Jump to content
DakkaDakka12

Lets fix large base ships

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, PorgLeader said:

Honestly, most of them are fine. Boba, Redline, Whisper, Quadjumpers, Palob, etc. are not fine. Raise those prices before you lower the fat turrets, especially Falcons. Big base boost is still great.

Han crew is also super good for its cost. Boba is actually ok. its the marauder title and Han crew that are undercosted imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 11:50 PM, DakkaDakka12 said:

Pick a large base ship and then explain what would improve it without causing it  to become too powerful.

 

As a fan of combat tactics games in general and as someone looking at X-Wing's tagline of being a "Tactical Dog-fighting game," there should not be large base ships in the game at all.  I mean picture some Me-109's intercepting some B-17's.  The Bombers can take some hits and by flying in a tight box and overlapping their defensive fire they can take out some attackers, but they don't pull S-Loops and dog fight the nimble fighters.

As a Star Wars fan, the models are freaking cool and who doesn't want to fly as Han or Fett or any of the others?  The few times I've flown large bases, its because I built a theme squad like Luke/Han or Lando/Wedge taking on Death Stars.  So I don't mind the large ships for the fun factor, but I am totally cool with them being "non-competitive."

On 11/17/2018 at 12:00 AM, ficklegreendice said:

Every large base ship, except perhaps the scum yt-1300

*drop point costs

that's it

But, to answer the OP question, this.  Nuff said.

Edited by pickirk01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

Han crew is also super good for its cost. Boba is actually ok. its the marauder title and Han crew that are undercosted imo.

I mean, that's true, but even Boba with Slave I and IG88D for 89 points is really, really good, but no one is flying that because Marauder/Han was a more obvious combo. And you could say IG88D is too cheap and maybe Slave I is too cheap, but Boba's ability is incredibly good and should probably see a slight points increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PorgLeader said:

Honestly, most of them are fine. Boba, Redline, Whisper, Quadjumpers, Palob, etc. are not fine. Raise those prices before you lower the fat turrets, especially Falcons. Big base boost is still great.


Not true.

Just play four X-Wings against a Falcon list, or a Howl-Iden Swarm against a Falcon.  Let me know how it goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


Not true.

Just play four X-Wings against a Falcon list, or a Howl-Iden Swarm against a Falcon.  Let me know how it goes...

I mean, have you actually put a Falcon on the table, or did it's points scare you away, because Lando with Trick Shot and Nien Nunb is stupid good for 98 points, so is Han with Lone Wolf and Kanan for 110. I'll gladly play a Falcon against 4X and a Howl-Iden Swarm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PorgLeader said:

I mean, have you actually put a Falcon on the table, or did it's points scare you away, because Lando with Trick Shot and Nien Nunb is stupid good for 98 points, so is Han with Lone Wolf and Kanan for 110. I'll gladly play a Falcon against 4X and a Howl-Iden Swarm.


I have flown a Rebel YT-1300 in somewhere between 30-50 games of 2.0 thus far, trying at least a dozen different builds.  Some games at the casual local X-Wing night, some as pick-up games on Vassal, some as scheduled games against long-time tournament-testing partners.

For what it's worth, back in 1.0 I won about a half-dozen Store Championships, three Regional Championships, and made the cut at a few Nationals/Continentals.  Being able to suss out the meta and the over-efficient and under-efficient options in X-Wing was something I used to have a bit of a knack for, and while I grant 2.0 is different... I don't think it's that different to be apples and oranges.

My five years of competitive 1.0 X-Wing experience and dozens of games of 2.0 lead me to conclude: the Rebel Falcon is awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PorgLeader said:

I mean, have you actually put a Falcon on the table, or did it's points scare you away, because Lando with Trick Shot and Nien Nunb is stupid good for 98 points, so is Han with Lone Wolf and Kanan for 110. I'll gladly play a Falcon against 4X and a Howl-Iden Swarm.

You are not getting 110 points out of Han/Kanan. Big based ships biggest problem is the red dice-to-points ratio. An X-wing for 40 points is more than double the ratio than a falcon with similar health and shielding. I suddenly go up to 6 red dice for less than Han Solo, with space for upgrades.

The only big rebel ships we see running around our area, in any competitive sense, are running Bistan as it (usually) doubles the number of red dice and therefore becomes more worthwhile. Big ships need reducing down so they are far more comparative to smaller ships, obviously taking their health into account. 

Scum Han is the most common because his points are much more worth while (70ish kitted out) which gives you the upgrades through his ability, title and trick shot to keep increasing the red dice total he's packing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


I have flown a Rebel YT-1300 in somewhere between 30-50 games of 2.0 thus far, trying at least a dozen different builds.  Some games at the casual local X-Wing night, some as pick-up games on Vassal, some as scheduled games against long-time tournament-testing partners.

For what it's worth, back in 1.0 I won about a half-dozen Store Championships, three Regional Championships, and made the cut at a few Nationals/Continentals.  Being able to suss out the meta and the over-efficient and under-efficient options in X-Wing was something I used to have a bit of a knack for, and while I grant 2.0 is different... I don't think it's that different to be apples and oranges.

My five years of competitive 1.0 X-Wing experience and dozens of games of 2.0 lead me to conclude: the Rebel Falcon is awful.

So, with all these games you've come realized that Lando with Nien Numb gets to do the 1.0 Ghost thing of to planting himself on rocks and boost off of them but without the need of a ps6 coordinator, right? So he can just about always get into a position where he is shooting and he's not getting shot. Even with a modless shot for that 1 turn, you should then be able to have positional advantage going in to the turn after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Penguin UK said:

You are not getting 110 points out of Han/Kanan. Big based ships biggest problem is the red dice-to-points ratio. An X-wing for 40 points is more than double the ratio than a falcon with similar health and shielding. I suddenly go up to 6 red dice for less than Han Solo, with space for upgrades.

The only big rebel ships we see running around our area, in any competitive sense, are running Bistan as it (usually) doubles the number of red dice and therefore becomes more worthwhile. Big ships need reducing down so they are far more comparative to smaller ships, obviously taking their health into account. 

Scum Han is the most common because his points are much more worth while (70ish kitted out) which gives you the upgrades through his ability, title and trick shot to keep increasing the red dice total he's packing.

An I6 big base with Boost and passively fully modded shots isn't going to get full value out of 110 (55 1st edition) points? History says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been thinking about this a bit and I remembered that I do think FFG should have gone further with ship-specific abilities as I feel they do an amazing job of distinguishing ships

In the caster's case, the only thing I'd wish for is a word for word re-print of Gyroscopic targeting (well, re-worded for 2nd ed's newly named phases, obviously)

Gyroscopic-targeting.jpg

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PorgLeader said:

So, with all these games you've come realized that Lando with Nien Numb gets to do the 1.0 Ghost thing of to planting himself on rocks and boost off of them but without the need of a ps6 coordinator, right? So he can just about always get into a position where he is shooting and he's not getting shot. Even with a modless shot for that 1 turn, you should then be able to have positional advantage going in to the turn after.


I mean, I've flown a lot of Lando+Nien, and even with that trick it is not nearly enough to generally make back his points in most match-ups.  Did you somehow forget that the 1.0 Ghost you are referencing was also shooting 11-12 Red Dice per round across 3-4 attacks, with close to full mods on every attack?  That's kind of a relevant difference.  As  @The Penguin UK has noted the basic challenge that the points spent on a large-based turret in 2.0 are generally only netting you half the offensive output, less action economy, more crit-damage vulnerability, and about the same overall HP as just spending those points on two fighters, and the fat-ships of 2.0 lack the offensive and defensive passive buffs that could be piled on to their 1.0 chassis to make sinking all those points onto one ship a less risky endeavor.


But, like by all means, go ahead and start making the cut at some reasonably-sized tournaments flying a Rebel Falcon @PorgLeader, and you'll certainly convince us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


I mean, I've flown a lot of Lando+Nien, and even with that trick it is not nearly enough to generally make back his points in most match-ups.  Did you somehow forget that the 1.0 Ghost you are referencing was also shooting 11-12 Red Dice per round across 3-4 attacks, with close to full mods on every attack?  That's kind of a relevant difference.  As  @The Penguin UK has noted the basic challenge that the points spent on a large-based turret in 2.0 are generally only netting you half the offensive output, less action economy, more crit-damage vulnerability, and about the same overall HP as just spending those points on two fighters, and the fat-ships of 2.0 lack the offensive and defensive passive buffs that could be piled on to their 1.0 chassis to make sinking all those points onto one ship a less risky endeavor.


But, like by all means, go ahead and start making the cut at some reasonably-sized tournaments flying a Rebel Falcon @PorgLeader, and you'll certainly convince us. 

Will do, @AllWingsStandyingBy, will do.

Edited by PorgLeader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

As  @The Penguin UK has noted the basic challenge that the points spent on a large-based turret in 2.0 are generally only netting you half the offensive output, less action economy, more crit-damage vulnerability, and about the same overall HP as just spending those points on two fighters...

It's almost--almost, I say--as if purpose-built, military fighters are more effective at fighting than modified freighters.  Dare we suggest that freighters and shuttles shouldn't be unstoppable juggernauts, but should instead be used more for support, to help the military fighters do their thing more effectively?

I understand that may not currently be an option for many of the ships, but I wish FFG would start going in that direction instead of trying to make all of them battlefield behemoths, and then needing to price them so high as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

It's almost--almost, I say--as if purpose-built, military fighters are more effective at fighting than modified freighters.  Dare we suggest that freighters and shuttles shouldn't be unstoppable juggernauts, but should instead be used more for support, to help the military fighters do their thing more effectively?

I understand that may not currently be an option for many of the ships, but I wish FFG would start going in that direction instead of trying to make all of them battlefield behemoths, and then needing to price them so high as a result.


I mean, that's fine if starfighters are more combat capable than freighters... but then the freighters should be costed appropriately, not costed as more expensive in points than two starfighters.  The point-system is supposed to allow powerful and puny options to meaningfully be fielded by players.  We wouldn't want a 20pt Darth Vader that could solo entire 200pt lists... even if that would be thematic. 

 


PS: Bear in mind, in the lore a combat-modified freighter is more powerful than a flight of starfighters.  In both ANH and ESB, we see the Falcon with basically no crew take on four TIE Fighters.  In ANH, it guns them down while in ESB it tanks their attacks long enough for all of them to be destroyed in the asteroid field (even after taking a pummeling on their deflectors from Star Destroyers).  In RotJ, the Falcon is properly and fully crewed for combat (Pilot, Co-Pilot/Navigator, two dedicated Gunners, Engineer and Tech team) and it blasts fighters throughout the entire battle and then tanks a pursuing TIE Interceptor throughout almost the entire superstructure attack run.  In TLJ, we see a Falcon that's been sitting unused for years take on the entirety of the First Order's TIE Compliment at Salt-Ville with just two crew, including one who had never fired a turret before... and it easily handles the entire compliment of TIEs.  Like it or not, thematically a poorly maintained and very lightly crewed freighter is better than a dedicated flight of four (or more) starfighters.  Once you fully staff and crew the freighter, it's much much better (e.g. Endor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

It's almost--almost, I say--as if purpose-built, military fighters are more effective at fighting than modified freighters.  Dare we suggest that freighters and shuttles shouldn't be unstoppable juggernauts, but should instead be used more for support, to help the military fighters do their thing more effectively?

I understand that may not currently be an option for many of the ships, but I wish FFG would start going in that direction instead of trying to make all of them battlefield behemoths, and then needing to price them so high as a result.

Sure if they were just freighters but we've all seen and played and read dozens of times where the Falcon, Ghost, Slave 1 or other large ships wiped the floor with smaller more agile military fighters. Often single-handedly. I almost exclusively fly the Ghost, and still do so I can attest to it in 2.0 being absolutely terrible. Just save half your points and bring anything cheap with proton Torpedos x2 for much more consistent damage, more maneuverability and way more survivability. 

The problem of the overpowered Ghost in 1st edition was engine upgrades and TLT. Both upgrades I'm glad to see go as they were truthfully overpowered, and I think if that's all the Ghost lost access too it would have returned to a balanced ship. But the nerfs didn't stop there.

 

For the same cost (or much more expensive in Kanan's case) as 1st edition Ghost Pilots it has the following changes:

Lost rear torpedo arc

Lost two Shields

Decreased its 5k to a 4k flip

Lost the system slot

Went from a 4 die rear arc to a 3-2 die

Guaranteed Evade token replaced with a weaker reinforce option 

*Attack shuttle Docked* Went from gauranteed Double-tapping Turrets to a weak 2-3 die situational shot which you can get for half the price with an ARC-170.

*Sheathipede docked* Went from end of round coordinate to mid-round coordinate

And that's just the VCX, not to mention that Kanan massively increased in points and can't even use his ability on himself.

Chopper replaces his brutal stress for situational Jam tokens that go away at the end of the round. 

 

The only pilot that improved at all is Hera due to the PS bump and access to EPT. But is losing 8 core parts of your ship (again excluding Engine Upgrades and TLT) not worth even a slight cost reduction? 

I've flown the 2.0 Ghost 6 times already and lost all but 1 game where my opponent blanked out on some key rolls. At an absolute minimum the cost has to come down, but getting the systems slot back would be nice. 

And would be nice to see cost reduction on Ezra gunner too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


I mean, that's fine if starfighters are more combat capable than freighters... but then the freighters should be costed appropriately, not costed as more expensive in points than two starfighters.  The point-system is supposed to allow powerful and puny options to meaningfully be fielded by players.  We wouldn't want a 20pt Darth Vader that could solo entire 200pt lists... even if that would be thematic. 

 


PS: Bear in mind, in the lore a combat-modified freighter is more powerful than a flight of starfighters.  In both ANH and ESB, we see the Falcon with basically no crew take on four TIE Fighters.  In ANH, it guns them down while in ESB it tanks their attacks long enough for all of them to be destroyed in the asteroid field (even after taking a pummeling on their deflectors from Star Destroyers).  In RotJ, the Falcon is properly and fully crewed for combat (Pilot, Co-Pilot/Navigator, two dedicated Gunners, Engineer and Tech team) and it blasts fighters throughout the entire battle and then tanks a pursuing TIE Interceptor throughout almost the entire superstructure attack run.  In TLJ, we see a Falcon that's been sitting unused for years take on the entirety of the First Order's TIE Compliment at Salt-Ville with just two crew, including one who had never fired a turret before... and it easily handles the entire compliment of TIEs.  Like it or not, thematically a poorly maintained and very lightly crewed freighter is better than a dedicated flight of four (or more) starfighters.  Once you fully staff and crew the freighter, it's much much better (e.g. Endor).

First of all, ANH had Chewbacca Falcon with Leia Crew, Han Gunner, and Luke Gunner.  And four (as far as we know) bare-bones TIEs were, if not a match, at least a respectable threat.  ESB, the Falcon is running away, pure and simple.  This makes sense, as that's precisely what a smuggler would modify his ship to be good at, if he's really interested in smuggling.  RotJ is a bit tougher to gauge, as there the Falcon is part of a massive fleet effort, and not fighting alone (I honestly don't remember much of the Falcon at Endor.  Was it getting considerably more kills than the X-Wings or A-Wings?)  If anything, I think these movies show us that a large ship works better as part of a larger fleet rather than trying to solo everything.

As for the newer movies, we have to keep in mind that these are the same movies wherein Poe single-handedly takes out most of a squadron of TIEs in one pass and solos the defenses of a capital ship.  That brings me to my next point, which is that whatever we may think about bias in the game, it's clear that there is Rebel bias in the movies.  Stormtroopers go down in one hit, through armor, while Leia gets shot and just experiences mild discomfort.  A Hammerhead Corvette takes out two Star Destroyers by shoving them into each other.  Poe is Poe.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing for a film, but it does mean we can't just translate what happens on the screen to a game designed to have people playing both sides.  I remember playing X-Wing Alliance, and shooting down dozens of enemy ships with an unmodified YT-1300.  I also remember playing TIE Fighter and doing the same thing with an unmodified TIE Interceptor.  Is it reasonable, then, to expect that two fully-kitted Interceptors should be able to take on any list and wipe the floor with them?

Now personally, I don't necessarily agree that they're overcosted, as every time I play against them I'm happy if I manage to strip the shields off one before losing, much less take one out.  However, the majority seems to feel otherwise, so let's assume they need to be cheaper.  The problem, as I see it, is everyone still wants them costed as super-fighters.  Everyone wants to rate them based on how many TIEs equals one YT-1300, or some other, similar metric.  This is in large part because FFG decided these should be super-fighters, which is exactly the problem that I have with them.  No one worries if Colonel Jendon can take on Jek Porkins one-on-one, because it's not Colonel Jendon's role to be a front-line fighter.  He can defend himself at need, but the Lambda's strength comes from the support it can provide other ships in the list.  This is how I wish the freighters were built, instead of giving them better dials, attacks, arcs, and upgrades than most of the fighters, and then needing to price them sky-high to compensate.  If FFG had just developed them as support craft to begin with, they could have been cheaper and played a more unique role, both without being overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GILLIES291 said:

For the same cost (or much more expensive in Kanan's case) as 1st edition Ghost Pilots it has the following changes:

Lost rear torpedo arc

Lost two Shields

Decreased its 5k to a 4k flip

Lost the system slot

Went from a 4 die rear arc to a 3-2 die

Guaranteed Evade token replaced with a weaker reinforce option 

*Attack shuttle Docked* Went from gauranteed Double-tapping Turrets to a weak 2-3 die situational shot which you can get for half the price with an ARC-170.

*Sheathipede docked* Went from end of round coordinate to mid-round coordinate

And that's just the VCX, not to mention that Kanan massively increased in points and can't even use his ability on himself.

Chopper replaces his brutal stress for situational Jam tokens that go away at the end of the round. 

I've never played against a VCX, but your list makes more of a case for the 1.0 version being undercosted than for the 2.0 version being overcosted.  Seriously, if that stuff cost 100 points (in 1.0 terms), it would have still been too cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I've never played against a VCX, but your list makes more of a case for the 1.0 version being undercosted than for the 2.0 version being overcosted.  Seriously, if that stuff cost 100 points (in 1.0 terms), it would have still been too cheap.

But if you haven't flown one or against one then how would you know if it's costed well or not? I've played prettt extensively in a dozen+ tournaments and uncountable one-off games. I consider appropriate costing to be equal amount of points in ships and upgrades being able to have a chance at winning against a similar point value of enemy ships and upgrades. If two 200 point squads battle and one always loses utterly I would think one squad is too strong or one is too weak. 

Most things in 2.0 are depowered but it seems the things that were strong in 1.0 at the end were hit harder then most. To some degree that's a fair thing to do since they were obviously stronger. But the Ghost got hit worse than any ship, event Dengar is still doing alright in the nerfed jumpmaster. The Ghost has 0 agility combined with depowered reinforce, super weak attacks with blind spots galore unless you add another 34+ points in a docked ship/turret, and no repositioning.  Don't even get me started about the weak abilities like Kanan's that doesn't even work on himself anymore, I mean what is he going to protect the one A-Wing you can afford to bring after you fully kit him out with the necessary shuttle/turret/crew? Or Chopper, so you can maybe jam one ship for the round?

Anyways I'll keep flying her because I love the ship and the lore behind it. But yeah it sucks that she sucks that much and I can't see ever docking th attack shuttle again over the not much better sheathipede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

But if you haven't flown one or against one then how would you know if it's costed well or not? I've played prettt extensively in a dozen+ tournaments and uncountable one-off games. I consider appropriate costing to be equal amount of points in ships and upgrades being able to have a chance at winning against a similar point value of enemy ships and upgrades. If two 200 point squads battle and one always loses utterly I would think one squad is too strong or one is too weak.

There is one important caveat here and that is the idea of counters. Certain ship archetypes are better against some other and worse against some others. So to know if two sets of 200 point squads what we really need to know is how they fair against a variety of list archetypes. And this brings up a very relevant point are all of the large ships that feel under powered part of the same archetype? What archetype do they fit best? Are people using them in that archetype? What archetype should they be?

For me, a lot of the ships people are expressing frustrations with are (or should be) of the style of a heavy ship with lots of firepower engaging multiple lighter ships. They aren't meant to be support craft. The reason they seem to have issues with their role is firepower, hence why the situations where someone is able to make one work usually involves several upgrades specifically to help with increase the ships firepower. I wonder if the solution (if we didn't want to just stick to the concept of point reductions) would be as simple as a gunner restricted to large base ships that makes it easier for them to attack multiple ships at once, or gives some other kind of bonus. I know about Veteran Turret Gunner, but that is generally considered one of the worst gunners because it's hard to actually get in the situation to use him without being very vulnerable. Maybe a generic and tweaked version of Bistan?

Just things to think about. I still think the real solution is cost reductions as that would help get more crew to help it (whether it be more firepower or turning it into more of a support ship). Though again my preference is the equipment points method of doing that because it removes the risk of a large ship swarms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

But if you haven't flown one or against one then how would you know if it's costed well or not?

Mainly because absolutely nothing you listed looks like anything that should have been included on a ship in the first place.  Rear torpedoes?  Double-tapping turrets?  Rear 4-die attack?  Which of these attributes sound like they were fair and balanced even in 1.0, much less 2.0?  Honestly, I'm astonished to discover the thing still has a 4-die primary in 2.0, with the possibility for a 3-die rear.

6 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:

For me, a lot of the ships people are expressing frustrations with are (or should be) of the style of a heavy ship with lots of firepower engaging multiple lighter ships. They aren't meant to be support craft. The reason they seem to have issues with their role is firepower, hence why the situations where someone is able to make one work usually involves several upgrades specifically to help with increase the ships firepower. I wonder if the solution (if we didn't want to just stick to the concept of point reductions) would be as simple as a gunner restricted to large base ships that makes it easier for them to attack multiple ships at once, or gives some other kind of bonus. I know about Veteran Turret Gunner, but that is generally considered one of the worst gunners because it's hard to actually get in the situation to use him without being very vulnerable. Maybe a generic and tweaked version of Bistan?

100% disagree.  I may not have flown against the VCX, but I've flown against the Falcon enough times to know the thing has too much firepower as it is.

Edited by JJ48

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JJ48 said:

For all non-Lambdas:

Stop trying to make them front-line attackers, and give them good, unique, support roles!

At the current point structure for most large-base ships, that's a helluva lot of points to put into a "support" ship.  Way more than I'm willing to send on a support ship in a list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spike IT said:

At the current point structure for most large-base ships, that's a helluva lot of points to put into a "support" ship.  Way more than I'm willing to send on a support ship in a list.  

Right.  The problem is that they're statted and set up to be primary super-fighters, rather than support ships, and need to be costed accordingly.  If FFG had just made them support ships, they wouldn't have felt the need to price them so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole shtick to them is they now have arcs. So they should be priced like regular arc ships with consideration to their normal survivability and dial. They already have to pay for all the other upgraded anyway. A Falcon bizarrely should be like 75 or maybe less before upgraded. I mean what's a Firespray? 66? Stay changes I don't think are necessary but a few large ship specific upgrade might get is a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.


×
×
  • Create New...