logo

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:36 pm 
Third Jedi from the Left
Third Jedi from the Left
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:48 pm
Posts: 115
Dodonna is much more a problem than actual activation limits. I believe if we put every faction on the same page (no tempo control) we would help the game alot. I find that most of the games I see that go to time are with squads that include atleast one player running tempo control.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:44 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Mickey wrote:
Actually I taught him to play to have fun. As I told Jim last night if we do make it to GenCon next year, which we hope, I intend to play something less competitve. It just seems the championship play is more about winning than having fun from all the talk I see. I play thia game to have fun. Each time I enter a DCI event it is to meet new people and to have a good time. No matter how a game turns out I have always had fun.
So do we. I really wouldn't interpret what people are saying as suggesting it isn't about fun. Part of having fun, is the game being played fairly. Unfair tactics (whether on purpose or not) are not generally fun. If anything, the motivation for this comes from players like yourself, who come to the Champ and get turned off by slow play. My primary motivation for doing something goes back to two fellow Chicagoans who were frustrated by it in 2008. It is about fun for me at least. I can understand how that might not come across in threads like this, but I hope this brings it back for you.

Mickey wrote:
I was confused about the definition of slow play because it seems in most of the complaints written here about it there is an underlying accusation that someone is doing it on purpose.
Not at all, at least not from me. Slow play is a problem no matter whether it's purposeful or not. If it's on purpose (and the judge can determine this - which is really tough), it's an automatic DQ for stalling. Unintentional slow play, which is the main issue being discussed, creates an unfair game play state for your opponent. I would be willing to discuss why in PM or elsewhere if you want. Don't take it as an accusation, or as any kind of judgment on you or anyone. We as a community are at fault for where things have gone. And it isn't just championship play either.

Mickey wrote:
As I said, I'm perfectly happy playing for points to end the game as long as I had fun playing.
Me too. And no one, me included wants to take that away from you. But I am also concerned about your opponent having fun as well, and that requires fair play. If you play at a pace that allows for only 4 rounds, and your opponent plays much faster, that isn't fair, and it isn't fun. Most of us that have been talking about the problems with slow play, do so from a perspective of what's fun and fair. None of us like slow played games.

And to be clear, that doesn't include playing against new players, younger players, etc. This has to do primarily with people who play the game tactically slow first and foremost.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:23 pm 
Black Sun Thug
Black Sun Thug
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:49 pm
Posts: 74
Location: Southern Illinois
I see where you are coming from. I saw your comment about only getting to play 10 minutes in a game. I would not like that myself. I've just not seen any of this. Generally when I play and a game goes to points we were both going slow. I still had fun. I don't mind a game being finished on points. Like I said I go into a game knowing it will be based on points. The more points in the squad I think it is just going to go longer. I don't know if I have ever finished a 200 point match.

I guess what I'm getting at is slow is an arbitrary term at this point in time. It is being compared relative to each person's opinion of what they think is slow. I would bet that you as a very experienced player, practicing your squad for tourneys and being able to anticipate another player's moves better is going to move faster than the average player. Are we going to expect players to improve to the best player's speed. Because frankly you are considered one of the best players in the game.

I thought we were talking about intentional slow play. Now that I know it is unintentional slow play really at the question here I'm a bit concerned this is going to go into a bad direction. Forcing players to play at an unconfortable speed is just going to create bad feelings.

I really don't have an answer for this topic. I think any of the directions taken should concentrate on points rather than forcing people to try to kill all the pieces in a squad. Points is much more realistic to deal with for most players. Expecting players to kill everything from a 100 to a 200 point squad in the same 1 hour match is not really realistic in my opinion. Any and every match can easily be decided by points. There is no exceptions to that rule. At least none I can think of :mrgreen: It may not be the intended game play, but timed games were not the intended game play either.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:20 pm 
Major Tierce
Major Tierce

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 3204
@ Mickey

I think you are taking some of the points the wrong direction. It isn't necessarily about killing your opponents entire squad, it is about making sure each player has had enough of the time (their portion of the 60 mins) and enough rounds to have an opportunity to score points and defeat their opponent. When a player only gets through 3 or 4 rounds in an hour there is an issue in the fact that they have not allowed their opponent an opportunity to score any points and there is no way possible to score the necessary 150 pts to achieve a full on victory. If 6-8 (or more rounds) are played then there is plenty of time (activations) to try and score points by defeating opposing pieces.

I also think it is about determining a CLEAR winner. a 40-37 score doesn't do anything except arbitrarily award a W. A score of 80-18 (even though not the build total) paints an entirely different picture. We are pretty certain who won that match.

I know of all my GenCon matches 6 of 7 ended in CLEAR winners (either I defeated my opps squad, they conceded or I conceded at a pioint where a comeback was not feasible). The most unsatisfying match I had was my one match that ended 49-45 (we both had mobile evading shooter squads). Neither player had defeated enough to really determine the winner (I won because I had 4 extra points because he missed a last second shot). If we had 1 more rd or 2 more rounds who knows what the final score would have been. It was a fun match to play but was still unsatisfying in that no CLEAR winner was determined. This is why I earlier suggested that either some minimum VP # or some minimum differential (either pts or a %) could be implemented if we could get the Draw feature to work for us as it does for MTG.
No one really deserves to lose a game where the score was only a few pts different and only 3 rds were played do they?

BTW anyone keeping track at the LGS to see how many rds a match normally lasts (even the ones where all pieces were killed)? Myabe if on average it takes 4-5 rds to kill the opposing squad then something like 6 rounds would be a better min or maybe it should be 10 rds if it takes 12-14 rds to kill the opps squad. In all honesty I am not really sure how many rounds should be enough rounds to actually determine that a fair chance was given to both players.

Well that's all from me for now so back to your regularly scheduled programming.

_________________
When I left you I was but the learner . . . now I am the master.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:33 pm 
Mandalore
Mandalore
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 1209
Location: Aboard the Exocarrier Resalute, waiting to free all SWMer's from Tyrnany
around and around we go

_________________
"Rolling a Natural 20, there is no other feeling like it."

Member of the SWMRAC
Member of the Completed till the End and Beyond Club

Come rate my squads on Bloomilk...http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.a ... dalsiandon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:57 am 
Death Star Designers
Death Star Designers
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 249
Hey, if we are going to consider changing things in the floor rules I'd really like to see this

"If a match ends before a player meets the victory condition, players complete the current round."

changed to this:

"If a match ends before a player meets the victory condition, players have 5 minutes to complete the current round."

I know some people who, once time is called, figure that they can slow down and take their time, thinking every move through every possibility because the pressure of the clock is no longer on... but there are usually other people waiting to start another round. And it isn't fair to any of them. I once watched a final round take 45 minutes because initiative was rolled just before time was called.

_________________
Image
Check us out if you're in the Atlanta area!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:54 am 
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
Really Cool Alien from a Cantina
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:30 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Colorado
LoboStele wrote:
S1AL wrote:
TBH, I think that you guys are approaching this in completely the wrong way. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the intent of the game is to "finish" (i.e. reach the build total) in 60 minutes. This is, in fact, the only game where I have ever seen that comment about the "official tournament" rules, which is DCI in this case. In reality, most miniatures games also have at least 1 way to score points that doesn't involve killing pieces, and I'm of the opinion that it adds a tactical element to the game that would not otherwise be present. Then again, I've always been more interested in non-linear strategy than in linear strategy (one reason I only played chess casually). Heck, most miniatures games either don't have a notable time limit or else don't expect the players to finish within the time limit (and have more intricate rules for scoring when they don't).

So take that for what you think it's worth... just a different perspective from the norm, it would appear.


Well, for me....."finish the game" does not necessarily equal "kill all your opponents pieces". "Finish the game" equals "reach the build total limit of (for instance) 150 points". I'm 100% for alternate methods of achieving points in the game.


That would be why I defined "finish" on the second line :P.

At this point, the idea that interests me the most is "non-standard" gambit; in other words, I would like to see gambit move away from the center of the map in a lot of cases, and perhaps even have different point values depending on the location and the player who occupies the scoring spot, etc, etc. I know it could pose a challenge on all of the current maps, but I think it could be done.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:25 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Mickey wrote:
Actually I taught him to play to have fun. As I told Jim last night if we do make it to GenCon next year, which we hope, I intend to play something less competitve. It just seems the championship play is more about winning than having fun from all the talk I see. I play thia game to have fun. Each time I enter a DCI event it is to meet new people and to have a good time. No matter how a game turns out I have always had fun.


I guess the seriousness of this discussion could paint the wrong picture for someone who hasn't experienced it. But you're way off base about Gencon and the SWM competetive community. :) Aaron was in his clone armor for one of these high level tourneys. You can see Bill and Deri joking a bit even in the champ final in the video. In round one of the champs DPR and I were having a tense close match and I was still joking about our dueling speeder's *ahem* intimate moment in the center of the map--even took a pic during John's turn. And then in the game where Matt Hanson was cleaning my clock we were still joking about how neither Han could hit, and Matt had to constantly correct me moving his Mice and Ugos after they got all tangled up in the middle and I couldn't keep track of whose was whose. Hopefully these anecdotes help give a better idea of Gencon. I can't say you'll never hit a bad situation due to the competetive stuff, but in my experience it's pretty rare in SWM even at the highest levels of play.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:38 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:08 pm
Posts: 8394
Mickey wrote:
Actually I taught him to play to have fun. As I told Jim last night if we do make it to GenCon next year, which we hope, I intend to play something less competitve. It just seems the championship play is more about winning than having fun from all the talk I see. I play thia game to have fun. Each time I enter a DCI event it is to meet new people and to have a good time. No matter how a game turns out I have always had fun.


I can see why you would think that based on some of these discussions. But the Championship tournament was the most fun event for me this year at GenCon, and I went 3-3.

Sure it's a little more serious minded in some games than in others, but I've found that people who aren't relaxed and having fun with the game tend to lose. This is not always true, but usually.

During the lunch break that day, a few of us went down to the food court. One of the guys with us asked us if we thought we had a good chance at going top 8. I told him I didn't like to think about it that way. "The worst thing that can happen today is that I played 6 or 7 games of SWM and didn't win a laptop," I said.

I think its important to always keep the perspective of the game in mind. Sure winning makes a person feel good, but it doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
Click here to check out all the people who have realized the truth. Someday you will, too.

"I would really, really like to not have anything else happen at the end of the round other than things just ending." -- Sithborg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:49 am 
Imperial Dignitaries
Imperial Dignitaries
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: New Jersey
NickName wrote:
Mickey wrote:
Actually I taught him to play to have fun. As I told Jim last night if we do make it to GenCon next year, which we hope, I intend to play something less competitve. It just seems the championship play is more about winning than having fun from all the talk I see. I play thia game to have fun. Each time I enter a DCI event it is to meet new people and to have a good time. No matter how a game turns out I have always had fun.


I guess the seriousness of this discussion could paint the wrong picture for someone who hasn't experienced it. But you're way off base about Gencon and the SWM competetive community. :) Aaron was in his clone armor for one of these high level tourneys. You can see Bill and Deri joking a bit even in the champ final in the video. In round one of the champs DPR and I were having a tense close match and I was still joking about our dueling speeder's *ahem* intimate moment in the center of the map--even took a pic during John's turn. And then in the game where Matt Hanson was cleaning my clock we were still joking about how neither Han could hit, and Matt had to constantly correct me moving his Mice and Ugos after they got all tangled up in the middle and I couldn't keep track of whose was whose. Hopefully these anecdotes help give a better idea of Gencon. I can't say you'll never hit a bad situation due to the competetive stuff, but in my experience it's pretty rare in SWM even at the highest levels of play.

QFT. I don't have an LGS near me, so Gencon is pretty much the only place where I can play SWM with a real life opponent, so I didn't know what to expect. I've heard of some competitive games where people take the game far too seriously. The first time I went to Gencon was last year, and I was pleasantly surprised and impressed by how calm and relaxed people were, even in the midst of the most competitive games. It was a total blast, and I have yet to play a game where my opponent was unsportsmanlike or even unfriendly. In fact, I'd say that 90% of the people I met at Gencon would be welcome to stay at my house if/when they're ever in the area...that's how glad I was to meet them and get to know them a little bit. :)


I think the heaviness and seriousness you're reading in this discussion thread is largely due to a number of factors, mostly having to do with the fact that we all love the game and this is a pretty serious topic with far-reaching consequences. We're also trying to find a solution to a problem which is extremely difficult to pin down and therefore also to solve; it's also a problem which has caused some real headaches for a number of players. I happen to greatly appreciate each of the people posting in this thread with whom I've been disagreeing, and I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual (for the most part? :)) too.

_________________
"Don't give the tool more credit than the master." --Weeks
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:05 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Mickey wrote:
Forcing players to play at an unconfortable speed is just going to create bad feelings.


I think this may be where the majority of the people who are apprehensive about Bill's suggestions are getting hung up.

Nothing that has been done so far would force people to play at a faster speed. But I can tell you for sure, if you were to get matched up against someone like Bill or Dean or myself at GenCon, and played the normal way you do at home, shooting for 4 or 5 rounds in that hour....a judge would likely get called over. At your LGS, everyone may play a similar speed, thus there is no imbalance in how much time a player gets in a game. If everyone is playing a similar speed, then even if you only play 4 rounds, each person is likely getting roughly 30 minutes of the game. Now, if you play that same speed, but your opponent plays much faster, it quickly shifts that to more like 45 minutes for you, and 15 minutes for your opponent.

In addition....and going back to the Universal Tournament Rules here....you are supposed to "Play at a speed that allows the game to reach it's completion WITHIN the time limit." Based on section 616 of the SWM Floor Rules then, the only way to complete the game within the time limit is to reach the victory condition. Yes, rules are in place to handle the occurrences where the victory conditions are not met by the end of the time period. But in order to truly follow the 'slow play' rule from the UTR, you should always be trying to reach the Victory Conditions before time runs out.

I don't think we're trying to force anyone to play faster than they are capable of. However, I do believe that EVERYONE is capable of playing a complete SWM game at 100, 150, or 200 points within an hour. They just have to learn how to do it. Practice. However, the current system in place doesn't encourage people to learn that. That's all we're saying. Let's encourage people to develop better playing skills, so that they can finish their games in that hour.

Yes, playing cautious is a good thing; protecting your pieces is the smart way to do things. But it is possible to do that, as well as play quicker, and in my experience, if it's a difference of skill level between you and your opponent, no amount of playing slow will make up that difference. ;)

Omnus wrote:
Dodonna is much more a problem than actual activation limits. I believe if we put every faction on the same page (no tempo control) we would help the game alot. I find that most of the games I see that go to time are with squads that include atleast one player running tempo control.


I am so sick and tired of hearing that argument. If you stuck a rule on the game that every activation should take 30 seconds, would Dodonna or San or Ozzel change things at all?? No. If you had 14 activations, it would take you 7 minutes to do your squad, with or without Dodonna. Players should be approaching that the same way. If you have Dodonna on your squad, you should be playing in such way that you take the same amount of time to move/activate your pieces as if you didn't have him. The only time there should be any additional time allowed is if it's a really tight situation, and you're trying to decide if you need to activate 1 or 2 pieces.

Otherwise, San/Dodonna/Ozzel should have absolutely NO impact on how fast you play. I've played San at two Championships now ('07 and '08), and Dodonna in '09, and 75% of those games were completely finished within the time limit, even when my opponent also had tempo control in many situations. Of that remaining 25%, the large majority of those games were well decided anyways (i.e. there was a large point margin between myself and my opponent).

People need to stop using tempo control as a crutch. It is not an excuse to play slower, and it should NOT be slowing down your games. If you believe your game is running behind because of tempo control figures, then you need to be calling yourself on slow play. ;)

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:08 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 2004
Location: Minnesota
thereisnotry wrote:
I've heard of some competitive games where people take the game far too seriously.


This was my first GENCON and I was worried that the champs would be crazy competitive, but everygame I played in was awesome and fun. I was worried the speeder matchups would be boring and lame, but because my opponents were so nice I had some amazingly fun games especially against Matt Hanson (knighswhosayni) and JonnyB.

For me, this pic of my new BFF Joruus Cboath playing in the top 8 against Lobo really told the story of the whole weekend.

Image

_________________
Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:11 am 
Master of the Order
Master of the Order
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:46 pm
Posts: 7960
Location: West Chester, OH (near Cincinnati)
Boba52 wrote:
This was my first GENCON and I was worried that the champs would be crazy competitive, but everygame I played in was awesome and fun. I was worried the speeder matchups would be boring and lame, but because my opponents were so nice I had some amazingly fun games especially against Matt Hanson (knighswhosayni) and JonnyB.

For me, this pic of my new BFF Joruus Cboath playing in the top 8 against Lobo really told the story of the whole weekend.


Hahaha, funny thing is, I probably wasn't in a very good mood at that point in the game, but that's because I'd been playing dumb and rolling bad. But that was my own problem to deal with. And I'm glad Phillip was still enjoying the game anyways, and I still had a blast!!

_________________
-Aaron
Mand'alor
"You either die a hero, or you live to see yourself become the villain."
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:18 am 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Great pic of Phillip. I've seen a few other good ones too. What a ham! :D

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm 
Ugnaught Master!
Ugnaught Master!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 2948
Location: SW Missouri
NickName wrote:
Great pic of Phillip. I've seen a few other good ones too. What a ham! :D

Oh, I can one-up that!
Image

_________________
That's right, it's always the one in the middle you would least expect to be the most dangerous!
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:52 pm 
Hall of Fame Member
Hall of Fame Member

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Fremont, CA
Yes, you guys were clearly consoling him here over his loss to Bill and getting his Landspeeder fillibustered in that game. :D

_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:45 pm 
The One True Sith Lord
The One True Sith Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:12 pm
Posts: 2026
Location: Nixa,Missouri
NickName wrote:
Yes, you guys were clearly consoling him here over his loss to Bill and getting his Landspeeder fillibustered in that game. :D

you see I thought he wanted his landspeeder to become a turret. I had no idea he was upset over that.

_________________
ImageImage
"What is your bidding, My Master?"

Collection: 934/934

SWM DCI Content Manager


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:29 pm 
Name Calling Internet Bully
Name Calling Internet Bully
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 6172
Location: Gurnee, IL
Added several edits to the first post based on the discussions here and in Boris thread. Thanks for Jdjersey, Nickname, Boris and Lobo for the ideas.

I also like Boris' suggestion for a GOWK fix that he posted on Bloomilk. I will let him retype it here if he wants to for discussion.

_________________
Image

http://www.bloomilk.com/Squads/Search.aspx?UserID=29


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:53 pm 
Sith Apprentice
Sith Apprentice

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:30 pm
Posts: 265
NickName wrote:
Yes, you guys were clearly consoling him here over his loss to Bill and getting his Landspeeder fillibustered in that game. :D


I thought it was a normal thing that happens when anyone loses to Bill.......

_________________
STOP IT! STOP IT! CAN'T YOU SEE THIS CONSTANT FIGHTING IS TEARING US ALL APART?-Carl

Things i've said in the past that got dismissed and now are being talked about:
restricting formats by set
Some chosing not to play the game if and when another company picks it up without the current mechanics


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  

Offline
 Post subject: Re: Competitive Play Changes Proposal
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:23 pm 
Black Sun Thug
Black Sun Thug

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:21 pm
Posts: 66
Speaking of filibuster, I think that if you're playing Bill you should be able to talk about a move as long as you want during a game and can't be called for stalling unless you stop talking or let someone else get a word in edge-wise.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Mark forums read

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights style by Scott Stubblefield