Christopher_Perkins
03/10/09 10:34 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
I actually think that LAM rules should be in Tactical Operations.
Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations Manual, and Strategic Oerations Manual are locked in...
While Land Air Mechs do not really Belong in INTERSTELLAR Operations Manual (if a LAM is in interstellar space, something has gone truly wrong... and LAMs are only Strategic when they are used in a PathFinder Role...) InterStellar Operations Manual is a Core book... and Catalyst Might as well continue the Family Tradition of publishing some thing right now as opposed to in the right book... 
But Definately, Tactical Operations Manual would have been the right book, but they only recently reversed their stance on LAMs not belonging in a core book... (if indeed they have)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/11/09 05:59 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
If I'm so brain dead, then why did I outsmart Cray in that I designed a model self contained engine dual fan U driven boxboat?
I'm stunned and amazed I'm about to do this, but it's appropriate:
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Newtype
03/13/09 11:44 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
BS, it is the rules that make a unit complicated, not how much armour there is or the number of weapons
More armor & more weapons means more complicated defense & attacks. A Balancer LAM that has one point of armor per location and only one weapon vs. an Overlord DropShip that has massive armor and dozens of weapon results in that DropShip having more complicated defense and attack capabilities.
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/13/09 04:15 PM
70.0.101.156
|
Quote:
Quote:
BS, it is the rules that make a unit complicated, not how much armour there is or the number of weapons
More armor & more weapons means more complicated defense & attacks.
That's an invalid metric for comparison. A DropShip, by contrast, has a single movement mode while in the atmosphere. A LAM has six in the last published ruleset for hem: ground-based and jumping movement in 'Mech mode; ground-based, jumping and flight as an AirMech; and aerospace fighter flight, which differs from AirMech flight.
LAMs also use different hit location tables, and sometimes multiple tables, depending on their mode: for example, under current rules, when shooting at a LAM in fighter mode, you have to convert from aerospace locations to 'Mech ones when allocating damage.
Even little things like actuators become multi-purpose, in that, when tracking damage to a LAM's actuators, you need to not only track how that affects it as a 'Mech, but how it affects its ability to convert between different modes.
That's enormously more complicated than a DropShip from the perspective of rules required by a single unit.
Quote:
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
Well, not demanding they be included in already-published books is probably a good start. They's not gonna be in a book already sent to press, or ddistributed and already on sale. As you might have noticed, page count is already extremely high - I know that page count indicated as a serious concern when they had the Aerospace Cabal (mentioned in the credits for Strategic Operations) review the advanced aerospace rules in Strategic Operations, and page count was why they moved those rules from Tac Ops to Strat Ops in the first place.
While future printings of those books may incorporate errata to resolve typos and misprints, adding new content isn't going to happen. If LAMs get updated rules, it will be in a future publication.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/13/09 08:47 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have done more to bring LAMs back than you ever have... Do NOT screw up what I have convinced them to fix
What have you accomplished that I haven't to bring forth updated LAM rules and LAM artwork?
1: I have used Sweet reson to convince them that the pre-existing (even if out of print- they were still current) Land Air Mech Rules were broken by the changing of the Fighter hit location tables from Nose, Cockpit, Fuselage, Right Wing, Left Wing and Engine to Nose, Right Side, Left Side and Aft
2: I convinced them that even if Land Air Mechs died out by 3067 in the canon universe, there was from 2680 to 3067 that would have to have valid rules for Land Air Mechs as they are Legal for Non-Tournament Play
This is what caused them to Specify Historicals: Liberation of Terra (i.e. Kerensky vs Amaris) as the location for new LAM rules with the PTB Assertion that LAMs did not belong in a core book because of their status of being defunct in 3067.
I was not a party to what ever discussions convinced them to put LAMs back in a Core Book for the first time since the Publication of the Tactical HandBook, but If I had not made my points LAM rules may have never even been on the Horizon, Let alone soon to be published in InterStellar Operations Manual.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/17/09 06:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
LAMs also use different hit location tables, and sometimes multiple tables, depending on their mode: for example, under current rules, when shooting at a LAM in fighter mode, you have to convert from aerospace locations to 'Mech ones when allocating damage.
Armor locations can be these for a LAM: head (cockpit control area), left arm (left forward), right arm (right forward), front center torso (belly center fuselage), back center torso (top center fuselage), front left torso (underneath left wing), back left torso (top left wing), front right torso (underneath right wing), back left torso (top left wing), left leg (left tail aft), right leg (right tail aft). It actually makes sense. Fighter wings can't have weapons on one side or the other (exclusively top or bottom wing pieces); the weapons on a fighter wing are split between the top and underneath parts of that wing.
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
|
GiovanniBlasini
03/19/09 08:26 AM
64.183.4.46
|
Quote:
Armor locations can be these for a LAM: head (cockpit control area), left arm (left forward), right arm (right forward), front center torso (belly center fuselage), back center torso (top center fuselage), front left torso (underneath left wing), back left torso (top left wing), front right torso (underneath right wing), back left torso (top left wing), left leg (left tail aft), right leg (right tail aft). It actually makes sense. Fighter wings can't have weapons on one side or the other (exclusively top or bottom wing pieces); the weapons on a fighter wing are split between the top and underneath parts of that wing.
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Also inaccurate, given that, for example, WarShip combat occurs in-universe, is decribed in several sourcebooks and novels, yet isn't included in the first book in the Total Warfare suite.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Lefric
03/19/09 11:38 AM
216.120.184.66
|
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played. So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
Yet you continues tomake trollish posts, day after day, despite being rountinely told to shut up. So I hearby make a proposal: Total Warfare should be updated to say that LAMS are a hodge-podge abortion that should be shot on sight.
Wait, that offends you? Well, so does your constant bravo sierra about LAMS, remote influenceing, and how "You got Randall to do this."
I've met Randall. He's a nice guy. Your the biggest flaming troll I've ever met on any BBS on any topic. I know I said I was going to ignore you, but God in His Heaven... SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!!!
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
Edited by Lefric (03/19/09 11:42 AM)
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/19/09 10:24 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Also, Total Warfare 1st ed. rulesbook indicates the total amount of warfare done in the CBT Universe. To leave out LAM rules leaves out that part of warfare. Either Total Warfare rulesbook should be updated to include updated LAM rules or it should be renamed "Tournament Combat Rules" and a revised edition of Total Warfare be printed that includes updated LAM rules (this revised edition would include Tactical Operations rules too).
Umm, Did you miss the thousands of times that PTB and Fans have stated that Total Warfare was only the Standard Rules/ Tournament Rules
Would you prefer to pay for a single encyclopedic volume that costs 6-times as much and included all of the Rules?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/20/09 11:43 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Aerofighters should have the aerofighterlike locations I've described above for LAMs in aerofighter mode.
Quote:
Also inaccurate, given that, for example, WarShip combat occurs in-universe, is decribed in several sourcebooks and novels, yet isn't included in the first book in the Total Warfare suite.
Yes, Total Warfare is inaccurate that way too by not having spacecraft combat and orbit to surface attacks.
Quote:
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
Yes to both of those questions. In that novel Star Lord, there were horsedrawn chariots that were involved in the battle at New St. Andrews. And there are shotguns in MWRPG.
Quote:
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played. So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
LAMs are necessary for:
*attracting the Gundam Wing fans, Transformers fans, and RoboTech fans to CBT
*those that like to do evasive raiding and evasive dueling
*carrying objects long distances for quick repair work on spacecraft and/or other objects
*crosstraining ground forces for aeroduty and aerounits for ground duty
*significantly unifying ground and aero units together as a single teamworking force
*a more balanced and unified altitude levels and elevation levels playing area for units
Quote:
Would you prefer to pay for a single encyclopedic volume that costs 6-times as much and included all of the Rules?
I would prefer to pay for such a book at such a price. Actually I'd rather pay for the computer game version. $240 is fine with me for such an egame. I've advocated for a much more comprehensive higher priced and higher quality CBT game the last ten years.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/20/09 12:59 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Ha, ha, ha, the first edition of Total Warfare is published then comes the "Tournament Battles book" then Total Warfare revised is published. So when FanPro Commandos ask players starting CBT if they want to learn CBT by being taught Tournament Rules book, they'll just respond by asking for Total Warfare revised instead thinking it's really just the tournament rules when really it's the whole enchilada.
Wow, those bracing maneuvers sure do come in handy when firing proximity fused precision cluster flak ammo at a Balancer LAM. Unfortunately they make my 'Mech an immobile target for that LAM. Oh well, at least I'm getting partial cover.
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/20/09 09:27 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Total Warfare also leaves out the throwing of rocks and horsedrawn chariots. Does that make the book incomplete? It also leaves out partisan irregulars with shotguns. Does that make it incomplete?
In a Way, yes, but Irregulars with shot guns are covered under the TW Infantry creation rules...
ShotGun rules definately, and Possibly unit quality...
Total Warfare was INTENDED to be incomplete... and NewType cnnot figure it out....
Quote:
TW is the most complete Battletech rule book in the 15 years I have been involved with the game. During NONE of those 15 years have LAMS been in any 3+ additions of the game I have played.
Only if you limit it to the Tournament Legal Rules Set.
The Most Complete Book was The BattleTech Manual: The Rules of Warfare because it had ALL the Rules...
Then comes The First BattleTech Compendium....
All of the Books Since the Second BattleTech Compendium (BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare) have Been Incomplete... mmainly because there are now too many rules to get even all of the STANDARD game play and construction rules in a single Unitary Volume...
This is Why the Standard (Level 2 Tournament Legal) Game Play rules are in Total Warfare, the Standard Construction rules are in Tech Manual, the Advanced (Level 2 NON-Tournament Legal) and some of the Special Case/Experimental (Level 3) rules are in Tactical Operations Manual, others of the Advanced and "Experimental" rules are in Strategic Operations Manual, and the lions share of the rest of the Advanced & Experimental rules are going to be published in InterStellar Operations Manual
Calling Total Warfare "Complete" is like calling NewType SANE...
Quote:
So please explain to me how your obesession that NONE of the people I play with (including several Catalyst commando's who have been playing longer than I have) share needs to be, or should be, included in Total Warfare?
Not Total Warfare.... InterStellar Operations Manual.. and if Not InterStellar Operations manual... then Historicals Liberation of Terra
Mainly, Land Air Mechs need to be in the new series of Core Books because they were EVER part of the BattleTech Universe...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (03/20/09 09:29 PM)
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/20/09 09:32 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
Quote:
Except that doesn't particularly work well with the canon LAMs, or the actual rules for aerospace fighter combat. Oops?
Aerofighters should have the aerofighterlike locations I've described above for LAMs in aerofighter mode.
the Fighter Rules have already changed....
The Location Changes should have been left out of AeroTech 2... but since they were changed... too bad
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/21/09 06:01 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I've not seen any Heavy Metal design programs for large support vehicles nor have I seen any such programs for airships. Heavy Metal Pro does provide LAM designing, though. It therefore makes sense to have rules for LAMs in Total Warfare rather than rules for large support vehicles and airships. Still, I'd like an updated Total Warfare ebook/egame that would include rules for Classic BattleTech warfare as I've stated in my previous message. I'd like it to be multiplayer too and include all the units ever produced by Inner Sphere, ComStar, Periphery, mercenaries, pirates, and Clans. I wanted to be Supreme Commander of all Periphery forces during MechForce Quartlery days. Fun to launch invasions and conquests of affiliations/worlds. Wait till I win the Powerball jackpot lottery hopefully; I'll hopefully provide Rick Raisley and others with the funding to make this more complete warfare ebook/egame.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/21/09 10:42 PM
76.9.73.231
|
OK fine, you write it, you can add all of your stupid ignoramus ideas also.
Oh, you will be the only one that will ever use it, or for that matter see it. So, don't worry if there are errors, like anything intelligent.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/21/09 11:02 PM
24.127.68.31
|
Quote:
I've not seen any Heavy Metal design programs for large support vehicles nor have I seen any such programs for airships.
HM Vee 3 or HM SUV will cover all these
Quote:
Heavy Metal Pro does provide LAM designing, though. It therefore makes sense to have rules for LAMs in Total Warfare rather than rules for large support vehicles and airships.
Heavy Metal Pro 5, Heavy Metal Vee 2, HM Aero 1, and HM Lite are still stuck in the time when the Core Books were
BattleTech Master Rules Revised
AeroTech 2 Revised Revised
and Maximum Tech revised with some rules left over from Tactical HandBook... (LAMs and THB Weapons are Legacies of this era)
Rick Raisley is working on Updates required by the New Core Books
Heavy Metal Pro 6.0 for Prototype Mechs and updates to BattleMechs and Utility Mechs, then i think that
Heavy Metal Vee 3.0 for ground & Naval SUVs and Mobile Structures would be next to update, then
Heavy Metal Aero or HM Aero 2 for updates to AT2 units, Space SUVs, AeroSpace SUVs
Heavy Metal Lite should be revised for the Infantry Platoon Creation Rules first published in Combat Operations and updated in Total Warfare and the other Core Books.
Quote:
Still, I'd like an updated Total Warfare ebook/egame that would include rules for Classic BattleTech warfare as I've stated in my previous message.
Electronic Rules and Electronic Games are Different parts of the IP
Electronic Rules are part of the BattleTech intellectual Property owned by either WizKids or Catalyst Game Labs (not sure where the Rules and fiction are currently held)
Quote:
I'd like it to be multiplayer too and include all the units ever produced by Inner Sphere, ComStar, Periphery, mercenaries, pirates, and Clans.
Electronic Gaming portion of the BattleTech IP is owned by Microsoft, and Smith and Tinker has LISCENCED the right to do what appears to be a MMPOG due to titles of the persons rumored to be involved
Quote:
Wait till I win the Powerball jackpot lottery hopefully; I'll hopefully provide Rick Raisley and others with the funding to make this more complete warfare ebook/egame.
Rick Raisley is a Liscencee... And he CANNOT DO COMPUTER GAMES
He has a liscence from MicroSoft and WizKids to build the Design Programs.
Catalyst has liscenced the rights to do BattleTech novels and sourcebooks in electronic formats...
Go to BattleCorps and Buy yourself PDFs of
Total Warfare
Tech Manual
Tactical Operations Manual
Strategic Operations Manual
{BattleTech RPG 4th Edition}: A Time of War (when it is Released)
InterStellar Operations Manual (when it is released)...
Any other Catalyst Book, Most FanPro Books and Some FASA Books are also available on PDF from BattleCorps
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (03/21/09 11:26 PM)
|
Newtype
03/24/09 12:29 PM
207.160.205.13
|
I thought it was revealed that Microsoft sold FASA Interactive (or at least the electronic game designing rights) to Jordan Weisman. If Total Warfare is supposed to be "just a game", then you should have no problem with those that want updated LAM rules published in an updated TW book. Or perhaps TW isn't "just a game" after all. So what happens when fiction owned by a corporation gets produced? Remember, a corporation is "an unregulated entity". Does that mean that fiction owned by the corporation is "unregulated" in that it's no longer "fiction" anymore? Does that mean that those in the Classic BattleTech Universe are actually alive and can think on their own? Does that mean that 31st Century visitors, using time machines, could perhaps come to Earth (Terra) and arrive in the 21st Century? Does that mean that Peter Smith is really Peter Davion and/or General Arianna Winston is Arianna Huffington?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/24/09 07:18 PM
24.5.141.133
|
Quote:
I thought
That would be a new concept, newtype thinking. To bad for the rest of us that that will never happen.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Fang
03/25/09 06:43 AM
12.54.128.7
|
...um.....no.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
|
Prince_of_Darkness
03/25/09 10:49 AM
205.202.120.216
|
Oh, just let it die. This is doing nothing more than displaying our collective stupidities by feeding this troll.
|
Zandel_Corrin
03/25/09 08:27 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
I thought
Really newtype? Really?
I thought not.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Newtype
03/27/09 11:43 AM
207.160.205.13
|
Maybe Rick Raisley could do programming an advanced Total Warfare egame with Microsoft's approval. And you still haven't answered my question: is CBT just a game where you'd have no problem with players playing with and manufacturing LAMs, or CBT Universe real?
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/28/09 12:30 AM
24.127.68.31
|
i begin to see how the people that have argued with me throughout the years have felt...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/28/09 06:40 AM
24.5.141.133
|
OK, its time to search for some serous psychological help when you see your self in newtype.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/28/09 09:25 AM
24.127.68.31
|
just his persistance...
at least i try to make the game match reality.... (and see where the writers haphazzardly did so to a limited extent in the 1980's in re cannon and armour)
he trys to make reality match the game...
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/28/09 12:47 PM
24.5.141.133
|
There is one thing that they could do to make the game more mach reality, but I do not see them dumping battlemechs from the game. I think that has something to do with battlemechs being the main focus of the game. =P
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
03/29/09 11:59 AM
24.127.68.31
|
The way that they got around the "Shoot the large target" thing is by making armour that masses 1875 kg and is 30 mm thick (30 pts Bar 10 Tech D Armour) but has better protection than a 300 mm thick plate of steel armour and masses 787.5 kg (12.5 pts Bar 5 Tech B Armour)
Still, even if the real world never develops BattleMechs the BattleTech universe diverges from the real one in 1985, thus there are things like machine guns, missiles and cannon that are derived from current era equipment... (note: the BattleTech Missiles are derived from current era Infantry weapons, Like the TOW or Dragon for the SRM and the RedEye for the LRM)
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Newtype
03/31/09 06:09 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Here's another reason why updated LAM rules must be in Total Warfare: so if someone playing LostTech Prospector Life Path or Back Woods Life Path finds a LAM custom vehicle, then they'll be available for custom LAM vehicle unit discoveries. And you still haven't answered my question if Classic BattleTech is just a game or that the Classic BattleTech Universe is real.
|
MaiShirunaiispretty
03/31/09 06:54 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Why not just have updated LAM rules published in an updated Tactical Operations book? Updated LAM rules would probably be more popular than tornado rules.
|
Newtype
03/31/09 06:56 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Because LAMs are the cornerstone hallmark of combat. Updated LAM rules deserve to be in Total Warfare.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 94 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 140998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|