Jump to content

Taming Absolutes


zornwil

Recommended Posts

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sean Waters:

 

If I understand your proposal correctly (a big IF)

 

immunity to everything would end up costing more than 100% of the character's total points...right?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to convince the palindromedary to check my math....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sean,

 

Oddly enough, I understood your chart perfectly well, although I don't like to use such odd fractions, I don't see anything wrong with the method you are using. Also, I've suggested this type of concept before with different powers that could be costed based on the total active points (TAP) of the character. Unfortunately, no one ever seems interested in persuing this type mechanic regardless of what form it takes. I guess perhaps having to use the TAP of the character in a cost formula is somehow distasteful to most people. Not sure why though.

 

I'll do some more analysis and see if there is a simpler way to present it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sean,

 

Oddly enough, I understood your chart perfectly well, although I don't like to use such odd fractions, I don't see anything wrong with the method you are using. Also, I've suggested this type of concept before with different powers that could be costed based on the total active points (TAP) of the character. Unfortunately, no one ever seems interested in persuing this type mechanic regardless of what form it takes. I guess perhaps having to use the TAP of the character in a cost formula is somehow distasteful to most people. Not sure why though.

 

I'll do some more analysis and see if there is a simpler way to present it.

 

People might dislike it because it would represent a major change in the basic structure of HERO to start adding powers with costs relative to the total cost of the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

You are right - once ran a game in which we had a wereleopard' date=' and he had ultra fast healing/regeneration - simulated by damage reduction: sfx being if he took 40 stun and 8 body through defences it was only (really) 10/2, but LOOKED like the full amount so his REC and regen seemed to be working 4 times quicker.[/quote']

 

Very cool method, well done, thanks for posting that!

 

Oh, and btw, I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but seems nobody really uses the idea, you could also do Invulnerability as simple extension of the "Personal Immunity" SFX if bought on all your powers that are of that theme/type, and I think it's always reasonable to assume that this extends to others' attacks IF (and only if) identical SFX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Another change would likely be a substantial reduction in KA's, since one of their main benefits, breaking walls, entangles, force walls and automatons by virtue of higher average BOD per DC, is reversed severely. And a typical human now takes more BOD from a 12 DC normal attack than a 12 DC killing attack.

 

That 8d6 KA gets 16 STUN through against your example character. Assuming he has 25 PD, a 12d6 EB averages 17 Stun through.

 

It doesn't do more BOD against targets where BOD matters, ands it doesn't do more STUN against targets where STUN matters. Why would anyone buy it?

For these and other reasons, isn't is just simpler not to allow the stun lottery in one's game than to have to "fix" something that doesn't need it, killing attacks in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

People might dislike it because it would represent a major change in the basic structure of HERO to start adding powers with costs relative to the total cost of the characters.

As someone (Lucius, I think) cited earlier, it's already done with Duplication, actually.

 

I'm not fond of it, I think it makes things more complicated in more rapdily-growing campaigns. But it's not without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

As someone (Lucius, I think) cited earlier, it's already done with Duplication, actually.

 

I'm not fond of it, I think it makes things more complicated in more rapdily-growing campaigns. But it's not without merit.

 

I think Duplication can be looked at more as being scaled in the same way that a Multipower with more slots is, or the way a Vehicle or Base is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Another change would likely be a substantial reduction in KA's, since one of their main benefits, breaking walls, entangles, force walls and automatons by virtue of higher average BOD per DC, is reversed severely. And a typical human now takes more BOD from a 12 DC normal attack than a 12 DC killing attack.

 

That 8d6 KA gets 16 STUN through against your example character. Assuming he has 25 PD, a 12d6 EB averages 17 Stun through.

 

It doesn't do more BOD against targets where BOD matters, ands it doesn't do more STUN against targets where STUN matters. Why would anyone buy it?

See, here you're arguing mechanics rather than sfx. I'm sorry, but a player or GM who buys a Killing Attack simply so he can blow through walls and robots is metagaming; and I have no real sympathy for metagamers. People should buy Killing Attacks because their sfx is to poke holes in things, not because their number crunching has determined that KA is better at certain things. You want to poke holes in walls or Entangles, buy AP.

 

How about Killing Attacks that only apply vs. Resistant Defenses, but the Stun number is equal to the BODY rolled. No Stun Multiplier at all? Same BODY as before; just less Stun. If the intent is to kill, why the emphasis on Stun? Think anyone would buy that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

People might dislike it because it would represent a major change in the basic structure of HERO to start adding powers with costs relative to the total cost of the characters.

Are talking about Hero 5th Edtion only or all incarnations of Hero?

If you are talking about all incarnations then you are overlooking/ignoring this basic mechanic that was prominent in Hero 4th Edition and somewhat less prominent in Hero 5th Edition.

 

1) Multiform's Cost derives it's cost based on the Active Points of the character.

2) Duplication's Cost derives it's cost based on the Active Points of the character.

3) The Linked Limitation Value is derived from the Active Points of the power it is linked to.

 

So the mechanic has existed and still exists. In all cases the cost/value may change depending on a threshold of Active Points. So if you object to this mechanic in general, then you need to rework rules for all of the above.

 

However, if you are objecting to the application of mechanic as described by Sean, then that's a completely different argument and strictly a matter of opinion or taste. But to imply this is somehow some new fangled mechanic never before seen... would be invalid.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

See, here you're arguing mechanics rather than sfx. I'm sorry, but a player or GM who buys a Killing Attack simply so he can blow through walls and robots is metagaming; and I have no real sympathy for metagamers. People should buy Killing Attacks because their sfx is to poke holes in things, not because their number crunching has determined that KA is better at certain things. You want to poke holes in walls or Entangles, buy AP.

 

How about Killing Attacks that only apply vs. Resistant Defenses, but the Stun number is equal to the BODY rolled. No Stun Multiplier at all? Same BODY as before; just less Stun. If the intent is to kill, why the emphasis on Stun? Think anyone would buy that?

I think of KAs as valid for destroying objects. In fact, I think that's the primary use a number of superheroes have them for. I don't think that's metagaming in one sense, I think it's sensible for the character who can't/won't use deadly force except against such things. And in the sense it is metagaming, in mapping a specific power to the desired character Power, it's appropriate, choosing KA because that is what it is, something which destroys stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I think of KAs as valid for destroying objects. In fact' date=' I think that's the primary use a number of superheroes have them for. I don't think that's metagaming in one sense, I think it's sensible for the character who can't/won't use deadly force except against such things. And in the sense it is metagaming, in mapping a specific power to the desired character Power, it's appropriate, choosing KA because that is what it is, something which destroys stuff.[/quote']

 

I'm starting a thread on the KA aspect of this discussion. I'd like to invite all who are interested to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I think of KAs as valid for destroying objects. In fact' date=' I think that's the primary use a number of superheroes have them for. I don't think that's metagaming in one sense, I think it's sensible for the character who can't/won't use deadly force except against such things. And in the sense it is metagaming, in mapping a specific power to the desired character Power, it's appropriate, choosing KA because that is what it is, something which destroys stuff.[/quote']Let's compare numbers again:

 

4d6 Killing Attack (12 DC) does 14 BODY on average roll (We'll ignore Stun since we're discussing blowing holes in walls, robots, etc.) Max BODY is 24.

 

8d8 EB AP (12 DC) does 8 BODY on average roll; but is applied against halved DEF for the target. Max BODY is 16 but applied against half DEF.

 

Assuming the target has a DEF of 14, the average AP attack will do 2 more damage. Assuming the target has a DEF of 8, the average AP attack will do 2 less damage.

 

I frankly can't see where +/- 2 points is worth getting worked up over. It still looks to me like most players purchase KAs primarily because they want that big Stun Multiple. Be honest - how many players would buy KAs if there was no Stun Multiple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I think of KAs as valid for destroying objects. In fact' date=' I think that's the primary use a number of superheroes have them for. I don't think that's metagaming in one sense, I think it's sensible for the character who can't/won't use deadly force except against such things. And in the sense it is metagaming, in mapping a specific power to the desired character Power, it's appropriate, choosing KA because that is what it is, something which destroys stuff.[/quote']

 

One of my objections to the current mechanic is the effect that extra BODY damage has on other powers: notably entangle and force wall. Killing attacks substantially reduce their worth, without adding equivalent value to the system.

 

I don't see why we need a power (costed, it is worth remembering,identically to equivalent DCs of normal damage) that:

 

1. Does more body on average then normal attacks

2. Does at least as much stun through defences on average, and for high defences a lot more

3. Has a far better chance of stunning, and

4. Is stopped by a more limited (and expensive) class of defence

 

The only reason I can think of is that it has always been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Sean Waters:

 

If I understand your proposal correctly (a big IF)

 

immunity to everything would end up costing more than 100% of the character's total points...right?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to convince the palindromedary to check my math....

 

 

Absolutely - that was deliberate. The tone of this discussion has been (as I understood it) that absolute invulnerabilty to everything was not desireable and there should always be some way you can be affected: this costing ensures there is. You could probably get round the stricture with adjustment powers, but that would contravene the STOP sign...

 

One feature of this idea that goes way beyond simple damage immunity can be illustrated with examples of (100%) immunity to physical damage and immunity to TK.

 

Witht he former you would not be hurt by a TK punch but you could be picked up and thrown. With the latter, TK just would not affect you: you could not be hurt by a TK punch, or picked up - it has no effective strength against you.

 

OTOH if the TK was used to pick up a rock and hurl it at you then the former would still protect you but the latter would offer no protection at all.

 

The important thing is it is EFFECT reduction, and so a more generally useful power for building concept characters than a simple damage defence mechanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I frankly can't see where +/- 2 points is worth getting worked up over. It still looks to me like most players purchase KAs primarily because they want that big Stun Multiple. Be honest - how many players would buy KAs if there was no Stun Multiple?

 

Mine. In the Supers genre, I have had players regularly buy killing attacks, which they apply only to damaging unliving targets. The Stun Lotto never became a big issue in my games for that reason.

 

If you want to solve KA, make it roll 1 die per 5 points and set the following rules:

 

(a) Applies against rDEF

(B) 1d6 more removed from knockback

© 1 - 5 adds 1 BOD; 6 adds 2 BOD

(d) STUN is total on dice - # of dice

 

Now it does more BOD on average than an EB (same as a current KA, but same max as an EB), and less STUN, and the wide variances are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Does that have an advantage over simply fixing the Stun Multiplier at 3?

 

I know the average is 2.666~, but even on a 6d6 KA (90 AP, 18DC), making the multiplier 3 only results in 7 more Stun than the average roll, while entirely eliminating the lotto.

 

I ask because I am curious.

 

If you set the stun multiple at 3, a KA gets the same average stun as an equal DC normal attack, more BOD, application only against rDEF and wider Stun variance than an equivalent normal attack (as fewer dice are rolled). The only drawback is reduced knockback.

 

If a change is to be made, it should make killing attacks more effective at inflicting BOD, and less effective at inflicting STUN. My approach, above,does both, and modifies the averages as little as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Let's compare numbers again:

 

4d6 Killing Attack (12 DC) does 14 BODY on average roll (We'll ignore Stun since we're discussing blowing holes in walls, robots, etc.) Max BODY is 24.

 

8d8 EB AP (12 DC) does 8 BODY on average roll; but is applied against halved DEF for the target. Max BODY is 16 but applied against half DEF.

 

Assuming the target has a DEF of 14, the average AP attack will do 2 more damage. Assuming the target has a DEF of 8, the average AP attack will do 2 less damage.

 

I frankly can't see where +/- 2 points is worth getting worked up over. It still looks to me like most players purchase KAs primarily because they want that big Stun Multiple. Be honest - how many players would buy KAs if there was no Stun Multiple?

That's really a great point. Honestly hadn't thought about it; I think most people learn to use KAs for destroying stuff; I certainly did.

 

However, it's a bit slanted - you use 14 and 8 DEF as split points but that's hardly the common ones. If you look at the Objects Table, an armored wall is at 13, but the others are all 3-6, with reinforced concrete and a spaceship at 8. So common objects are pretty much topping out at 6. Using 6, an AP 8d6 EB is going to get 5 BOD through most often while the 4d6 KA is going to get through 11 BOD most often (going strictly by averages). That's a significant difference, and a more realisic one that'll be encountered. The less DEF the more dramatic.

 

One thing to consider is the The average within one standard deviation on the KA is 11-17. The average within one standard deviation on the AP is 7-9. So even with a DEF 14, in the most common range of results, the 4d6 KA will do 0-3 and the AP will do 1-2. But at DEF 8, the range goes to 3-9 for the KA and is at 3-5 for the AP EB. The real opportunity, without the wider swing, is 4 BOD damage. And again that gets more dramatic with less DEF, which is the realistic battlefield.

 

As to why buy KA or non-KA with characters, it definitely matters if you're going against resDEF or not - and NPCs and PCs come in many varieties, some with lots of resistant defense and some not.

 

So while the averages aren't far off, it seems still the system encourages KA specifically for this purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

One of my objections to the current mechanic is the effect that extra BODY damage has on other powers: notably entangle and force wall. Killing attacks substantially reduce their worth, without adding equivalent value to the system.

 

I don't see why we need a power (costed, it is worth remembering,identically to equivalent DCs of normal damage) that:

 

1. Does more body on average then normal attacks

2. Does at least as much stun through defences on average, and for high defences a lot more

3. Has a far better chance of stunning, and

4. Is stopped by a more limited (and expensive) class of defence

 

The only reason I can think of is that it has always been there.

I'll take my response to OddHat's thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

However' date=' it's a bit slanted - you use 14 and 8 DEF as split points but that's hardly the common ones. If you look at the Objects Table, an armored wall is at 13, but the others are all 3-6, with reinforced concrete and a spaceship at 8. So common objects are pretty much topping out at 6. Using 6, an AP 8d6 EB is going to get 5 BOD through most often while the 4d6 KA is going to get through 11 BOD most often (going strictly by averages). That's a significant difference, and a more realisic one that'll be encountered. The less DEF the more dramatic.[/quote']My numbers were selected deliberately, but not without reason.

 

14 DEF would be an incredibly tough automaton or robot; with defenses 2 DEF higher than the DC of a fairly typical 60 AP Champions game; i.e., it's high even enough to counter Pushed attacks. By the rule of thumb of "Automaton DEF is effectively three times higher then the same number is normally" that's equivalent to major brick defenses of 42. The 8d6 AP EB still does some BODY damage. (Note that I don't expect anyone fighting a robot with defenses that high relative to the game to be able to one-shot said robot. It's simply not genre.) OTOH a 4d6 RKA against 14 DEF on average will bounce.

 

8 DEF was selected to be equal to the attack dice available after it's been made Armor Piercing. Against a typical 4 - 6 DEF the AP attack will (obviously) do even more damage than against 8. Yes, by comparison a 4d6 RKA will do more damage, but how many automatons in a Champions game are going to have only 6 DEF? The higher the DEF, the more relatively effective the AP attack becomes. So the "I buy KA only to break machines and walls" doesn't really hold up under scrutiny IMO. In most typical situations an AP attack will be more effective at blowing holes in inanimate objects, including robots and Entangles. Of course, AP obviously attacks lacks the Stun Lotto, but nobody buys KA for that, right? :sneaky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

My numbers were selected deliberately, but not without reason.

 

14 DEF would be an incredibly tough automaton or robot; with defenses 2 DEF higher than the DC of a fairly typical 60 AP Champions game; i.e., it's high even enough to counter Pushed attacks. By the rule of thumb of "Automaton DEF is effectively three times higher then the same number is normally, that's equivalent to major brick defenses of 42. The 8d6 AP EB still does some BODY damage. (Note that I don't expect anyone fighting a robot with defenses that high relative to the game to be able to one-shot said robot. It's simply not genre.) OTOH a 4d6 RKA against 14 DEF on average will bounce.

 

8 DEF was selected to be equal to the attack dice available after it's been made Armor Piercing. Against a typical 4 - 6 DEF the AP attack will (obviously) do even more damage than against 8. Yes, by comparison a 4d6 RKA will do more damage, but how many automatons in a Champions game are going to have only 6 DEF? The higher the DEF, the more relatively effective the AP attack becomes. So the "I buy KA only to break machines and walls" doesn't really hold up under scrutiny IMO. In most typical situations an AP attack will be more effective at blowing holes in inanimate objects, including robots and Entangles. Of course, AP obviously attacks lacks the Stun Lotto, but nobody buys KA for that, right? :sneaky:

I understand you have selected it for a purpose but I was bringing it up in regard to breaking stuff, not character damage. I didn't bring up breaking Automotons, which are characters for all intents and purposes. A "machine" is regular stuff and typically not going to have a lot of DEF like an automoton, though of course that would vary. IMO, the breaking machines and walls stands up pretty well if you consider the threshold for most stuff is much lower than 14 (I do note an armored car is thereabouts, of course). Also applies to breaking many a weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Very cool method, well done, thanks for posting that!

 

Oh, and btw, I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but seems nobody really uses the idea, you could also do Invulnerability as simple extension of the "Personal Immunity" SFX if bought on all your powers that are of that theme/type, and I think it's always reasonable to assume that this extends to others' attacks IF (and only if) identical SFX.

 

I'm sorry, but I think that's quite a stretch. And some people have accused ME of stretching Personal Immunity to the breaking point.

 

The book says, for example, that if two mutant twins with identical powers had Personal Immunity, the immunity might extend to the twin's powers - but not to any "mutant power."

 

If two wizards with the same spell have Personal Immunity, neither can use that spell on the other - but if one knows a spell the other doesn't, watch out!

 

If you're going to extend the concept this far, I would say, make it a bigger advantage for one - and even then, if your Fire Blast is, say, 10d6, I wouldn't let the immunity work against 12d6.

 

Absolutely - that was deliberate. The tone of this discussion has been (as I understood it) that absolute invulnerabilty to everything was not desireable and there should always be some way you can be affected: this costing ensures there is. You could probably get round the stricture with adjustment powers' date=' but that would contravene the STOP sign...[/quote']

 

Have I told you lately that I like the way you think?

 

One feature of this idea that goes way beyond simple damage immunity can be illustrated with examples of (100%) immunity to physical damage and immunity to TK.

 

Witht he former you would not be hurt by a TK punch but you could be picked up and thrown. With the latter, TK just would not affect you: you could not be hurt by a TK punch, or picked up - it has no effective strength against you.

 

OTOH if the TK was used to pick up a rock and hurl it at you then the former would still protect you but the latter would offer no protection at all.

 

The important thing is it is EFFECT reduction, and so a more generally useful power for building concept characters than a simple damage defence mechanism.

 

I'm starting to really like the idea.

 

Mine. In the Supers genre, I have had players regularly buy killing attacks, which they apply only to damaging unliving targets. The Stun Lotto never became a big issue in my games for that reason.

 

If you want to solve KA, make it roll 1 die per 5 points and set the following rules:

 

(a) Applies against rDEF

(B) 1d6 more removed from knockback

© 1 - 5 adds 1 BOD; 6 adds 2 BOD

(d) STUN is total on dice - # of dice

 

Now it does more BOD on average than an EB (same as a current KA, but same max as an EB), and less STUN, and the wide variances are gone.

 

I think I like this one too. Has it been copied to the Killing Attack discussion yet?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius is suffering from insomnia again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I understand you have selected it for a purpose but I was bringing it up in regard to breaking stuff' date=' not character damage. I didn't bring up breaking Automotons, which are characters for all intents and purposes. A "machine" is regular stuff and typically not going to have a lot of DEF like an automoton, though of course that would vary. IMO, the breaking machines and walls stands up pretty well if you consider the threshold for most stuff is much lower than 14 (I do note an armored car is thereabouts, of course). Also applies to breaking many a weapon.[/quote']I don't believe I even mentioned characters or character damage, Zorn, only machines and automatons. After all, we're proceeding with this discussion on the assumption that nobody actually buys Killing Attacks only for the exaggerated Stun effects, right? :winkgrin:

 

All kidding aside, AP attacks will do as good or better a job of poking holes in most walls, machines and automatons as the equivalent DC Killing Attack. An average 4d6 RKA will bounce off a 14 DEF armored car whereas an 8d6 AP attack will blow a man-sized hole in the same armored car. Of course, there's no reason characters can't have AP KA's as well except those will as a necessary consequence have a lower Stun result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I'm sorry, but I think that's quite a stretch. And some people have accused ME of stretching Personal Immunity to the breaking point.

 

The book says, for example, that if two mutant twins with identical powers had Personal Immunity, the immunity might extend to the twin's powers - but not to any "mutant power."

 

And I totally agree with that. I don't think it should stretch that far. "Mutant power" is silly and meaningless, anyway, and I can't see granting an invulnerability on that basis. I think the issue is why the personal immunity occurs. If it's simply control over where one's power occurs and does not (similar in concept to Hole in the Middle) then it doesn't really apply to anyone else, and probably not even the twin at that point. But if one is personally immune to one's fire because, for example, one's cells literally burt at the same rate as one's Damage Shield, then you probably have invulnerability to conventional fire at a specific threshold, much as you write below. I would say in that case, though, the character concept better be clearly eludicated and other points paid (appropriate LSes and the like).

 

If two wizards with the same spell have Personal Immunity, neither can use that spell on the other - but if one knows a spell the other doesn't, watch out!

 

Agreed.

 

If you're going to extend the concept this far, I would say, make it a bigger advantage for one - and even then, if your Fire Blast is, say, 10d6, I wouldn't let the immunity work against 12d6.

 

I'd probably fudge more than that, but that's fair and, in point of fact, I certainly agree it's the "right" way to do it. I might say the additional 2d6 is only applied, but in point of fact that's a worthless attack, so I might more likely just say the attack goes off as normal but half the damage applies. Or something like that.

 

However, I'm only suggesting this as a house rule, it should be noted, and as such I think one could be a lot more liberal than anything I described above, including stretching it well beyond a HERO-orthodox utility value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I don't believe I even mentioned characters or character damage, Zorn, only machines and automatons. After all, we're proceeding with this discussion on the assumption that nobody actually buys Killing Attacks only for the exaggerated Stun effects, right? :winkgrin:

 

All kidding aside, AP attacks will do as good or better a job of poking holes in most walls, machines and automatons as the equivalent DC Killing Attack. An average 4d6 RKA will bounce off a 14 DEF armored car whereas an 8d6 AP attack will blow a man-sized hole in the same armored car. Of course, there's no reason characters can't have AP KA's as well except those will as a necessary consequence have a lower Stun result.

But my point is that automotons ARE characters. Consider how they're created. There is no difference, aside from a small number of abilities only granted to automotons.

 

And while I DO agree with you and applaud the point you bring up, I think you are stretching too much, way too much, as you say "most walls, machines..." (as stated, automotons to me simply do not apply to these arguments). In point of fact, most walls and machines are significantly lower than 8 DEF, they will be more quickly and easily blasted with KAs, and I'm not sure how one can say any more than that. It doesn't invalidate your point regarding higher-rated systems, but for blowing through standard environmental stuff they perform as the book suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...