The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Two-weapon Fighting
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Two-weapon Fighting Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup.
example
Cadimus
Dex 3d. Brawl 4d+1, Lightsaber 5d, Melee parry 4d, Melee parry shield 6d, running 4d..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, this has become more important, because a potential new player wants to use... sigh... two katanas.

I am thinking -1D to Melee Combat/Parry, but also just thinking we'll go with using the standard MAPs.... so someone who wants to use two weapons as two weapons might make 2 simultaneous attacks at -2D (one for two-weapon, one for MAP), or react with a Melee Parry and a Melee attack at -2D.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
So, this has become more important, because a potential new player wants to use... sigh... two katanas.


That's awesome. Combining Katanas Are Just Better with Dual Wielding. Not that it hasn't been done before, so it's derivative, but hey, points for trying. Mr. Green
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2684
Location: Online

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
So, this has become more important, because a potential new player wants to use... sigh... two katanas.

I am thinking -1D to Melee Combat/Parry, but also just thinking we'll go with using the standard MAPs.... so someone who wants to use two weapons as two weapons might make 2 simultaneous attacks at -2D (one for two-weapon, one for MAP), or react with a Melee Parry and a Melee attack at -2D.


I like your ideas. This takes into account a suggestion I had made in another thread that I talked about combined as actions that make sense because of narrative or application of what the player wants to do.

In the example you provided, you could have them make two attacks at -1D and stipulate that is the only attack they make that round.

Another option is to give a -1D to the attack roll and +1D to the damage and call it done. This is an improvement over standard combining actions and fire-linked weapons as those give a +1 and not a +1D. This is also preferred as no additional rolls are made and the damage modifier is in keeping with the negative hit modifier +/-1D.

The final option is make this a maneuver similar to martial arts moves with a difficulty number to pull off.

Two Weapon Strike (Difficult): If successful the player gets a +1D modifier to the damage roll. If the roll fails by 10 or more the attacker drops one or both weapons, trips, or otherwise at a tactical disadvantage for the rest of the round (-1D to all actions). If a complication occurs the attacker has hit themselves with one of the weapons. This is an automatic hit.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What damage / melee skill level you assigning to the Katanas?
But the -1 off hand penalty seems reasonable.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Error
Captain
Captain


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 680
Location: Any blackberry patch.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What keeps going through my mind as I read through all these replies is "What would WEG have done?" Their systems were/are elegant beyond belief.

First I see the rule on ambidexterity being bought at creation, and then the rules for MAP's, and it seems to all fall into place.

Look at Grievous for example, from my own write-up. For the bonuses I gave him for having four arms, I referred to seven or eight PC-available species and saw what bonuses they received. I combined a few in Grievous:

Four arms:
Grievous actually has four arms with three fingers each, though he tends to join them in pairs so that it appears he has only two six-fingered arms. When his arms are paired, he gains a +1D bonus to his Strength attribute for the purposes of rolling Brawling damage or the damage of a melee weapon which adds his Strength to another die code. He may also divide each of his arms into two (for a total of four) as a roll-less full action in a round. In this four-armed form, Grievous is allowed two manual Dexterity actions per round before the application of any multi-action penalties. Also, when Brawling or Climbing, Grievous receives a +1D bonus when using all four arms or +2 when using three. Having four arms also amplifies Grievous’s effectiveness as a swordsman. When wielding more than one lightsaber, he receives a +1p bonus to his Lightsaber skill for each lightsaber he wields beyond the first, for a maximum bonus of +1D.
_________________
The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
However, someone a couple of years ago brought up a great idea, similar to garkhal's idea. What the suggestion was involved initiative order. Basically for a -2 to each action (and standard MAPs), you could take two actions on your initiative order, instead of going around the circle for everyone's first action, and then waiting to perform your second.

It has a modest penalty and modest benefit. Seems pretty reasonable to me, though I've never playtested it.

I'm coming back around to this after a brief PM discussion with cheshire.

I'm considering a variant on the idea posted above, but I keep coming back to the repeated mention of training be required to do this.

Now, we have two ways in the RAW to represent this: 1) require that a character must have a certain D level, or perhaps have an advanced skill in it, or 2) seeing as how most weapon use is grouped under a single skill - Melee Combat, Blaster, etc - just assume that dual-wielding weapons training is incorporated under that skill, and just increase the Difficulty of use, which in turn requires that characters must have higher dice levels to have a consistent chance of success.

I'm inclined to go with the latter, something like so...

    When dual-wielding a weapon, add +5 to Base Difficulty (+10 with larger weapons), but the character may perform two actions (subject to MAPs) during his turn in the initiative sequence.

The difference in Modifier represents how some weapons (knives, short swords, fighting sticks, etc) are less likely to get in each other's way than would a longer weapon (swords, lightsabers, etc). I'd also say that mixing a long and short (rapier and main-gauche, for example) would also qualify for the +5 modifier, and not the +10. It would also apply to pistols vs. rifles.

In the game, paired short lightsabers (lightfoils? not sure if anyone has made the distinction) would be classed as just small enough to get the +5 modifier, whereas wielding a pair of full-length sabers would get +10.

The problem I have is, how do you apply dual-wield weapons to a full-round action, like using the Dueling Blades rules? If you're only rolling Lightsaber once to represent an entire round of dueling, how do you factor in getting to act twice during your turn? The only way I can think of under those circumstances is a flat +1D bonus.

The only other thing that comes to mind is the possibility of paired weapons providing advantages when trying to close the range with an opponent who has a reach weapon, like a spear. I came up with a Melee Range rule awhile back, in which weapons have advantages and disadvantages based on how close the combatants are. A character with a spear will have an advantage over a character with a knife if they are standing 3-4 meters apart, whereas the knife-wielder will have an advantage if they're only 1 meter apart.

Could dual-wielding melee weapons have an advantage over a single weapon when trying to close the range with an opponent whose weapon gives him a longer reach than yours?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index


Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4833

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've got some interesting thoughts here. (And from me on the subject of dual wielding, that's high praise.)

My thoughts on the +1D bonus is when you would add that bonus. If you calculate it with the rest of the dice pool, then the character can try to use the bonus to achieve part of the +5-10 increased difficulty for using the second weapon.

That is, unless you apply the +1D to reaction skills later in the round. A bit more complicated, but doable, and not a bad cinematic representation of real life. Most of the time you'll be using the second weapon primarily defensively. Granted, those defenses should come simultaneously with the offensive strike, see Capo Ferro plate 23



But, since we don't really have a way to defend and strike at the same time, it's a fair representation. Plus, even if you are the one to get the shot off first, one weapon or another should be busing "closing the line" of the opponent's attack. Meaning, your weapons should be placed to preemptively block any attack that comes in from the enemy's current position.

So, "playing it forward" to the next defensive action on the round seems reasonable to me.

Now, I said that usually you aren't attacking with both at a time. I mean, almost nobody ever does that. But of course, there are exceptions...



In those cases, I'd playtest moving the +1D to damage. Though I might even give them a defense penalty... maybe. It's SUPER hard to attack with two melee weapons WHILE shutting off lines of attack especially if the opponent also has two weapons.

I'm not 100% sure that this is the silver bullet for dual wielding. But I would really suggest playtesting this out over a few dozen sessions and seeing how it works out. I'd insert it into my game currently, but only one person has a melee weapon, and it's really jut a backup.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
My thoughts on the +1D bonus is when you would add that bonus. If you calculate it with the rest of the dice pool, then the character can try to use the bonus to achieve part of the +5-10 increased difficulty for using the second weapon.

Double stage it, perhaps? Roll the character's unmodified Melee Combat Skill against the modified Difficulty, and on a Success, roll the extra 1D and add it to the total?

Quote:
That is, unless you apply the +1D to reaction skills later in the round. A bit more complicated, but doable, and not a bad cinematic representation of real life. Most of the time you'll be using the second weapon primarily defensively.

I wrote my Dueling Sabers system to include both Offensive and Defensive result charts (Defense is basically 1 Difficulty Level higher when resolving anything beyond a stalemate, but has a cumulative bonus per round spent defending, which reflects both stamina conservation and analysis of an opponent's style). Would it perhaps be better to add a +1D bonus only if the character chooses to Defend, or perhaps a +1D bonus on Offense and a +2D bonus on Defense?

Quote:
Granted, those defenses should come simultaneously with the offensive strike, see Capo Ferro plate 23

Naturally, but I find Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro, don't you?

Quote:
So, "playing it forward" to the next defensive action on the round seems reasonable to me.

But again, if using Dueling Blades, there is no next defensive action in the round, unless you're fighting a 2-on-1 duel, where the dice bonus just cancels out the MAP for the second opponent (or part of it, at least; my feeling was that a one-on-one duel counted as a double MAP)

Quote:
In those cases, I'd playtest moving the +1D to damage. Though I might even give them a defense penalty... maybe. It's SUPER hard to attack with two melee weapons WHILE shutting off lines of attack especially if the opponent also has two weapons.

Treat it like Fire-Linking, maybe? A +1D bonus added to Melee Combat or Damage, but not both? And to what degree do you think an in-universe factors like the Force plays into the usefulness of this? The augmented awareness of the Force would seem to potentially offset a lot of the drawbacks.

One of the things I read about dual-wielding pistols was that shooting two pistols at the same target was somewhat advantageous because it generated roughly the same accuracy, but with twice the ammo. The main way I can see it applying in the game (short of a blaster-wielding Force user who doesn't need eyes-on-sites to shoot accurately) is something like my barrage attack vs. lightsaber parry house rule, where a shooter with two semi-auto pistols shooting both at a single Jedi parrying with a lightsaber. However, the way the rule is structured, the Base Difficulty modifier would effectively cancel out a +1D to bonus to the Barrage Attack.

In a more ammo-intensive system, carrying two pistols would mostly be effective if drawing the second pistol was faster than reloading the first one (say, a standard action to reload #1, but a free action to draw #2), but with ammo capacity the way it is under the WEG system, there isn't much call for it.

Quote:
I'm not 100% sure that this is the silver bullet for dual wielding. But I would really suggest playtesting this out over a few dozen sessions and seeing how it works out. I'd insert it into my game currently, but only one person has a melee weapon, and it's really just a backup.

I'll play around with it.

Also, while researching the Princess Bride quote above, I found a reference to Agrippa, as a short sword specialist, which makes clear the advantages of shorter weapons at close range. Any thoughts as to the accuracy of my Melee Range system?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4833

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:


Also, while researching the Princess Bride quote above, I found a reference to Agrippa, as a short sword specialist, which makes clear the advantages of shorter weapons at close range. Any thoughts as to the accuracy of my Melee Range system?


Now that is a curious notion. Would you mind providing a link on it? I'm a little skeptical that Agrippa would have been using any different length than was commonplace on the Italian peninsula at the time. In my translation of Agrippa's works the translator included an appendix of weapons that can be traced back to his time and place and they're not that remarkable in terms of length, and I can recall nothing in the text about him recommending a shorter blade than one might find in, say, a Bolognese style. He might have, I just can't recall it.

Now, who DID recommend a shorter blade is George Silver. And he was one cantankerous son of a gun. It's nothing like what a "post-D&D" reader would think of as a "short sword." The English arming sword was shorter than the average rapier that was becoming ridiculously long in some instances, despite the recomendations of surviving works of fencing masters. I've dabbled a little in his work, and I've never worked to emulate his style. But his rhetoric was just so full of vitriol that it was engaging reading his criticisms of Italians and Spaniards with their "pig stickers" as "men without beards."

Anyway, Silver did say you had more control over a short blade. When I have trained with two rapiers, I did keep a shorter and more balanced one in my left hand. Those that do tend toward a shorter blade trade range for maneuverability. But those who tend to go with a shorter blade are also shorter in stature, and thus their blades are as proportional to their bodies as my blades are to my body. I've found using their blades feel "light and whippy" but manueverability only goes so far in those fights when the main mechanics are tempo and measure. I.E. time needed to reach the opponent in one beat and distance when your opponent is within reach.

But there is a Silver practitioner on video who uses a backsword that I think is about right for his proportions for what Silver would call a "short sword."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phyPMOYXOCM

I mean... it's shortER, but not what most of us would consider a shortsword.

If you're wanting to know about short vs. long, it's really not as cut and dry as we probably want it to be. Granted, I have a bias having predominantly studied Italian fencing (from about 1430-1640) and its interaction on the international stage. Those masters have almost unilaterally expressed a need for a blade that is proportioned to your body in order to fence effectively. They chastise mentally feeble practitioners who think they can gain advantage merely by changing the length of their blade to gain range. What does it matter if they gain inches when they have no understanding of measure or tempo?

Sorry if I've gone into too much detail here. It's a subject I can get pretty geekily passionate about. Smile
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
Now that is a curious notion. Would you mind providing a link on it?
Here you go.

The Agrippa reference is in the last paragraph, and it was the author who specifically referenced the greater effectiveness of short swords at close range.

Quote:
If you're wanting to know about short vs. long, it's really not as cut and dry as we probably want it to be.

I figured there was plenty of variables, so I just went with a basic 1D/2D dice penalty/bonus.

Three different ranges: Brawling, Melee and Reach, with weapons divided broadly by length.

Weapons are unpenalized in their own range, but suffer a -1D penalty for every range bracket they shift. So, a Brawling Weapon would be used normally at Brawling Range, but suffer a -1D penalty at Melee Range, and a -2D penalty at Reach Range. Reach would be the inverse of that, and Melee would get a -1D penalty at either Brawling or Reach range.

I tied it to the initiative system in my dueling blades concept, so that the initiative winner got to pick the Range, and thus the bonus advantage based on the weapon he was using.

I'm also working on ways the various Lightsaber variants could work with the range system. The Dual-Phase Lightsaber, for example, could use its two different blade lengths to transition between Reach and Melee at the flip of a switch.

It's pretty granular, but I think the level of detail has the potential to make lightsaber dueling a lot more fun, and modifiers of 1D or 2D count for a lot more with low level characters than high-level ones.

Quote:
Sorry if I've gone into too much detail here. It's a subject I can get pretty geekily passionate about. Smile

Not at all, and I appreciate your input. This is the last place you need to apologize for getting geekily passionate about something.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4833

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
cheshire wrote:
Now that is a curious notion. Would you mind providing a link on it?
Here you go.

The Agrippa reference is in the last paragraph, and it was the author who specifically referenced the greater effectiveness of short swords at close range.


This is really odd. Either this guy is badly misremembering/misinterpreting something, or I am. I read Agrippa about 9 months ago, so it's been a while, but not THAT long of a while. He did praise the Roman gladius, but only in terms of being a primarily stabbing weapon. He did "shorten" bolognese fencing like Marrozo, but it only assumes that he had Marrozo as a source and pair it down from there. But there's as much evidence that he was working from first principles upward rather than starting with a larger system and pairing it down. And he did praise the "shorter distance" but that was a comparison about the time it takes for a broad stroke from the shoulder rather than a swift pierce moving forward. I think the blogger might be pulling from a bad source or misreading a secondary source rather than working from a translation of Agrippa directly.

p.s. Nobody fights like Agrippa. Dude is weird. Brilliant. Game changing. His footfall started a tremor that shook the rest of fencing history. But a little stylistically weird.
Quote:

Quote:
If you're wanting to know about short vs. long, it's really not as cut and dry as we probably want it to be.

I figured there was plenty of variables, so I just went with a basic 1D/2D dice penalty/bonus.

Three different ranges: Brawling, Melee and Reach, with weapons divided broadly by length.

Weapons are unpenalized in their own range, but suffer a -1D penalty for every range bracket they shift. So, a Brawling Weapon would be used normally at Brawling Range, but suffer a -1D penalty at Melee Range, and a -2D penalty at Reach Range. Reach would be the inverse of that, and Melee would get a -1D penalty at either Brawling or Reach range.


Quote:

I tied it to the initiative system in my dueling blades concept, so that the initiative winner got to pick the Range, and thus the bonus advantage based on the weapon he was using.

I'm also working on ways the various Lightsaber variants could work with the range system. The Dual-Phase Lightsaber, for example, could use its two different blade lengths to transition between Reach and Melee at the flip of a switch.

It's pretty granular, but I think the level of detail has the potential to make lightsaber dueling a lot more fun, and modifiers of 1D or 2D count for a lot more with low level characters than high-level ones.



Not a bad thought in theory. Many Italian masters warned to wound your opponent and get out of measure fast. If you wound up bound too closely, people didn't push on each other's swords for a "blade lock," they just grabbed you, broke your arm, threw you to the dust and stabbed you on the way down. John Locke is credited as saying that a good wrestler could take a mediocre fencer if he just got range. But basically, you operate outside of your range, and you may be in for it if you want to get granular.

Overextend your reach, and you're off balance, leaving your head vulnerable, unable to recover, etc. An enemy who has deceived you about your measure will take advantage of your vulnerabilities from an overreach.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
Not a bad thought in theory.

I'm primarily working on a system that duplicates - as closely as possible - lightsaber duels as seen in the films. Combat between characters with different "ranges" has only occurred in the EU, and then only rarely (Gantoris vs. Luke in one of the Jedi Academy books is the only example that comes to mind).

Would a penalty to Damage be appropriate for dual-wielding Melee Weapons? My thinking is that, with two weapons active, you aren't able to put your full force and effort into the strike.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4833

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're using a single-handed weapon it really shouldn't make a difference. If you're using a polearm, it would make a lot of difference. But the idea of dual wielding polearms is laughable anyway.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarn
Force Spirit


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 698

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of dual-wielding polearms isn't necessarily laughable.

Not if you're a pho ph'eahian, cragmoloid, codru-ji, jillsarian, or besalisk.

Or, of course, if you're Fluffy.

I wouldn't tell Fluffy 'no' to much of anything.

Except possibly eating a Venator or something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
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


v2.0