Alternate Beams
- Thread starter Locutus9956
- Start date
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
I'm not suggesting that we compare specific weapons. I'm suggesting that we compare all of the weapons that people consider "primary".CZuschlag said:
Right now, the beam weapons are supposed to be comparable to all of these weapons. I'm just saying that any change to the beam rules should maintain this comparability. I don't think that the rules being proposed do that.
As far as being "contextless", that is what I see being done right now with the current suggestions for the beam mechanic. I don't think that a simple analysis of their average number of hits adequately represents their real impact on the game.
In my game experience, their occasional huge hit more than makes up for their usual mediocre performance. The occasional huge hit is what makes them comparable to other types of weapons. (I don't have any math to back that up with, it just seems to be the way they work in games played.)
I, for one, feel that an analysis of weapons systems that are supposed to fulfill the same role as the beam weapons being discussed would be very useful.
If you feel that a statistical analysis of primary ship systems isn't useful without a full analysis of ships carrying them, you'd better get cracking then :wink: I don't think that this is necessary...
ShopKeepJon
Morpheus1975
Mongoose
The entire point of this is here
1. Beam weapons sometimes do zip in damage and they should be deadly
2. Beam weapons sometimes do ungodly amounts of damage
3. The spread is very large and needs to be reduced.
4. A lucky strike with beams should be possible BUT have the probability of it occuring reduced.
5. The balancing needs to be handled carefully as to not screw up the way beams balance out compared to other weapon systems.
So in case nobody understood exactly what I was talking about or simply did not care here is a small clarification in more detail.
1. Have beams weapons hit on a 4+ for the first roll as they do now with one small change, any dice that miss on the first roll are seperated and re-rolled and hit on a 5 or 6 and may hit consecutively on another roll of a 5 or 6. Dice that miss the second time are not re-rolled to see if they can get a 6 but are simply ignored.
This increase the chance of beams doing zip but does not make them overly powerful.
2. Have beam weapons have a max number of times the die can be re-rolled and add it to the trait. So a Beam (3) could hit up to 3 times with each and every single die. An ancients ship could have Beam (7) where they can re-roll dice that get 4 or better up to a maximum of 7 times.
3, 4, and 5. Both 1 and 2 reduce the super-spread of doing little to nothing or a tremendous amount of damage with minimal alterations of the existing rules and keeps beams close to the range of damage they were originally inteded for.
This reduces the overkill of lucky players having a small beam weapon killing a large and powerful ship in a single shot. The beam weapon will no longer kill on just lucky dice alone but will have to depend more on critical hits, as it should be in my opinion. Again this is just my opinion.
Now some of you "Probability Experts" can check this out and do the math for yourself if you wish because it the rerolling of the first die that missed may increase damage too much for your taste. I'd be interested to see the mathematics behind how this might change the damage that beams do but from a pure common sense, quick look, at the rules this seems to be a viable option.
1. Beam weapons sometimes do zip in damage and they should be deadly
2. Beam weapons sometimes do ungodly amounts of damage
3. The spread is very large and needs to be reduced.
4. A lucky strike with beams should be possible BUT have the probability of it occuring reduced.
5. The balancing needs to be handled carefully as to not screw up the way beams balance out compared to other weapon systems.
So in case nobody understood exactly what I was talking about or simply did not care here is a small clarification in more detail.
1. Have beams weapons hit on a 4+ for the first roll as they do now with one small change, any dice that miss on the first roll are seperated and re-rolled and hit on a 5 or 6 and may hit consecutively on another roll of a 5 or 6. Dice that miss the second time are not re-rolled to see if they can get a 6 but are simply ignored.
This increase the chance of beams doing zip but does not make them overly powerful.
2. Have beam weapons have a max number of times the die can be re-rolled and add it to the trait. So a Beam (3) could hit up to 3 times with each and every single die. An ancients ship could have Beam (7) where they can re-roll dice that get 4 or better up to a maximum of 7 times.
3, 4, and 5. Both 1 and 2 reduce the super-spread of doing little to nothing or a tremendous amount of damage with minimal alterations of the existing rules and keeps beams close to the range of damage they were originally inteded for.
This reduces the overkill of lucky players having a small beam weapon killing a large and powerful ship in a single shot. The beam weapon will no longer kill on just lucky dice alone but will have to depend more on critical hits, as it should be in my opinion. Again this is just my opinion.
Now some of you "Probability Experts" can check this out and do the math for yourself if you wish because it the rerolling of the first die that missed may increase damage too much for your taste. I'd be interested to see the mathematics behind how this might change the damage that beams do but from a pure common sense, quick look, at the rules this seems to be a viable option.
Morpheus1975 said:
Why?
Does it not "seem" right?
Does it not fit the canon?
I use EA, so I use beams, I haven't found a problem. Sometimes the dice gods are with me, sometimes they are not. We are not meant to understand the ways of the dice gods, no matter how capricious they appear.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
wkehrman said:
Ok fair enough, and as a matter of fact I actually WOULD like to extend this conversation to include elements that make the game not fun. Yes luck plays a part in combat a big one, but real combat is not a game, too much luck dependancy when refering to a table top wargame I firmly believe takes away an awful lot of the tacical play. In real combat the aim is to win by any means if you get lucky great, if it basically seals the victory to the point the enemy cant possibly recover, fantastic. In a game it just makes it all a bit pointless, wheres the fun in playing a battle game where its basically over before its begun.
As for the examples: Dag Kar squadrons worth of mines whiffing/killing outright: Yes it can happen. It can happen with ANY weapon but MOST of the time they tend to do middle of the road sort of damage and then theyre done, as for Minbari, yes that can happen which is exactly why I dont like the stealth rule either but thats another discussion lets try and solve one issue at a time
The thing is though that beams are FAR more eratic in their performance than any other weapon in the game and its that massive variance that I take issue with. I dont want to remove luck completely from the game, I absolutely agree that luck SHOULD play a part, I just think that part should not be so overwhelming that it can completely decide the game. In the grand scheme of things if one player plays a much better tactical game he should win unless his opponent is UBELIEVABLY lucky.
With the 2nd Ed beam rules its actualyl quite plausible for one player to play a terrible game against an opponent who plays a nigh on perfect game, makes every manuever just right, picks his targets in exactly the right order and still loses beceuase the first shot from the bad players skirmish frigate socres 37 hits off a 4 dice beam and blows his flagship in half. Now of course I'm exagerating a little heare (though be honest folks, how many poeple here have more or less had this exact scenario happen to you
). Similarly I personally would find it a rather hollow victory if my ingenious battle plan was all ready to implement only to find I instead have disintegrated half my opponents fleet with luck beam hits (or equally rather frustrating to see said plan fail beacuse after positioning all my ships perfectly my massive beam cannons score a total of 3 hits (or in the case of other rules that that all 3 of the most heavily armed ships fail their stealth rolls (and yes yes I know theres a bazillion and one ways of lowering stealth but no matter what you do it still comes down to 1 dice roll and at least a 1 in 6 chance of doing diddly squat no matter how well you plan!)Locutus9956
Mongoose
wkehrman said:
See previous post, luck should play its's part but victory should in most cases go to the better player, not the luckier player. (which incidentally I'm certainly not trying to blame the dice for when I lose which happens plenty of times
) and personally I play lots of fleets some with lots of beams some with none. And I just dont like the current spread.As for it seeming 'right' and 'canon' well, no it doesnt to be honest!
Pretty much EVERY time we see a beam hit on the show (from the same type of ship anyway) it seems to do more or less the same amount of damage, and very rarely do we see them miss completely. Oh it happens sure but the point is NOT OFTEN.
And quite aside from everything else battle sequences in the show are one thing but you have to remember they are deliberately made so as to look more dramatic and exciting, this does not necessarily translate to a fun game if you make those big random events TOO common. I dont play games just to win but I find alot of the fun in gaming comes from trying to outwit ones opponent, its the challenge that is at the very core of why wargames are fun to play in the first place, if you reduce it down to just dice luck, well, why bother with an opponent you could have just as much fun playing against yourself.
Morpheus1975
Mongoose
wkehrman said:
Per comments like these
The thing is though that beams are FAR more eratic in their performance than any other weapon in the game and its that massive variance that I take issue with. I dont want to remove luck completely from the game, I absolutely agree that luck SHOULD play a part, I just think that part should not be so overwhelming that it can completely decide the game. In the grand scheme of things if one player plays a much better tactical game he should win unless his opponent is UBELIEVABLY lucky.
With the 2nd Ed beam rules its actualyl quite plausible for one player to play a terrible game against an opponent who plays a nigh on perfect game, makes every manuever just right, picks his targets in exactly the right order and still loses beceuase the first shot from the bad players skirmish frigate socres 37 hits off a 4 dice beam and blows his flagship in half. Now of course I'm exagerating a little heare (though be honest folks, how many poeple here have more or less had this exact scenario happen to you ). Similarly I personally would find it a rather hollow victory if my ingenious battle plan was all ready to implement only to find I instead have disintegrated half my opponents fleet with luck beam hits (or equally rather frustrating to see said plan fail beacuse after positioning all my ships perfectly my massive beam cannons score a total of 3 hits (or in the case of other rules that that all 3 of the most heavily armed ships fail their stealth rolls (and yes yes I know theres a bazillion and one ways of lowering stealth but no matter what you do it still comes down to 1 dice roll and at least a 1 in 6 chance of doing diddly squat no matter how well you plan!)
CZuschlag
Mongoose
ShopKeepJon:
No, I'm sorry, I must have been harder to interpret than I wanted. Contextless is good! I dont' want to talk about specific ships, so thank you from saving me from that!
The problem is the standard for a heavy laser at raid level has pretty much been set at 4 AD. The Hyperion isn't a bad model for this -- it's range is 18". I don't know where, but this standard has got to be somewhere else as well --- I just don't know where.
Now, what are we to compare this to? That's harder. A 18" (or so) nonbeam weapon that is absolutely the primary armament of a well-balanced Raid level ship ...... the closest I can come up with right now is the Heavy Plasma Cannons on the Narn T'Loth. Unfortunately, that ship lies on a very different part of the curve trading off damage it can take versus firepower (Hyperion: High Firepower, Moderate Defenses vs. T'Loth: Weak Firepower, Massive Defenses .... it's huge!). A closer option might be the Dilgar Omelos. Still not right (Omelos: Massive Firepower, Weak Defenses) and the Omelos has major additional firepower from the Anti-Ship Missile wave, too.
Perhaps we need to think about Skirmish instead, where 2 AD of Heavy Laser is typical (think Ka'Toc). The comparison here might be good with the amalgam of firepower on the Pak'ma'ra Warbird. Maybe there's a better basis to determine the right number of attack dice against one another?
I'm actually looking for your help and input on this one ShopKeepJon ... any idea for the platform of an analysis would be great!
No, I'm sorry, I must have been harder to interpret than I wanted. Contextless is good! I dont' want to talk about specific ships, so thank you from saving me from that!
The problem is the standard for a heavy laser at raid level has pretty much been set at 4 AD. The Hyperion isn't a bad model for this -- it's range is 18". I don't know where, but this standard has got to be somewhere else as well --- I just don't know where.
Now, what are we to compare this to? That's harder. A 18" (or so) nonbeam weapon that is absolutely the primary armament of a well-balanced Raid level ship ...... the closest I can come up with right now is the Heavy Plasma Cannons on the Narn T'Loth. Unfortunately, that ship lies on a very different part of the curve trading off damage it can take versus firepower (Hyperion: High Firepower, Moderate Defenses vs. T'Loth: Weak Firepower, Massive Defenses .... it's huge!). A closer option might be the Dilgar Omelos. Still not right (Omelos: Massive Firepower, Weak Defenses) and the Omelos has major additional firepower from the Anti-Ship Missile wave, too.
Perhaps we need to think about Skirmish instead, where 2 AD of Heavy Laser is typical (think Ka'Toc). The comparison here might be good with the amalgam of firepower on the Pak'ma'ra Warbird. Maybe there's a better basis to determine the right number of attack dice against one another?
I'm actually looking for your help and input on this one ShopKeepJon ... any idea for the platform of an analysis would be great!
I'm sure the EA Government suppressed all those shots of beams missing.Locutus9956 said:
The people in my area play beam heavy fleets(followed by e-mine heavy fleets) because if you shoot enough beam dice, you are going to get the runaway beam. I consider myself lucky that we have half a dozen people in a group that meets regularly, but they all have a beam fleet as their primary fleet because runaway beams win battles. At least that is my observation. I would like the single roll for beams so as to speed up gameplay.
Heh, this sounds like the S&P battle report vs. Matt two months ago... my battle plan was running absolutly perfectly, his fleet had fallen into the trap I set for it and then I had a turn where every beam dice missed (all 22 IIRC) and all of his from four White Stars breaking Stealth, produced: 0 hits, 7 hits, 9 hits and 10 hits, wiping out three Psi Corps Hunters.Locutus9956 said:With the 2nd Ed beam rules its actually quite plausible for one player to play a terrible game against an opponent who plays a nigh on perfect game, makes every manuever just right, picks his targets in exactly the right order and still loses beceuase the first shot from the bad players skirmish frigate socres 37 hits off a 4 dice beam and blows his flagship in half. Now of course I'm exagerating a little heare (though be honest folks, how many poeple here have more or less had this exact scenario happen to you
Still, this setback made for one of the most entertaining battles I've ever played and it all came down to one ship with ten Damage points left
Dealing with luck is a large part of tactical/miniature wargames. You have get your army into a position where it can take advantage of any good luck and minimise the effects of any bad luck. It also helps to run the numbers occasionally to know just how much force is likely to be needed to achieve a goal and put just a little more in to the task to make sure. Playing with this approach, even when luck occurs, it's uncommon that it tips the game so far that it can't still be recovered with some good play.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Unfortunately, Triggy, we often find that such is not the case. Consider a Chess Grandmaster and an International Master. One is definitely superior to the other.
Place them on opposite sides of the board, and randomly choose who will play black and who will play white. Will it matter much? Not really --- the Grandmaster will still easily be the odds-on favorite.
Now, randomly roll a die and see who loses. The player that loses has to give up two pawns of his choice on move 10 for nothing. Will it matter much? Without question, at that level, it all but decides the game. Heck, even the Master level players dismiss the remaining play as only a "Question of Technique."
Some of the beamstrikes due to rollup are far greater than a matter of 2 pawns. They can be whole rooks. That makes for a sucky chess game. And, it can make for a sucky ACTA game, too. You need to accumulate a massive advantage, or have spectacular luck, to come back from this. It hides skill and balance under a veneer of dice.
Veneer over particleboard can make for crappy furniture; veneer over an overly random dice mechanic can lead to a crappy game. The risk isn't worth it.
(Similar arguments can be made about the crit table as well, espeically the 6-5 and 6-6, and traitships losing Adaptive, Dodge, GEG, or Stealth.)
Place them on opposite sides of the board, and randomly choose who will play black and who will play white. Will it matter much? Not really --- the Grandmaster will still easily be the odds-on favorite.
Now, randomly roll a die and see who loses. The player that loses has to give up two pawns of his choice on move 10 for nothing. Will it matter much? Without question, at that level, it all but decides the game. Heck, even the Master level players dismiss the remaining play as only a "Question of Technique."
Some of the beamstrikes due to rollup are far greater than a matter of 2 pawns. They can be whole rooks. That makes for a sucky chess game. And, it can make for a sucky ACTA game, too. You need to accumulate a massive advantage, or have spectacular luck, to come back from this. It hides skill and balance under a veneer of dice.
Veneer over particleboard can make for crappy furniture; veneer over an overly random dice mechanic can lead to a crappy game. The risk isn't worth it.
(Similar arguments can be made about the crit table as well, espeically the 6-5 and 6-6, and traitships losing Adaptive, Dodge, GEG, or Stealth.)
Locutus9956 said:
All games have the element of chance, that's why we roll dice. If you want a game that is all about two players on equal footing, I recommend chess. I would advise, however, that you not make it "more fun" by pulling rules from checkers...
Locutus9956 said:
You lost me here, should luck be there or not? Should it absolutely be there or does it detract from the tactical element too much?
Luck is more a part of the game than you realize. First, there is the roll of the attack die themselves. They can be all over the board. There are things one can do to increase one's chances, but, in the end, your fist full of snakeyes boils down to bad luck. Second, there are the location hits: is it a bulkhead, solid or critical. Not a whole lot you can do to influence these die, If they're precise, you get no bulkheads, if they're e-mines you get no crits. I can pick up four dice and roll two sixes just as easily as I can throw two ones. Third, there are the crits themselves, a totally random event which could be as harmless as losing some speed or as devastating as a Catastrophic Explosion. No amount of brilliant play is going to get around someone's unusually hot dice.
There also seems to be an undercurrent of defeatism in this whole thread. If I lose 20% of my combat capability in one turn, the game is over. As CZuschlag has pointed out, in a game of chess, this may be the case. It simply doesn't carry over to B5:ACTA. I've lost my Marathon so obviously the remaining Delphi and 4 Chronos can't win, why bother? I just don't buy this as a conclusion. So long as I have a ship on the table with working weapons, I can win. If I have 5, so much the better.
I would like to propose a hypothesis that the beam players consider testing. The dramatic nature of overly successful beam dice combined with the dependency some fleets have on beam weapons serves to obscure the reality of the beam dice: that they are no more or less likely to have these dramatic successes or failures than any other set of weapons.
Locutus9956 said:See previous post, luck should play its's part but victory should in most cases go to the better player, not the luckier player. (which incidentally I'm certainly not trying to blame the dice for when I lose which happens plenty of times
This statement says nothing. "...victory should in most cases go to the better player..." Where does it go the rest of the time, a temporal void? Of course not, it goes to the other, presumably lesser player who won because of luck. Your qualification allows for lucky players to beat better players. You attempt to rule out luck as a factor in a game, then you proceed (over several different posts, BTW) to include it as a vital and even pivotal part of the game.
"I don't like it" is the worst reason for changing something in the long sad history of bad reasons for changing something. There's a lot of things in the game that I don't like. I don't like dodge on capital ships, I don't like stealth, I don't like e-mines, I don't like the Klikkitak crewed missiles or that the Gaim have more fighters than the EA or that they have fighters and e-mines. The way I see it, I have two choices, I can live with life's little imperfections or I can go do something else. Asking Mongoose to change things for my benefit ignores the other hundreds (if not thousands) of players who just might hold a different opinion than me. Given Mongoose's current problems, this sort of rules switching would not serve their interests, therefore, I cannot expect them to do my bidding. Going and doing something else will end up really boring really quick, because nobody else is coming with me to do the something else. That leaves living with life's little imperfections.
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you are the bug.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
The thing with beams though is that its not simply a case of 'I dont like it' its a case of 'I dont like it, nearly everyone I know doesnt like it, nearly everyone I talke to at tournaments doesnt like it.
As for luck I feel like I'm repeating myself somewhat here but I really fail to see how I can make it any clearer:
My problem is not with luck having an impact in the game its with luck having TOO. MUCH. IMPACT. on the game (as is the case with beam rules).
Yes of course it goes to the luckier player but the point I have been trying to make repeatedly is that that should happen VERY RARELY not every other game!
I personally dont expect Mongoose to change the rules just because I would prefer them to but thats why we have the forums If enough people dont like a rule then they might. And speaking as someone whos played ACTA since it came out mongoose have changed so many rules so drastically already that it would hardly be unpreccedented.
But anyway just to reiterate the point, to make it totally and unequivocally clear what my overall point is:
LUCK SHOULD INFLUENCE THE GAME NOT DOMINATE IT
Good:
Attack rolls: Influenced by luck
Crew Quality Checks: Influenced by luck
Dogfights/Antifighter/Dodge: Influenced by luck
Scouts: Influenced by luck
Maneuvering: No luck
Target Selection: No luck
Fleet Selection: No luck (ok slight luck as you dont know what your opponent will pick but still...)
Bad:
Beams: Dominated by luck
Stealth: Dominated by luck (though its not as bad as it used to be I'll grant)
Undecided
Critical Hits table: I'm on the fence here, on the one hand it can be hideously game dominating but its not as likely to be so as the Beam and Stealth rules and it does add to the fun of the game I feel but I still would prefer to see it toned down a little (I think it was better on the 1st ed rules when you rolled 2ad per hit so it wasnt just a 1/6 chance though I understand the change (it DOES speed up gameplay alot).
Oh and one last thing: Using the Gaim rules (any of them) as examples of 'things you dont like that theres no use complaining about' is something of an own goal since Mongoose themselves have actually BANNED THEM from current official tournaments. In fact I would have to say that's whats bugging me about your attitude overall, it seems to be saying basically that ACTA has no room for improvement and discussing any possible rules changes is pointless. Newsflash mate but thats why we have NEW EDITIONS OF GAMES.
As most people who know me will probably attest to, I love ACTA, and have been championing it locally ever since it's release (in fact I doubt anyone would be playing it at all round here if I handn't) I agrue for rules changes here and there not because I think ACTA is crap but because I really think it ISNT. It's just a few minor things that I still feel really hold it back from being a truly great game and beams are currently right at the top of the list.
As for luck I feel like I'm repeating myself somewhat here but I really fail to see how I can make it any clearer:
My problem is not with luck having an impact in the game its with luck having TOO. MUCH. IMPACT. on the game (as is the case with beam rules).
Yes of course it goes to the luckier player but the point I have been trying to make repeatedly is that that should happen VERY RARELY not every other game!
I personally dont expect Mongoose to change the rules just because I would prefer them to but thats why we have the forums
If enough people dont like a rule then they might. And speaking as someone whos played ACTA since it came out mongoose have changed so many rules so drastically already that it would hardly be unpreccedented.But anyway just to reiterate the point, to make it totally and unequivocally clear what my overall point is:
LUCK SHOULD INFLUENCE THE GAME NOT DOMINATE IT
Good:
Attack rolls: Influenced by luck
Crew Quality Checks: Influenced by luck
Dogfights/Antifighter/Dodge: Influenced by luck
Scouts: Influenced by luck
Maneuvering: No luck
Target Selection: No luck
Fleet Selection: No luck (ok slight luck as you dont know what your opponent will pick but still...)
Bad:
Beams: Dominated by luck
Stealth: Dominated by luck (though its not as bad as it used to be I'll grant)
Undecided
Critical Hits table: I'm on the fence here, on the one hand it can be hideously game dominating but its not as likely to be so as the Beam and Stealth rules and it does add to the fun of the game I feel but I still would prefer to see it toned down a little (I think it was better on the 1st ed rules when you rolled 2ad per hit so it wasnt just a 1/6 chance though I understand the change (it DOES speed up gameplay alot).
Oh and one last thing: Using the Gaim rules (any of them) as examples of 'things you dont like that theres no use complaining about' is something of an own goal since Mongoose themselves have actually BANNED THEM from current official tournaments. In fact I would have to say that's whats bugging me about your attitude overall, it seems to be saying basically that ACTA has no room for improvement and discussing any possible rules changes is pointless. Newsflash mate but thats why we have NEW EDITIONS OF GAMES.
As most people who know me will probably attest to, I love ACTA, and have been championing it locally ever since it's release (in fact I doubt anyone would be playing it at all round here if I handn't) I agrue for rules changes here and there not because I think ACTA is crap but because I really think it ISNT. It's just a few minor things that I still feel really hold it back from being a truly great game and beams are currently right at the top of the list.
Locutus9956 said:
If you are so sure of this, show me the data. Thus far, I've seen two arguments. One based on feelings, e.g., "I don't like it." I do like it, everyone I game with likes it. There, who's feelings are more important yours or mine? The other is based on a statistical analysis of die rolls. I will admit that this is a bit above me, I am not a mathematician. Perhaps I am operating under a false premise that these sorts of theoretical exercises show how things should occur over long periods of time and many tens of thousands of data points. In relatively small quantities (such as the die rolls from a particular attack or the die rolls in a particular game) the results may be skewed.
Locutus9956 said:
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Locutus9956 said:
The odds for crits from standard weapons are exactly the same as they were in (unrevised) 1e. The odds of a crit from a precise weapon are actually slightly less. And of course the 5,6 and 6,6 crits are no longer instant death.
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
I see three rules being violated here.
1) The K.I.S.S. rule. Keep It Simple, Stupid
2) If it's not broke, don't fix it.
3) Let sleeping dogs lie
The beam rules can let luck swing either way. Annoying at times and amusing at others. It's fun. I like it. When it changes, I'll play it the new way.
"I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur"
H. Solo
1) The K.I.S.S. rule. Keep It Simple, Stupid
2) If it's not broke, don't fix it.
3) Let sleeping dogs lie
The beam rules can let luck swing either way. Annoying at times and amusing at others. It's fun. I like it. When it changes, I'll play it the new way.
"I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur"
H. Solo
Morpheus1975
Mongoose
David said:
Not sure if I agree with you but I do know that this seems to me to have turned more into a pissing contest than anything else. At least its died out....for now. :lol:
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
[/quote]
Not sure if I agree with you but I do know that this seems to me to have turned more into a pissing contest than anything else. At least its died out....for now. :lol:[/quote]
Yep. Shhhhh, if we are vewy vewy quiet, it may stay dead.
Not sure if I agree with you but I do know that this seems to me to have turned more into a pissing contest than anything else. At least its died out....for now. :lol:[/quote]
Yep. Shhhhh, if we are vewy vewy quiet, it may stay dead.
