conclusion : the boost is not noticeable for player without statistic analysis (with army having 1 to 4 monster). I am beginning to think too the benefit are not big enough to be worth the hassle.

I don't see non-broken way to improve the concept, so if the boost is too small the idea is to be abandoned.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Green_knight
Newbie



Joined: 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 3
Location: Hamburg

germany.gif
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:02 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think Monsters may be buffed by diverse effects, as working over the
spells and SAIs.

Direct damage is a Problem for Monsters, since each Monster which
does not have 3 Saves (plus Icon) has a slighter Chance of survival
than a rare 3-health unit (which mostly have 1 save plus Icon)
so ist a no-brainer to target the Monster (better Chance to kill and more health).

So maybe Change the spells that they only kill off 3 Health Units, maybe ?

The too powerful Monsters should be balanced by changing theris SAIs:

- Regenerate: in save only generates saves, other non-maneuver rolls you may bring back Units
(so no more of a Risk in hitting an army including a troll and to a bad dice roll the attacked army becomes stronger due to Regeneration)
- Create Fireminions: Count as Melee, Missile or Magic (no more meneuver or Save)

to give you examples
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