View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 22nd, 2018, 12:00 am



Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Ninja All-Stars Living Rule Book 
Author Message
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
With the recent announcement that NAS is basically not going to be supported as it's own game anymore. Sodapop has opened the game up to the concept of a living rulebook. This is a good thing, at least in the face of the game not being really supported anymore (sadly, I Was looking forward to some of the teased things).

Anyways. It's no big secret that many folks think the game rules could use changing. So, that's what living rulebooks are for. Coming together, as a community, and designing a set (or series of sets) of new, usable rules for the game.

I want to use this thread to, at least, start that process with discussion of some of the fundamental ideas that need t be laid out to start doing that.

Some of the big questions are:
- Do we aim at tweaks, big changes or total rewrite?
- Do we aim to use existing components? What do we add or subtract from that resource pool?
- Do we work within the constraints of what currently exists (I.E. the six existing clans and shrine ninjas). Or open up to additional concepts and additions right away?
- Other overarching questions i'm sure i'm not thinking about at the moment.

My answers to these would be:
- Aim somewhere between tweaks and bigger changes, but leave the concept of a total rewrite to be something more down the line as the game evolves and have some V3 or V4 version of the rules end up totally different from the original just via natural evolution.
- I would like to keep using the included components for the most part. I do enjoy the elemental dice. Having a unique die in a game is an appealing thing, in general. They may not necessarily end up being used in the same way, but I think they should be used. The same goes for the moon decks, for example. But, I'm also not against the potential addition of outside components (like using SDE boards or something).
- I would be against adding new content and concepts right off the bat (like new clans, or mixes elemental stuff or whatnot) on the same principal of my first answer. Let that be something to emerge more naturally over time, and as more content may be needed. THere's no need to force it in right away when a smaller pool of variables may be much better for recreating the game.

I encourage people to openly muse about possibilities in this thread, and discuss other peoples ideas. Please do criticize ides, but don't attack them. Even "bad" ideas can have some nuggets of usefulness in them in some way. I also urge that if people to post ideas in here, to be ready to have them criticized and scrutinized. That is literally what this thread is for. to collaborate and create something new and good!


June 5th, 2018, 2:45 am
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
Big issues to consider currently:

- How drastically should current rules be changed
- Current attitudes lean towards "changes obviously have to be made, but smaller tweaks over drastic rewrites"

- Weather or not to include the concept of cards representing personal, in-game, goals (using common materials like playing cards)

- Number and type of scenarios available to play

- Weather or not facing should be kept in the game and, if so, if it should be changed.


These topics are mid discussion. More opinions are good. I will try to keep personal bias out of any commentary I put on topics here about how attitudes are leaning. :lol:

List of topics for discussion (feel free to make suggestions to add to this as well)

- Token tracking/amount of tokens
- Issues about snowballing in scenarios
- More impactful KOs/injuries for ninjas


Last edited by Usagi on June 20th, 2018, 2:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.



June 5th, 2018, 2:46 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2015, 5:18 pm
Posts: 209
I mainly organized league for my nieces/nephews who are all below the age of 12. Play one league last summer, and starting a second league this summer now that they are off of school. For the most part the rules as written works fine for them, they don't have much complaints.

Edit: One thing they did mentioned was wanting to mix and match the different clan ninjas together...and not be limited to only ninjas within their own clans.

Edit #2: From their News Post: "Future releases from the continent of Kagejima will be designed as Super Dungeon expansions. (The community is encouraged to build new Ninja All-Stars profiles for these models using the living rulebook!)"

I am assuming one of the "future release" may be the Shrine Maidens/New Board. I remember they had previously a release date for it, so I wonder if ND/SPM will provide rules for them or it up to the community to make up rules instead.


June 5th, 2018, 3:23 pm
Profile
Mini-Boss
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Posts: 988
Location: Utah
I'm reminded of the Blood Bowl living rulebook- which is far and away the best rules set every attached to Games Workshop- mostly because they did this with the rules.

I feel like we should aim to keep the core of NAS unchanged, but we should do quite a bit of tweaking. Here are a my thoughts:

- We should try to keep the core components as is.

- We should tweak the core mechanics, but we should keep them looking familiar.

- We should tweak the various statlines and abilities to make the clans and ronin more balanced- make the less used ronin more appealing, and make the clans a little more on par with one another.

_________________
Image Garden Ninja Studios


June 5th, 2018, 6:15 pm
Profile WWW
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
odinsgrandson wrote:
I'm reminded of the Blood Bowl living rulebook- which is far and away the best rules set every attached to Games Workshop- mostly because they did this with the rules.

I feel like we should aim to keep the core of NAS unchanged, but we should do quite a bit of tweaking. Here are a my thoughts:

- We should try to keep the core components as is.

- We should tweak the core mechanics, but we should keep them looking familiar.

- We should tweak the various statlines and abilities to make the clans and ronin more balanced- make the less used ronin more appealing, and make the clans a little more on par with one another.


I suspect that Bloodbowl will be a large influence on this process. Both in how it's executed as an LRB and in how it's played in general.

I agree the clans do need to be more balanced against each other. On that front, at least from my obsevations, the most powerful clans tend to be the Ijin and the Yamazaru. I would be interested t hear if other people had different experiences on that. It seems that the Ijin, at least, are definitely regarded as a clear best.

I think ronin, as a concept in general, need some strong tweaking. They are difficult to use period. The house rules I made on the pre-game shop helped with that in our group a lot. That shop was also heavily influenced by the Bloodbowl incentive mechanics.

I don't want to turn this into "Bloodbowl: Ninjas" by any extent. But I do agree that that is the best ruleset to come out of GW, despite it not actually coming out of them. So, I think there's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from some aspects of that, weather directly or indirectly, so long as the directly isn't overdone. ;P


June 5th, 2018, 10:06 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
Overall, keep as much as we can. Lots of good systems in NAS that need a few tweaks, not a major overhaul.

On the topic of the BB influence, theres going to have to be a decision on the "aim" or objective of games/matches! In BB, you could beat the other team down...but if they still had a thrower and a catcher there was a good chance they would beat you by scoring. The BB combat system worked here as your just as likely to move a enemy as knock them down (or get downed yourself), it wasnt a straight up brawler where your aim was to put the other team in the ground....though it could advantageous to you, but not the main goal. The turnover system also alloys this by making you pick your fights to make sure you do your most likely actions first or risk losing your turn.

NAS has some scenarios with a clear outside goal to achieve and others were straight up fights; so the very variable combat system would work against you as you try to down enemies. So should the focus of all matches be on an objective away from "# of KOs"? Would also help clans such as Tanchyo and Kitsune who are a bit more "technical" than the front like fighters in Ijin and Tora, gives them a way to win that doesnt involve throwing themselves at vastly stronger offense or impenetrable defense.

Or maybe take odins idea from his other topic to add +1 ATT only in "fighting" scenarios, so as not to overbalance the game and make the more aggressive teams dominate. Should NAS be a fighting game with some vague goals or a sports-like game with a combat system? This is going to influence how the game will evolve and the constraints on rules and the flow of a game. So many times Ive seen here or on BGG people looking for more straightforward combat or more KOs per round so do people want it focused on combat or not?


June 8th, 2018, 11:09 am
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
Danteire wrote:
Overall, keep as much as we can. Lots of good systems in NAS that need a few tweaks, not a major overhaul.

On the topic of the BB influence, theres going to have to be a decision on the "aim" or objective of games/matches! In BB, you could beat the other team down...but if they still had a thrower and a catcher there was a good chance they would beat you by scoring. The BB combat system worked here as your just as likely to move a enemy as knock them down (or get downed yourself), it wasnt a straight up brawler where your aim was to put the other team in the ground....though it could advantageous to you, but not the main goal. The turnover system also alloys this by making you pick your fights to make sure you do your most likely actions first or risk losing your turn.

NAS has some scenarios with a clear outside goal to achieve and others were straight up fights; so the very variable combat system would work against you as you try to down enemies. So should the focus of all matches be on an objective away from "# of KOs"? Would also help clans such as Tanchyo and Kitsune who are a bit more "technical" than the front like fighters in Ijin and Tora, gives them a way to win that doesnt involve throwing themselves at vastly stronger offense or impenetrable defense.

Or maybe take odins idea from his other topic to add +1 ATT only in "fighting" scenarios, so as not to overbalance the game and make the more aggressive teams dominate. Should NAS be a fighting game with some vague goals or a sports-like game with a combat system? This is going to influence how the game will evolve and the constraints on rules and the flow of a game. So many times Ive seen here or on BGG people looking for more straightforward combat or more KOs per round so do people want it focused on combat or not?


This is a good point. It speaks to the same general thing that I have thought as well. The scenarios in the game are wildly inconsistent. Some are just not fun to play (like brawl, really). Others can be great fun. So, should one change be that the number of scenarios be cut way down? Maybe even one scenario per board? (though thatwouldn't neccecarily mesh with including SDE boards or arena boards if that happens). But, I think a smaller pool of what a match _could_ be will really help with overall consistency in the game. It will make balancing goals for teams easier. It will make planning in league play easier. A bit more predictability helps all that.

So, that leads to the question of what type of scenario, or scenarios, do we want to incorporate? Personally I very much like having goals beyond just mashing the other team. I quite like the messenger scenario (I believe it was) because it makes each side make tactical choices, like do I give the message to a fast, or tough, character. But also requires the opposition to try and force combat. This also happens to be the scenario closest to a goal based sport.

I like the _idea_ of the scenario that requires the teams to find things in crates. But I don't think it was executed well at all. Those matches usually just turned into splitting the loot up 50/50 and just rolling dice to see who got luckier, with no combat really involved. It was just two players playing separate games, almost.

I think a meshing of some scenarios may work best. With scoring for not only some sort of goal, but for random mayhem and combat as well. The trick will be finding a balance so that a team can't just focus whole hog on brawling and end up with a high win percentage still.

As I type this out stream of thought style, I think maybe 2, no more than 3, scenarios should be part of the "official" LRB. and have them all try and mix combat and "other" as part of the scoring conditions.

Some other things to ponder, I think, would be to increase the danger to characters on a team in campaign play (i have touched on that idea in my house rules thread). And to perhaps retool the advancement system. Not heavily, but enough that it doesn't feel so segregated and restrictive. This is, of course, all before getting into the minutia of remaking certain traits, and restating certain models. Work big to small here! :P


June 8th, 2018, 11:46 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
A good scenario should work in one of two ways: a point you need to defend while attacking a rivals (Capture the Medal, Intercept the Messanger) or a single goal both teams need to strive for (King of the Hill). Going back to BB (really should stop with this if want NAS to be its own game) the ball is the crucial fixation of the match: whomever controls the ball has the upper hand for victory. As you said yourself, Search is kind bad and Brawl is no better. Assassination/Champion...hrm I'm not sure, still kind of reliant on combat to "win" a match.....though it does give me an idea for how to introduce Ronin more into the game! And using tinted acetate sheets to make teleporting King of the Hill matches! But maybe leave scenario theory-crafting for another time.

Had thought of a sub-objective deck; set of 16-20 cards you flip one or two up just before starting first the first turn. Has bonus goals such as "Make 3 back attacks", "Stealth dodge 4 times" "Make 8 shuriken attacks" and koban/xp tokens to the first team to accomplish them. Just a way to introduce some more cash or catch-up systems to campaigns without adding whole new mechanics to the scenarios. Maybe have 1-2 open ones for a match and the opportunity to buy a personal one for the match as a way to gamble for extra koban. Also the opportunity of a whole scenario based around them: flip over 5 or 7 cards at the start and first team to get 3 or 4 wins!


June 8th, 2018, 6:06 pm
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: February 29th, 2016, 5:29 pm
Posts: 6
I think if the scenarios had primary and secondary objectives then things would balance out a bit. You can have each scenario have a single primary objective and two secondary objectives. Primary objectives are worth 4 points and each secondary objective is worth 2. This way you can balance fighting and goal achievement.

It will take a bit of reworking on the scenarios and I will admit I have not touched NAS in a long time. I will have to review them to see how much tweaking would need to be done.


June 8th, 2018, 7:12 pm
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
I forgot about king of the hill. that one can be good too, if a bit combat heavy still. But in that case, the combat at least has a specific goal. A re-worked king of the hill could be a solid scenario style to keep involved. The capture the medal and intercept the messenger scenarios are good ones. But could probably be combined into a single "stop X from getting to Y" scenario, as they are very similar in that respect. A third scenario type that is more unique to NAS and the things it can do should probably be included as well. and that could cover the basics, scenario wise.

I'm not a huge fan of the primary/secondary goal per scenario setup. I would like the "secondary" goal for everything to be the same, and be combat based. Like I said, less variables creates more consistency. The goals should always be repeatable too. That was one of the problems with the crate scenario. there was a point cap that was almost always met equally by each side, so it was always a draw.

The bonus goal deck is an interesting idea. I like the idea of potentially secret gals for a team in a ninja based game. The main problem with it is that it introduces a major component that the game doesn't already have. The solution to that would be to equate it to a "basic" thing like a regular deck of playing cards (ala the incentives deck in BB). That would just require creating an equivalency chart. I.E. "King of hearts = 3 stealth KOs" or something. The other thing this should do is only give meta-game bonuses. Meaning Koban or EXP or something that only matters post-game. It shouldn't be something that can influence the score of a game. If there were some kind of mutual "public" goal (say in the undefined third type of scenario above) then a actual in-game point value could be assigned to it by the scenario it's self (and probably remove the post-game bonus).

Come to think of it, I think that potentially could be a very solid third scenario. If we were to go with the concept of goal cards. A third scenario could be to flip 3 goal cards for a game and either have those 3 cards be repeatable for points or have some way to cycle the cards as the game goes on. Either when a player completes one, it is replaced or when both players complete it at least once (meaning one player could do it 2+ times before the second player gets a shot) it's automatically replaced. and just let those cards define the flow of the game. It would (likely) be more combat oriented, depending on the structure of the cards. But combat with a purpose is alright with me.

The first thing to do with the secret card idea would be to theorize a couple cards, and what they would consist of. Then decide how many we would need (probably quite a few) and figure that all out as well.


June 8th, 2018, 9:33 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
King of thr Hill is nice as Wind and Water results will play better, but it is still a brawl in the centre for control, was toying with idea for roaming extra spots that give a point for whichever team has a model in them at the end of a round, then teleport to another spot. Gives more mobile clans a chance to score some bonus points.

Well my idea with the cards was to make them based about lesser used gameplay mechanics, such as shurikens/stealth/dodging, or just events that might encourage unique play outside of "rush n' hit". Couple of ones I thought up:
- make back attacks
- gain 2 dice from assists
- attack from stealth
- push an enemy into a negative shrine
- successfully search for a stealthed enemy
- gain a bonus from a shrine
- make a successful shuriken attack
- KO an enemy through Stun tokens
- KO an enemy Chunin (only mini guaranteed to be in a team)
- pick Spirit as an attack result (very popular card ;) )

If these were to be used as scenario objectives I would much prefer them requiring multiple "points" to be earned on each before scoring. Menas there will be a bit of push/pull as players jostle to get the last point on them before the other player. One action and its scored and then its too advantageous to the player going first, or you will mill through them fast. Inversely, the secret objectives would need to be one shots; kinda gives the game away if you start tracking it whenever you make a back attack or make a dodge.

An abstract list to regular playing cards is a nice easy way to test them out anyways, with 52 cards could have 3 copies of 17 unique cards and one extra. Setting them to numbers only grants 4 copies of 13...might be enough but would like a bit more for varieties sake. Though can always pull half the deck and use two suits for 26 unique cards.


Kinda related to this talk of scenarios: game turn length and # of Ninjas on each team! A lot of people felt that 8-9 turns was way too long for a game, and they just dragged on at times. Though I guess it will depend on the way the scenarios play out. And maybe a sliding # scale for 3 or 4 player games, so less minis crowding the board and taking up time per round.


June 9th, 2018, 12:24 am
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
The problem with this card idea having things as simple as "attack from stealth" fulfill them is that, using that one as an example, there is basically no effort in it. It's something that basically will happen in a game. There's no need to go out of ones way to do it and thus any reward from it will have to be commensurately inconsequential. If it isn't, then it just becomes more of whatever reward it gives becoming a standard part of play.

It may preclude a secret "side quest" to make them more difficult. But it would also provide the possibility of requiring varied approaches within one set of goals.

There would be no real reason to have multiple copies of the same goal in a deck like this either. without a rotating set of goals, were that to be a scenario, only one or two would be drawn anyways. So, having lots of repeating copies wouldn't serve any real purpose. If there were one copy of each goal in a deck, and both sides were to use the same deck, it would also ensure they don't have the same goal. It would also mean a partial use of a playing card deck, and leave room to add things in the future without having to reconfigure everything.

I also think they should roughly the same difficulty and reward. attacking from stealth (once again) is way easier than trying to set up 2 assists. Other things like make a successful shuriken attack are just a bit ambiguous without defining what successful is (never assume something is "obvious" without being defined :P)

Though, I think content of these cards, as well as the number of turns and size of a team in a scenario, are medium sized issues. While important, they are not as immediate as, and possibly contingent on, larger issues to be hashed out first. So we shouldn't get too bogged down in things a bit further down river yet.


June 9th, 2018, 12:54 am
Profile
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:45 pm
Posts: 41
I kinda want a ninja all-stars where rules are super streamlined and accessible. But don't get me wrong, the core blood bowl system is awesome. I just want something I can work in with my kids as well.


I'd like to keep:
-Dice combat
-Influence Zone
-Components used (no need to make new components/adjustments to existing)

What I'd like to see changed:
-The amount of tokens to be used, reduced
-Simplified line of sight
-Simplified directional facing (or remove it all together)
-Simplified terrain


June 9th, 2018, 7:51 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
Hrm maybe it is best to put a pin in the new scenario ideas, and for now just tweak the existing rules. No point re-inventing the wheel from the off (although, round is so overused...whats peoples thoughts on a trapezoid tyre?)

CharlieX3 wrote:
I kinda want a ninja all-stars where rules are super streamlined and accessible. But don't get me wrong, the core blood bowl system is awesome. I just want something I can work in with my kids as well.

What I'd like to see changed:
-The amount of tokens to be used, reduced
-Simplified line of sight
-Simplified directional facing (or remove it all together)
-Simplified terrain



So heres so topics to cover.

With removal of facing, it just leaves a basic inf zone around each, makes it a lot simpler to determine assists and dodging. Also solves an issue with one of the Water abilities (Entangle giving a 2 space wide inf zone...but also a 2 space wide back zone). Does remove the back attacks, but might make a move towards stealth attack initiations for the extra +1 ATT. Have to dig through abilities to see what else it would help/hinder.

Line of sight/terrain...whats folks problems with them? Terrain could be discerning which tile is which? Would love to redo the symbols to have a different shape outside each (circle for regular space, diamond for structure, 4-point star for elevated, pointed circle for foliage) but that kind falls back into redoing boards which is a whole other kettle of problems.

Tokens...oh boy...where to begin? I will say I have a very minority view in that I would like to see some used more (curse, protect, delay). Is everyones problem the sheer amount on the board, the fiddliness of 5-6 different statuses? I whipped up a small sheet to track tokens on Ninjas, will try dig up the file.


June 9th, 2018, 12:12 pm
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
Danteire wrote:
Hrm maybe it is best to put a pin in the new scenario ideas, and for now just tweak the existing rules. No point re-inventing the wheel from the off (although, round is so overused...whats peoples thoughts on a trapezoid tyre?)

CharlieX3 wrote:
I kinda want a ninja all-stars where rules are super streamlined and accessible. But don't get me wrong, the core blood bowl system is awesome. I just want something I can work in with my kids as well.

What I'd like to see changed:
-The amount of tokens to be used, reduced
-Simplified line of sight
-Simplified directional facing (or remove it all together)
-Simplified terrain



So heres so topics to cover.

With removal of facing, it just leaves a basic inf zone around each, makes it a lot simpler to determine assists and dodging. Also solves an issue with one of the Water abilities (Entangle giving a 2 space wide inf zone...but also a 2 space wide back zone). Does remove the back attacks, but might make a move towards stealth attack initiations for the extra +1 ATT. Have to dig through abilities to see what else it would help/hinder.

Line of sight/terrain...whats folks problems with them? Terrain could be discerning which tile is which? Would love to redo the symbols to have a different shape outside each (circle for regular space, diamond for structure, 4-point star for elevated, pointed circle for foliage) but that kind falls back into redoing boards which is a whole other kettle of problems.

Tokens...oh boy...where to begin? I will say I have a very minority view in that I would like to see some used more (curse, protect, delay). Is everyones problem the sheer amount on the board, the fiddliness of 5-6 different statuses? I whipped up a small sheet to track tokens on Ninjas, will try dig up the file.


I understand the token problem. My group also used the team roster as a token holder to keep confusion off the board. the only tokens on the board were tokens on shrines to indicate what they were. Simplifying areas of influence with no back side isn't a terrible idea. It's an interesting mechanic. but is maybe a bit too cumbersome for the return. It'd be an idea worth trying out, at the very least. LOD simplification is easy. just go center to center. In the case of the current NAS maps, dot to dot. This is how my group did LOS anyways because it's consistent and predictable. The rule could easily extend to makeshift boards as well.

I'm not on board with making the game "child friendly" at it's core. Nothing stops house rules or anything, of course. But I think the "official" NAS LRB should be oriented towards an adult demographic. Particularly a tabletop savvy adult demographic. It's a lot simpler to dumb a game down in private from a more complicated base set of rules than it is to smart it up and add depth from a child's set of rules. Also, on the more selfish end, I want to make a game I want to play. not one to appease my 9 year old nephew while i'm bored. :P


June 9th, 2018, 2:36 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
I wasnt caught up on LoS rules but yeah, centre dot to centre dot works the best. Any dots it skims (as if a square around the dot) arent blocked but passing through the gap between two blocking elements does (someone standing at the point of a corner). Usual square based map LoS rules, also keep it for any person who might use squared tiles in future (so not to aoffer any advantages for a particular map). Removal of back inf zone also removes another bunch of headaches here, as dont have to figure out LoS through rear zones.


June 9th, 2018, 3:48 pm
Profile
Denizen
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2015, 6:29 am
Posts: 290
I am thinking facing could go .
Getting fun to play scenarios is THE thing too.


June 9th, 2018, 11:54 pm
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
Maybe keep facing/back inf zones as an optional rule in the back of the rulebook? So it doesn't slow down regular games but people can still have it available if they like using it.


June 10th, 2018, 9:46 am
Profile
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: March 25th, 2012, 9:44 pm
Posts: 2463
It really changes a lot (having a "back"). it would be very complicated as an optional rule. getting rid of it outright also gets rid of the seriously annoying problems is caused with LOS. THat's my main qualm with it. It would also make board placement way more simple if facing doesn't matter. I think it falls under the "if you liked it, you can still use it" but there's no need to weave it into the LRB.


June 10th, 2018, 10:26 am
Profile
Minion
User avatar

Joined: November 22nd, 2012, 5:01 pm
Posts: 169
Fair enough.

So whats next onto the chopping block? Would like to get any rules tweaks and such hammered out before attempting Clan rebalancing.


June 11th, 2018, 8:58 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.