Last visit was: It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:43 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:06 pm 

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:37 am
Posts: 121
Location: Leeds, England
Regarding Challenge; I wouldn't wait for a specific ruling on this matter. But, I will share a few thoughts.

1. Challenge is not a magical compulsion effect, and clearly has limitations built into it (ie, the not suicidal clause that is referred to). It does compensate by having a 12 tick duration (note, not a trigger period, an actual 12 tick duration).

2. The suicidal clause does grant a fair degree of leniency, as does the other surrounding wording. Ordering minions to attack, taking ranged attacks, area attacks; these are all perfectly suitable means of dealing with the issuer of the Challenge.

3. What if the most suitable action is to manoeuvre to a locale that would grant better attack options? (and no, I'm not thinking of the lava example). I'm thinking of movement that would create better opportunities to use area attacks, ranged attacks, etc. Challenge does not remove the target's tactical perceptions or ability to make choices. It does constrain their choices, wherein they have to treat the issuer as the most significant threat; but that does not prevent the target from making sound tactical decisions.


Now, regarding point three... that is not to say that I personally would use that often, and one should be judicious in its use. Having the target spend 12 ticks manoeuvring for better options is IMO, against the spirit of the game.

_________________
James Zwiers


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 867
The discussion at:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1855

Covered some of these issues.

_________________
LARG; Astra Tonsoria Ursula val¤Dellanov, Martial Former Tribune, Sword Sage II, T2.4
LA:5E; Barbara Duran-Dellanov, Former Tribune, Fighter 1
LRC:OP; Seraphina "Flowerchild" Amakiir, Skill Hero


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:53 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:03 pm
Posts: 184
Here's what I remember spread out over the next 12 ticks post-Challenge: the Devil Kings summons a pair of minions, I dispatch them easily enough, the DK flies down to engage the rest of the party, I fire my flintlock from the DK's platform, being ignored while the DK attacked the rest of the party, moving about 1/2 down the small steps down to the fight, the DK fighting that Huge character Matt had put together as a fast-play, the DK getting pulped by that fast-play (Matt had said it was a gag build to test if someone could legally dual-wield Traillian Hammers; turns out he could), and arriving in time for the DK to discover said Huge character was Unrelenting, and the DK thusly finally being splattered for running from a single danger into the arms of a trio of threats.

So... since we apparently agree about point #1:

#2 and #3 likely didn't apply.

It's unlikely a newly-birthed Devil King thought a single Crusader with a Greatsword who was reckless enough to advance without support was threat-enough to run from before factoring in an actual mechanic "forcing" him to attack.

#4 isn't unreasonable; I did have the pair of minions to deal with though I don't see any real tactical sense in failing to gang up on an isolated target even before factoring in the Devil King being Challenged.

#5 didn't happen, but is reasonable.

#6 didn't happen either and AFAIK has no basis in the scene for happening. The DK doesn't ever just flee.

There have also been other less memorable instances of a Challenge being applied, the target initiating a single attack or action against the Challenger, and than just "moving on." While I agree that ordering minions to attack is both an action and mechanically appropriate that doesn't also cover not following up personally. Though any follow-up is still reasonably adjudicated through the perspective of "not suicidal" it's still the case that not electing to use a spell or missile fire to instead switch to another target is explicitly against the mechanics of a Challenge.

That last thought is the kind of example that I want to see verified or negated. This isn't different than a Storyteller deciding a Hero's knockdown or Push effect is negated because "it doesn't make sense" or "I'll spend a Fate point and make your psionics fail or your flintlock misfire to keep your attack from happening."

Spend a second thinking about that. This isn't governed by a passive skill total like casting and I surely do bet that if I spent a Fate Point to give a hero a massive spontaneous migraine to the effect of a -4 to their Passive Arcanum hell would be raised. Challenge is an effect paid for with a general Talent purchase and a supporting skill and the accompanying Ticks spent to initiate the action and the necessity of a successful roll and for all that the prize is for the target to do something it very much intended to ultimately do: kill a meddling Hero.

That's not entirely zero-sum; Intimidate has been greatly destigmatized since the 3.X days when it was a borderline Evil act usually equivocated to wantonly bullying a target to use it. And Challenge is a 2-tick check without any Language or Intelligence tags so if I have to trash-snarl a Shadow Lion or a abomination of Tzizzet I can. That's raw mechanical necessity in plain view, and I recognize as much.

So while I recognize the necessity of making table calls I take exception at the difference between not getting "exactly" what I paid for -a problem almost unique to Challenge ain't it funny- and having the rules ignored because they're inconvenient to the targets dignity.

If I sound like I've taken this personally that's because I have and for two reasons.

The first is the instance that sticks with me whenever this "problem" arrives again, and that was being utterly snubbed in "
Born of the Fires of Hell. I'd have literally preferred to have had that combat and had my Heroine killed by the Devil King than suffer the humiliation of setting up a fight that epitomizes everything the character's concept was centered around -and not subtly communicated to the party/ST- with the outcome becoming that actually the DK was more interested in feeding Matt's joke Huge character instead of following the rules.

The second is that I'm the only player locally who uses Challenge. I doubt this is because it's overpowered as the double-Smite-focused Nierite Priest doesn't have it, though he could do terrible things with forcing things to move into range with him -especially with his AR 6 or higher as protection and ability to self-heal. He would have to buy Intimidate, but I don't think a Nierite considering Holy Judge as a Path is really penalized by that kind of purchase.

Nor does the Longbow specialized Osalikene Archer Expert though she could Challenge from the far back row and force things to spread their damage out and/or wade through her allies zones of control before arriving in time for their Point Black Facial Treatment.

Neither does the resident Trigger Priest Expert who has all the advantages of the Archer but with the added effects of hammering out Awe Shots for Pushes and larger spikes of damage at the expense of losing all that when he's out of pre-loaded weapons.

Or the Kio Duelist, though he's specialized in deal rapid, high-damage single-target strikes.

So maybe I'm trying to more with Challenge than was intended. I acknowledge this is possible and raise the issue here. Or maybe there's more "wiggle" room than is really stated in the body of the effect, and again I'm happy to have it all hammered out in public so the "wiggling" has finite distance to move instead of find a few more inches to give whenever it's handy to do so.

_________________
Vaize the Flamesong; disciple of Anaphylaxia, servant of Belisarda.
D'serrat Val'Mordane; Knight Errant and Veteran of the Fifth and Sixth Crusades of Light.
Denevir the Gladiator; aka the Red Widow, the Dread Gorehorn, the Sicarite Seven Slayer!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:01 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1032
val Holryn wrote:
Some possible exceptions: (2) Challenge doesn't make someone suicidal, so if the only way to reach you is swimming by through lava I think a bad guy might just stand on safe ground and scream insults at you. (3) Challenge (still) doesn't make someone suicidal so I think a bad guy who doesn't care about his/her honor can (try to) run away if they're on their last legs. (4) An enemy who has minions attacking a PC is (IMO) on top of the situation/challenge and can take reasonable actions (though in calculating what is reasonable the NPC still thinks the Challenging PC is a threat). (5) An adversary can always spend fate points if needed to do the impossible and ignore a challenge for any given action. And finally though I would be very careful about implementing this, (6)there may be plot reasons in a module or encounter for an NPC to ignore great threats to them to do "something important!" i.e. The noble mother doesn't care if she dies as long as her infant survives the scene. If the encounter describes such overwhelming motives I might have such an NPC run into a burning barn to try and rescue her infant even if the PC Nierite just challenged her.


I agree with 2, 4, and 6. I probably agree with 3 as well. I disagree with 5 - unless I'm misremembering, "do the impossible" was removed as an option for PCs (so NPCs also shouldn't be able to do it).

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:06 am
Posts: 1825
Location: Portland OR
@wilcoxon: somewhere on this forum Mighty28 (aka Matt) has said you can "do the impossible" once per module as adjudicated by the judge. It hasn't made its way into the official documents yet but should be in the next draft of something campaign related. Although it requires a delicate touch I would also paraphrase Matt in numerous places that the rules for creatures are not necessarily the rules for PCs...I think the actual words Matt uses are that "monsters cheat" ... that can be true in their design and it can be true in their implementation. While I would never use a fate point to effectively rob the PCs of a victory, or even neuter a talent, I have absolutely no qualms about using one in a battle to achieve a temporary reprieve from a negative condition or otherwise unleash an unfortunate "plot twist" on PCs.

This style is something I carry over from gamesystem to gamesystem. Hopefully over the years I have earned a reputation as a fun and fair game master people trust. In a perfect world people who don't like my style of game mastering would have other people & options to choose from.

@Zac: you cover a lot of ground but I think your complaints can be divided into a general complaint that I (sometimes) look for ways to avoid being locked down by challenge & also a specific complaint from a round that you played long ago.

The general: You're kinda stuck with me since I run 90% of the Arcanis tables in the Northwest (and you & Bob judge a lot of the rest). Sorry. =\

Although I have no desire for you to feel frustrated or that I am ignoring (or looking for ways to mitigate) your PC's challenges I also am probably going to continue filtering & interpreting encounters based on "the totality" of what's going on in the scene. I do not agree with you that the result of being challenged is the same as being stunned, proned or shot in melee. None of those conditions (or the spells/maneuvers that lead to them) have additional language that creates wiggle room. They don't last 12 ticks either.

I think the amount of "interpretation" that takes place at tables I judge should be fairly predictable to people who know me & my style. Challenge the Voie champion and it's probably coming directly after you. It's not mentally gifted. Challenge an experienced mastermind like a Ssanu (with resourceson on hand) and you may get a more nuanced reaction. Challenge a common or brute foe and lock it down...challenge an adversary with fate points and I look for ways to wiggle. If you want the challenged mastermind adversary (with resources) to let itself be locked down like a fool I think you are going to continue to be frustrated. As a judge I promise to resist that.

I would note that Pat's Nierite regularly "gets burned" by tring to smite things that are not smite-able (alien mind, same faith, animal-plant-mindless construct...). Generally after a groan or two he takes it in stride. Someday the Altherian Triggermage is going to get dunked and that will be that for his flintlocks for that fight...I think I am equal opportunity in my ongoing quest to monitor and resist the limits of powerful talents and combos. However I do NOT nerf the smiles against legitimate targets or manufacture a dunking that is not supported by the encounter. NOR do I ignore challenges due to what I perceive as "the dignity" of the target.

That takes care of the general.

The specific. I have had time to go back and look at the encounter stats and map. I regret that you feel it's personal that the Devil King partially (or completely) ignored your PCs challenge. I don't remember the round well, having run it multiple times. It's possible I completely screwed up the first-ish time I ever dealt with the rules of challenging. It's possible I was feeling nice and left off some or all of the 4 minions since it sounds like it was a small table, and that consequently (having "cheated" once on the side of the players) I felt I was eligible to cheat once for the bad guys letting it do something other than attack you. It's possible I spent a fate point for the privilege of doing something else that round and didn't say anything out loud. It's possible I was making a tactical decision based off of a different round (I do remember the DK getting smoked by ranged attackers at one table so closing might have made sense in the back of my head). Or it's possible I made a bunch of mistakes.

I just don't know what exactly happened ... so I can only guess at why I made the decisions I did. I am sorry you had a specific bad experience that continues to bug you.

I think I've covered all my salient points. I'll keep reading if you (or others) have additional (different) thoughts. Or we can continue the discuss next time we meet up at Pats. Either way looking forward to seeing you at the gaming table in 2016.

_________________
Eric Gorman

AKA Ambassador Tukufu, man of letters, tomb raider and Master Sword Sage
. . . and Sir Szymon val'Holryn, Order of the Phoenix
Formerly Sir Jaeger val'Holryn. Weilder of the Holy Avenger: Thonanos. Gave his soul to help free King Noen


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 5:23 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:03 pm
Posts: 184
Here's how I see it: for combat my job as ST is to run the props, not to decide which of the actors is playing his role right. There is a time for that: social encounters. Absolutely nobody can have a Persuasion bonus so high that they can't terminally offend someone they're talking to. They can be materially influential enough for their target to just endure any insults, but that's not a question of mechanical skill -that's politics.

Rickard whiffing a Smite is an undeniably quantifiable thing. Either the target is Smitable or it isn't. And he kills things far more efficiently than 12 ticks of Challenge does. He's also usually AR 6 or better, can AoE with Fire bolt, heal, and is unquestionably a higher value target than any of my characters who can use Challenge.

(Maybe there's a new monster quality waiting to happen there: "Snap Agnosticism." The enemy can roll Insight to reflexively disavow it's beliefs instead of getting walloped by a divine effect!)

What argument is there for him to be overlooked as a threat just because nothing must attack him? He can't claim not to be a valid target just because he doesn't want to be attacked.

Here's a truth: if Triggerpriest Flavius times it right and rolls really well he can spend ~5 Ticks to undeniably Push a target 12 Ticks. He'll eat about 6 points in Strain and spend 2 shots of blastpowder, but that's PUSH. He's not daring the target to kill him, he's locking it out of an entire clock's worth of actions. Even if he only rolls average that's 7 Ticks spent entirely without functioning -and IIRC he can adapt the push die size up so that number will only climb.

You can dunk him and do so entirely reasonably, but that in no way will compromise the legality of the mechanical elements of his effects. You'll disable him for as long as it takes for him to get new stores of Blastpowder and to reload, but that's all.

You know that. You built Flavius.

The only thing better than Push as a way of costing a target actions is to straight-out kill it.

I think James made a very useful point in remarking, "Challenge is not a magical compulsion effect..." and that this illustrates am unspoken conceit: that "magic" effects are defacto allowed to uncontested accomplish the implausible. That's an unnecessary complication.

There is a discussion about different RPG systems to run LoA on and in the positive things I credit to 4E D&D is the removal of the "Thaumaturgical Exception Clause" for why magic just "works better" than something mundane. In 4E magic doesn't, and the system doesn't suffer in the slightest for that distinction. Warlord healing is as real as Clerical healing, all Marks are Marks; the new world is here and the sky didn't fall.

Part of what makes all this problematic is that this is all predicated on a bizarre confluence of combat mechanics and RP.

Consider if Challenge was a Fear effect. Would an exception be reasonable if claimed that a given target (who lacked an actual Fearless quality) couldn't be Challenged because "they're just too brave?" Roll Mettle and beat a Challenge?

If you're running the Bastion Strangler and someone successfully casts Enemy of My Enemy on him or his mother does either of them get a defense bonus?

What about the PC's? If Vais (Kelekene Templer of Belisarda) is EoME'd with Rickard (Nierite Priest) as the target does she get a bonus to hit and damage? They're allies and Crusade veterans, but not necessarily friends, and Rickard does like to trollface a bit with the occasional reminder that Keleos was in fact Nier's main course at a certain bleak point in Eloran history.

Or if Vais is directed to attack Airia the Osalikene Archer? That's utterly reprehensible from Vais's perspective, does she get a Discipline buff and/or a penalty to hit?

Denevir has Battle; can Denevir make a Battle roll to realize that answering a Challenge would be tactically foolish? What about resisting EoME? Is she required to pick her weapon up if she's Disarmed the tick before eating an EoME because doing so, though it would delay her actually honoring the letter of the spell, would be more in line with the intent of the effect?

(You'll notice EoME goes out of it's way to make sure we all understand that striking for maximum lethality is an unavoidable effect of the spell despite the same logic that can compromise a Challenge being applicable to trying to murder a comrade.)

The answers to all of that is No and I think there's already a mechanic for deciding that: the dice.

And while I appreciate the time you give running Arcanis and credit you and Herald with being the foundation of how I learned to DM there's no escaping it: if that Ssanu gets to decide not to follow the letter or the spirit of a Challenge that's not "interpretation," that cheating. That's what makes this discussion a rules issue.

This isn't about you and I, this is about whether or not the choice to ignore an effect is legitimate because it can be rationalized as being inappropriate to the "totality" of an encounter.

I say no. I've had to swallow the irritation of seeing a luckier party massacre an encounter that nearly wiped the table when I played it, but that's not my place to decide that. I've missed plenty of possibly devastating attacks because the dice turned yet there's no calling anything except cribbing a roll cheat -the "fairness" of the results are built into the randomness of the system.

People get lucky; tide goes in, tide goes out -Yarris waits 'til he can keep what he takes.

That's the point of bringing up all the nasty random things a ST's Fate Points could do. The ST who decides he has a right to make a character less combat effective because he finds their mechanics personally distasteful has an attitude problem on par with the ST who gives out a dozen fate points to let his players stack the odds during a BI. Nobody respects the blatant abuse of power.

That's why this topic is here. If there's a mechanical application problem, it's a rules problem. If it's a rules problem, it's for the actual rules adjudicators to decide.

And yeah there is an inherent contradiction to the whole experience: cheating to let a PC barely survive is rightly considered a superior act to cheating to get a PC killed. That's just the reality of caring about what other people experience, it's nothing to mistrust -I know you know that.

And give me some credit: I have at NO point implied that anything under the effect of a Challenge is obliged to act "foolish" in response to a Challenge except in that they have to obey the actual rules of the effect.

Lastly, two things:

The first is that with that encounter with the Devil King in Born in the Fires of Hell. The joke is that because it flew down, it couldn't fly back up. It can only fly for 6 ticks once a combat. So when it decided to nonce off to play with the rest of the party it put itself in a position to make honoring the Challenge incredibly awkward. Ha ha, mechanics conflict oops.

The other is that while we'll surely meet again at the game table I'd really rather settle this sooner than later because otherwise it's going to keep coming up. I have two characters with Challenge and both of them have that talent for reasons core to it's presence.

Denevir's a Former Gladiator and Eternal Glory Hound; hell yes she's about hurting the feelings of the biggest, ugliest thing on the battlefield before she hurts it's longevity.

D'serrat Val'Mordane is out to prove that a Val'Mordane can be the equal in honor and valor of any other Val bloodline in Milandir; forcing a fight with something likely to bite her head off is a most effective way of demonstrating that. Any "true Milandesian" should understand that, right?

So yeah. Let's settle this with a personally indifferent perspective because the other choice is just to slog along 'til we have to do this again.

_________________
Vaize the Flamesong; disciple of Anaphylaxia, servant of Belisarda.
D'serrat Val'Mordane; Knight Errant and Veteran of the Fifth and Sixth Crusades of Light.
Denevir the Gladiator; aka the Red Widow, the Dread Gorehorn, the Sicarite Seven Slayer!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:08 am 

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:37 am
Posts: 121
Location: Leeds, England
Zac, my point about it not being magical was that it is also not subject to things like Unravel the Thread. It is a two-edged sword, and not meant necessarily as 'it is worse than magic'.

_________________
James Zwiers


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:49 am 

Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:03 pm
Posts: 184
james.zwiers wrote:
Zac, my point about it not being magical was that it is also not subject to things like Unravel the Thread. It is a two-edged sword, and not meant necessarily as 'it is worse than magic'.


Sure, and I get that. And yet Challenge is worse than similar magic.

As we know there is quite the discussion to be had about that hole in the waterline where individual interpretation leaks in.
And in person Eric has patiently explained to me that as Challenge relies on Intimidate it will age very poorly as the tiers grow. I'm not 100% convinced it must be so, but I also understand that ranks in melee: anything will be a better investment than trying to race the wind with a social skill.

No mistake; I love Challenge. I have three LoA characters and two of them have it. I think the heart of heroism is to put yourself at risk in the place of someone else and Challenge is magnificent for that.

Hell the shortest line to solving this problem on the local level is just to let it ride out as written; when that trio of Shadow Lions jumps the party in Long March, Dark Coda D'Serrat made it to point to Challenge two of them and block the path of the third.

She had AR 5 armor complete with the slow quality and ~80 vitality.

And then she was down and Vanquished before the Challenge had worn off.

If the increased lethality rules had been in effect she'd be lunch meat; she easily took more than her 3 wounds worth of hits in vitality losses greater than her Fortitude defense.

I'd be unhappy about it, but I wouldn't be complaining here as the downside of wanting to be that brave is succeeding! :lol:

_________________
Vaize the Flamesong; disciple of Anaphylaxia, servant of Belisarda.
D'serrat Val'Mordane; Knight Errant and Veteran of the Fifth and Sixth Crusades of Light.
Denevir the Gladiator; aka the Red Widow, the Dread Gorehorn, the Sicarite Seven Slayer!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:45 am 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1032
val Holryn wrote:
@wilcoxon: somewhere on this forum Mighty28 (aka Matt) has said you can "do the impossible" once per module as adjudicated by the judge. It hasn't made its way into the official documents yet but should be in the next draft of something campaign related. Although it requires a delicate touch I would also paraphrase Matt in numerous places that the rules for creatures are not necessarily the rules for PCs...I think the actual words Matt uses are that "monsters cheat" ... that can be true in their design and it can be true in their implementation. While I would never use a fate point to effectively rob the PCs of a victory, or even neuter a talent, I have absolutely no qualms about using one in a battle to achieve a temporary reprieve from a negative condition or otherwise unleash an unfortunate "plot twist" on PCs.


I did not remember anyone saying "do the impossible" was going to be allowed back in (after they removed it) - if so, then this paragraph is moot (since "do the impossible" does allowing cheating). As for "monsters cheat", yes, they "cheat" but it must be within the rules - the rules clearly spell out (at least in John Bellando's reference sheets - I couldn't find the GM fate section in the rules) fate point uses for "monsters" as well as PCs - they are exactly the same except the monsters have one additional option to cancel a hero fate point.

val Holryn wrote:
I would note that Pat's Nierite regularly "gets burned" by tring to smite things that are not smite-able (alien mind, same faith, animal-plant-mindless construct...).


Just to check, I assume this refers to the Smite Heretic spell (and not Smite Infidel talent)? Both do not work on same faith but Smite Infidel has no other restrictions (while Smite Heretic does).

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ask the Stat Monkey!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:47 am
Posts: 2423
Location: Central Alberta
Gentlemen, if you wish to continue this discussion could you please take it to another thread. This thread is for questions, not debate.

_________________
Cody Bergman
Legends of Arcanis Campaign Staff
Initial Author Contact/Adventure Vetting

Haakon Marcus val'Virdan, Divine Holy Judge of Nier
Ruma val'Vasik, Martial Crusader and Master of the Spear
Jorma Osterman, Arcane Coryani Battlemage


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Moderators: james.zwiers, PCI Eric, PCI_StatMonkey Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki