Jump to content
Stoobert

Feedback on FSA rules from new players, ideas for change, from a tournament

Recommended Posts

@Polaris Most fleets don't have a Swiss Army Toolbox to draw from, and can't inflict useful Crew Damage or Critical Effects.  In the game I just played, most of the Critical Effects I suffered literally did nothing (My Destroyers already have AP 0).

What if CP was a consumable resource?  Any time you would need to make a Repairs, you can no longer roll. Instead, you can either:

a) Remove the Marker and lose 1 CO

bb) Leave the Marker

CP loss should probably no longer reduce AD or PD in this system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ryjak said:

@Polaris Most fleets don't have a Swiss Army Toolbox to draw from, and can't inflict useful Crew Damage or Critical Effects.  In the game I just played, most of the Critical Effects I suffered literally did nothing (My Destroyers already have AP 0).

What if CP was a consumable resource?  Any time you would need to make a Repairs, you can no longer roll. Instead, you can either:

a) Remove the Marker and lose 1 CO

bb) Leave the Marker

CP loss should probably no longer reduce AD or PD in this system. 

Would it still serve as the DR for boarding? This is a really interesting proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off topic but it needs to be said.

Misterbucket, I owe you an apology.  My comment was not directed at you intentionally, but was meant to be a general snark statement to all who declare Fighters as "useless" and only see Bombers or Interceptors as worth taking. 

That and my responses are also proof of why you shouldn't post while drinking.  For some dumb reason I decided to finish off all the leftover singles in the fridge that night.:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hive said:

Would it still serve as the DR for boarding? This is a really interesting proposition.

Yes, because that is what drives the tension between making repairs or not.  Of course, some things would need to change in this system.

Hazard Markers:  You must ALWAYS repair Hazard Markers when able; unrepaired Hazard Markers cause Hull Damage?

Corrosion Markers: Unrepaired Corrosion Markers Destroy the Model?

Experienced Engineers: Repair Hazard Markers for free?  Repair without CP Loss on a 4+?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to address the op point by point, but it was so terrible I couldn't be bothered.

Instead, I'll just say that the single good idea you had-the mines, would work better than what we have now.

 

As for your 'focus group', sounds like Firestorm is the wrong sort of game for them.

They should either look at another game system, or play Taskforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, alextroy said:

Too good compared to taking upto 6 Hull Points?  I'm sure it is better than taking 2-4 Hull Points, but not better than taking 5 or 6 Hull Points.

It can also be 2HP and no effect. Heck, if it was just 4HP, I'd be fine with that. It's the 4 HP and an additional effect that seems off to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy the complexity of Range Bands, different weapon types, and the cumbersome turning of larger ships. The first two add to fleet building and fleet customization instead of having a bunch of samey ships with different names and aesthetics, while I just like the "realism" of the third.

I'm not in love with the turn tool just because it regularly doesn't fit where I need it to be, but I also don't have any ideas for a better system.

If combining dice could be balanced in some way then I'd be neutral on that, though I don't see how you would soften degradation from ship loss the way the current system does.

I have no interest in playing Taskforce though which I see as a dumbed down introductory version of FSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 5:23 PM, Ryjak said:

@Polaris Most fleets don't have a Swiss Army Toolbox to draw from, and can't inflict useful Crew Damage or Critical Effects.  In the game I just played, most of the Critical Effects I suffered literally did nothing (My Destroyers already have AP 0).

What if CP was a consumable resource?  Any time you would need to make a Repairs, you can no longer roll. Instead, you can either:

a) Remove the Marker and lose 1 CO

bb) Leave the Marker

CP loss should probably no longer reduce AD or PD in this system. 

I know most fleets don't have as much adaptability,  my point was that everyone can make targeted strikes, and thus has access to CP damage benefits, perhaps if targeted strikes were easier it would be more viable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with targeted strikes isn't that they are riskier, it's the effect.  If a Targeted strike did zero Hull Point damage, and guaranteed Crew Damage or a chosen Critical Effects, it could be worth doing.  Instead, not only is a Targeted Strike risky, but the outcome is extremely variable, and usually not worthwhile.

In particular, if you're rolling enough dice to have a good chance for landing a Critical Targeted strike, you also have a reasonable chance to land a Double Crit.  Which sounds better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Secundum perhaps in your geographic area there are plenty of available and eager players to choose from when it's time for you to play FSA.  That's wonderful.  It's not so in my city of 2 million.  At least a dozen players have come, bought, and left FSA in the last two years at my FLGS.  Our Facebook group numbers 20+ and only 5 of those could be "bothered" to show for a recent tournament with valuable prizes.  After 3 rounds of play, few were keen to continue on to the 4th round.

So if your perspective and theirs are so "at odds" that it's a case of mutual dismissal, so be it.   But I hope that's not so.

The majority of my focus group are already Spartan Games customers and FSA players, those who aren't ...could be.   But I think we can do better as a community to attract and retain existing players attracted idea of FSA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very inspired by some of the creative ideas I'm reading around crew loss, the crit table, and combining/subtracting dice vs. linking/halving dice.  I understand that many new players find turning cumbersome.  I'm confident that with great feedback we can keep the spirit, tacitical complexity and nuance of FSA while making it smoother and more efficient, and without dumbing it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stoobert, gonna reply using the Redtext method. Promised a response, now have access to a computer again; here we go.

On 9/25/2016 at 2:56 PM, Stoobert said:
  • They find the linked dice mechanic cumbersome and brain-hurty, and then I asked: "what if all dice were the "combined" mechanic, not "linked".  Response: A big "YES please". This is one of the few places where I'll wholeheartedly say "no." While fiddly (In my experience people get this part down pretty quickly, it's doing the math when a bunch of modifiers are in play that makes a difference; that is addressed by point 2. In this case the gains are way higher than the losses; it's a very clever system that means while squads are more powerful when they link, a lone ship is usually still able to do things. This is one of the biggest complaints about Taskforce- lone ships are basically worthless.
  •  Then (like Taskforce) the damage, crew loss, disorder and even terrain were subtracted from the successes after dice rolled, not removing the dice rolled beforehand?"  Response: a collective "yes that sounds easier". I think having the "modifiers" step, that is damage and cloaks and whatnot, step consolidated makes a lot of sense; However, having successes removed rather than just dice seems like it robs players of impact- while the impact may even be greater from removing dice, I think it leads to cleaner cause and effect and will feel better. So here I think you're on the right track, but missing that feel-good play-good mark; you've already seen my suggestion on that end.
  • They find range bands hard to reckon with.  Then I mentioned Taskforce, and what if all ships just had 3 range bands, short (0-12), medium (12-24), long (24-48)?  Then the effectiveness of a ship at any range is simplified, and reflected in the number of available in that range band.   Example rather than a Dendrenzi/Kenetic be 12" bands: 5/6/4/2, just have it be: S/M/L 4/6/5 or whatever.   Positive response. This I don't quite get- Range Bands are printed on the statsheet, and fall into easily remembered categories. The only thing that seems fiddly is when linking weapons with different RBs; Velites come to mind here. Not sure what could be done; Use the ranges of the focus weapon system? Ergo, a Scatter Weapon linking to a Kinetic would treat its range band increments as 12"? Use the lowest increment in the linked firing solution? 3 Kinetics and a Scatter would use 8" bands when linked? Not sure it matters all that much, given that you still have to get distance from each firing ship, which in a game that most people say is won or lost in positioning (and they say that as a good thing, mostly) is a positive trait.
  • They like that different weapon types: beam, kinetic, etc exist, but found the different range bands increment hard to remember. Fair enough; I'd still point to the stat sheets and say "they're right there, though."
  • No one really understands why indirect weapons aren't affected by hull damage or crew loss.  "Who's loading the torpedo tubes then?" someone asked. Gameplay contrivance, honestly. There needs to be something to finish off ships if everything is battered. Having a common weapon system for it works- it's also easier, I'd imagine, to pile the "does not degrade" clause in with other weapons that were already going to have it (gravity, cyber) and were also going to share the shooting-through-terrain effect. Side note, mostly incoherant rambling I haven't had the context to throw out there before- aside from Space-Navy flavoring, I dunno why we don't call them missiles. Torpedoes are meant to hit ships below the waterline in part to flood lower decks- that doesn't really work in space. You can destroy a water ship by sinking it, you can't exactly do that with a space ship.
  • Someone proposed three things: hull loss, crew loss mechanic and disorder tokens could be simplified into two damage concepts:
    • damage that reduces your AD and PD, that either is repairable (crew and/or disorder) and or isn't (hull loss)
    • damage that takes offline certain systems (shields, engines) and is either repairable or isn't Not entirely sure how this is different from what we already have; I'd like a more detailed explanation to understand, if that's alright- maybe a comparison of the proposed system with the current system would help me see what you mean?
  • They all really like the weapon arc concept, firing from multiple arcs, and turrets are cool - but 'fixed fore' wasn't as popular. Fore fixed is always a bit fiddly, but has interesting (which in my own parlance usually translates to "good") effects on ship movement. The biggest impact it has is keeping people from abusing base corners to fire both fore and a side into different targets in the same squad. Honestly, this is a problem with the turning template and not having an effective tool to draw lines down the table- I've seen some compact laser levels and other solutions being used for the "measuring" component of that problem.
  • The movement tool is fiddly, when I offered that taskforce you just spin 45deg, they thought that was a step in the right direction, but maybe going too simple, something in between would be good I've advocated 45 degree spinning-in-place before, but I think it's also true that the tool provided is way too beefy for the job. I've seen all manner of "slimmed down" laser-cut designs, including sticks with a single 45 at the end, a chit that was basically just the 45 with a bracing bit to help line it up, and the base template with all the filler removed so it was more of a wide U-shape. There are solutions that work really well- Spartan just needs to start packaging the game with them.
  • Turn limit 0" is deemed unanimously silly, because spaceships going breakneck speeds. Almost everyone agrees that the game would be more tactical if frigates (and some cruisers) couldn't "spin in circles" Eh. That's a minor point. It is silly, but often times it's sillier to mess with Full Stopping a squad that is supposed to have a main benefit of being more mobile. It's something worth looking at, I guess, but not one I think will go over super well when actually translated to gameplay.
  • It would be nice if SRS phase and boarding phase were combined, and it all happened AFTER ship firing phase.  There's no reason you have to launch your bombers while your ship is surrounded by enemies.  move away, then launch them.  It's also obvious that boarding is done through some sort of shuttles or assault pods full of marines, so that sounds like SRS and there's no reason it can't be part of the same phase. Alternatively, move SRS actions to the Secondary Movement Phase. Keeps the gameplay consistent while removing the problem. One of the core ideas with SRS (and again, this touches back on Torpedoes as well; it's a bit of a gameplay contrivance, but it's one that works) is that you can set up one-two punches with them, whereas Boarding comes after because you're not supposed to be able to shoot at a boarding target- ergo, you can only board if you don't shoot at it. You could flip it around, I suppose, and put boarding first- "You can't shoot at a ship you boarded," 
  • Why would anyone take fighters?  either give fighters some other power, or weaken interceptors a bit, OR why not just call interceptors fighters, get rid of fighters - and be done with it. I've got a good answer to this one- You take Fighters if you can repair them. The big issue with fighters isn't that 12 AD sucks, it's that that 12 AD very quickly becomes 10 or 8, which does suck. Compare that to a Bomber where 18 becomes 15 becomes 12, and the Bomber is still in the running (though I'd argue that the 18 AD isn't really going to convert to a double crit on as many targets as you might think compared to 12 AD- the only difference between barely critting and almost double critting is that you were more hyped for one outcome, not that anything different happens to the gamestate. I digress, however- the point is, if you can keep the Wing count high, either via Deck Crews or being a Relthozan player, that 18" range starts to look like a huge bonus rather than a compensation that doesn't quite match the trade. This is something I wish people recognized more often. Granted, SRS and Mines are the two most likely things to change in 3.0, but Fighters have a place in 2.0.
  • Lying mines are too fiddly, what if mines were an attack like any other weapon system, that mines happened during the firing phase.  Just put a token in the back arc and you're done.  This nerfs mines a little, but no one seems to think mines are underpowered Truthfully, there's a crapload of stuff that is supposed to be done during each individual ship's movement that nobody bothers doing as a part of each individual ship's movement; laying mines is one of them. I agree wholeheartedly on this one- this is a case where the game should change to match how the players are doing it- most players just plop the linked mine somewhere it could have gone after they finish moving. Place that action in a specific phase and you match the flow of gameplay and remove the ambiguity of where a mine could or could not go.

Hopefully that was a useful response.

On 9/26/2016 at 8:04 PM, Stoobert said:

You know it occurred to me that I may be coming at this with assumptions that some folks don't share:

1. That Firestorm will, or should, get a 3.0 rules revision, period. Depends. Revision is nice, but after Taskforce a lot of people are afraid of an overhaul. There are a few points there by which we could discuss in PM that probably shouldn't be bothered on the forums themselves, mostly because they're speculation.

2. That rules revision could be a good thing. Again, depends. Most people I know who play are in love with the core mechanics- Linking, range bands, the separate Dr/Cr, movement (even if it is fiddly), the way fleets are built, for example, but would probably agree that revision in other areas is a good thing if they could guarantee those core, granular aspects stay in place. As per my response in 1, I think people aren't so sure they would.

3. That we, as an FSA community as a whole, would like global player base to increase or at least stay stable Not sure anyone would disagree with that; the problem, I think, is that people would not want the game to dramatically change in pursuit of that

4. It would be more fun if more people in our local area played FSA Again, see 3

5. Modification of the rules (be they big/small, or this or that) might help recruitment, period. This is one people might actually go back and forth on. I'm sure the argument could be made that people who don't like the rules as they are aren't the intended audience and wouldn't stick with it either way, likewise an argument could be made that the loss of players attatched to those rules would be worse than the possible gains could be worth. I disagree in both cases, but I can see where the arguments might be made.

Maybe others don't feel any of those assumptions are true?   (no right or wrong here, i'm not being sarcastic, I'm just wondering if people think my assumptions are way off base)

Now I'm hoping I made two useful responses.

Now for @Ryjak 

On 9/26/2016 at 4:35 PM, Ryjak said:

8. While better than previous systems, no one particularly likes the current 2.0 SRS system. (Well, they like 18AD Bombing runs and stopping all incoming Torps...) The Star Wars Armada and Battlefleet Gothic systems are much better, and often feature SRS vs SRS combat, which is what everyone really wants, right?

The rest is kind of moot; not that it's bad thoughts, just that it's speculation and brainstorming and I don't have a response other than "yeah, maybe." I really, personally, could care less for SRS v SRS combat. Keep it abstract, treat it like a weapon system, whatever. Obviously SRS need to be USEFULL, but I play for the big ships- otherwise, why wouldn't I buy into something that's ABOUT dogfighting?

 

Uh... not sure how to get to the page where your other post I actually want to reply to is; that is to say the crew as a resource to clear crit effects part.

That idea makes a lot more sense to me if crew regenerated by a single point each turn- otherwise, I could see crew numbers tanking to stupid things. GRANTED, that really would only be a problem to the bigger ships, so maybe the Crew Regen could be a trait of Large Capitols specifically, but I digress. I like the idea a lot, just not the proposed effects for Hazard and Corrosive. To be honest, the biggest problem I have with them is personal nitpicking, which is that Corrosive = Damage-Over-Time in my head- it's a big reason I like the Relthozans, and would probably have been playing Aquans or Sorylians instead if that draw hadn't been there.

 

In my mind, the better solution would be that you don't have to repair effects if you'd rather have the crew- The Hazard marker's only effect normally would be that you HAVE to repair it, and have to do so before repairing anything else on the ship- it decrews, but its main purpose is to decrew in such a way that keeps your opponent from fixing other things. On a ship with zero crew, Hazards should be treated like Corrosives, which should do a point of damage every turn they're not repaired (Maybe a chance to do the damage even on the turn they are? I'm really stuck on the DoT thing, I'll admit.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Hive for your thoughtful input.  I just wanted to emphasize a few things.

1. The linking mechanic is good; how you figure out the final dice pool due to damage effects, different weapon systems, and different range bands is bad.  Of the three, damage is the worst.
2. Good points on how players want to feel like they have agency.  Specifically, players feel like they have control over how many successes they score when they roll dice, because they roll the dice.  If these successes are adjusted after the roll, players feel this adjustment takes away their control.
3. I generally don't see an issue with various range bands and AD numbers; it's all on the stat card.  The real issue is when you use your smartphone to view the stats via PDF, because the numbers are so small.  That's why I made my "old man" version of stat cards with the AD numbers in 48 point font.
4. When good gameplay mechanics and good game theme are in conflict, keep the gameplay and adjust theme.  If you can't rewrite the game's thematic fiction to fit mechanics, find someone that's more creative.
5. I like how Forward-fixed imposes a movement style in a game all about positioning, particularly when this firing arc is combined with P/S weapons.  Often you are forced to choose a weapon to fire because you could not reach the proper position.
6. The main issue with movement is the tools required, and the functionality of the tools.  The provided tool is terrible.
7. There is nothing wrong with 0" TL.  Again, the disconnect is mechanics vs theme.  If 0" TL ships lost the requirement to make 1/2 max moves, or could move backwards, would the theme still be an issue?  (Please note the final position of these models doesn't change much with these alternatives)
8. Good points on Fighters and SRS mechanics, particularly AD degradation.
9. As suggested, adjust Mine placement rules to how people play.
10. Adjusting a game's rules will always lead to gaining or losing players.  While Stoobert presented some ideas which may attract new players, it's much easier to lose players with adjustments.  In a way, the best way to grow the player base is to make adjustments new players might like, and current players won't get upset about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hive I really appreciate your thoughtful post.  My interpretation that your comments mostly supports FSA rules as is, with the suggestion that certain aspects should be streamlined or made more clear: SRS, mines, maybe the turning template.  What concerns me is only 1 of those 3 address the major complaint that I've heard from current players which is "brain hurts, game takes too long".  

If FoW, Malifaux and 40k players think FSA games are too lengthy and difficult to comprehend, then maybe we need a "gut check" of just how niche a player FSA is supposed to appeal to?   :)  Is the FSA market "people who find 40k/FoW too simplistic and fast, but like spaceships want to spend slightly less money?"   How's your local community of players looking, by the way?

But I do take your point that alienating the existing player base is not a good idea.  To convince a fickle or perhaps ephemeral group of 'new or used-to-play' FSA players to join the fold, how do we avoid destroying what existing FSA grognards have grown to love (even though few people want to play it with them)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stoobert said:

How's your local community of players looking, by the way?

Depends. I'm really out of the way and work a variable schedule, but there is a somewhat sizable group that does meet regularly out at Glen Burnie. My own location and schedule are the things that keep me from joining in, not the lack of willing players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To chime in on the Linked vs Combined.

I really, really dislike the effects of combined fire in taskforce. That (and the damage chart) are the main reasons I don't play that.

Because combined dice pools are larger, to prevent things getting our of hand you have reduced per ship dice. This means that an individual ship is less effective, down to the point of individual ships (or even pairs) being unable to harm one another without rolling loads of 6s. Watching your single remaining cruiser from a squadron do nothing at all for four turns because its dice pool alone is not able to reach the DR of a ship is depressing. I'd do better just removing it from the table and saving the time playing yahtzee with it entails.

Conversely Linking allows each ship individually to remain a threat for longer, a threat by itself when the squadron is hammered AND allows for more varied firing solutions that are actually worthwhile. 4 8AD ships could be 1 shot at 20AD (crit that T1!), 2 12AD (two separate crits on cruisers!), 4 8AD (shoot those 4 smalls!), 1 16AD+1 8AD (crit the carrier and blow apart an escort!).

Combining in taskforce didn't provide this. not in the 3 games of it I played (and no, if a game is boring and not fun after 3 attempts it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and more of my gaming time to prove itself, not when there are things I know are fun to be playing instead) 6 smalls with 3AD each shoot at ships with DR7, 18AD woo! Try splitting to 2 9AD? It can work, but it's way riskier so probably not worth it. So there's 1 good firing solution and 1 riskier one that doesn't really pay many dividends for taking the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue is that to make FSA play significantly faster, you need to...well, get rid of every basic mechanic of the game. I'm not hyperbolic, every mechanic is designed to be as not-streamlined as possible right now. I doubt 3.0 will change it as long as Spartan insists on their trademark dice mechanics and movement.

Every other issue is a minor point, reasonably easy to fix if needed, but nothing will make the incredibly awkward linking mechanic faster, and even if you make the turning template smaller, you're still running into the issue of ships being so physically big they make maneuvering awkward when in close range. Without making the game a completely different game, it will have a very niche appeal- it's Battleborn to Xwing's Overwatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving in tight quarters isn't all that bad.  Just take the ship off of the base, or use an empty base to mark out where the ship is moving until table state allows you to put the ship back.  Also, multiple height flight pegs really helps for clustering your own stuff really close.  

The thing that really involves thought is the linking mechanic, and that is only really bad in a few situations (say, 2 range bands, 2 ships with different amounts of damage, all using turrets).  For the most part, linking could be cleaned up to be fast by calculating the dice pool (which can be done in advance) and then just subtracting the number of damage as mentioned earlier in this thread..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 Just take the ship off of the base, or use an empty base to mark out where the ship is moving until table state allows you to put the ship back.

"Just remove the thing that is the whole reason you even play this so it's easier" sounds like it's not easy at all. Unfortunately ,short of enforcing some sort of absolute terror field at 4" from ship, there's no way to stop clustering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pok said:

"Just remove the thing that is the whole reason you even play this so it's easier" sounds like it's not easy at all. Unfortunately ,short of enforcing some sort of absolute terror field at 4" from ship, there's no way to stop clustering.

Try playing a Masters level Warmachine event - laser cut movement tools, proxy bases, and so on, and it plays great.  It actually is a very elegant solution as it allows you to have pretty models but also provides a solution to finicky table situations the one or two times per game when stuff gets unmanageable.  

You shouldn't really have problems clustering your own stuff in most cases*  - 4 to 5 heights of flight pegs will allow your squadrons to be in base to base without bumping each other, if you keep the really long ships on higher pegs, so its generally only a problem when your stuff gets on top of your opponent's stuff.  

*This is with lots of experience playing with original 1.0 ships - I can't speak for the newer ships outside of Terrans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

4 to 5 heights of flight pegs will allow your squadrons to be in base to base without bumping each other

So to make it playable, I have to essentially mod the bases? That's essentially admitting to my point:)\

 

The game has, at this point, no chance of ever hitting mainstream..and whatever it had is now lost to one company offering prepainted, massive-franchise models, and one offering cheap, great, plastic models...and proof of continued support of the line. Trying to change the rules too much to account for new players will drive away what little of playerbase remains for no return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Endgame said:

Try playing a Masters level Warmachine event - laser cut movement tools, proxy bases, and so on, and it plays great.  It actually is a very elegant solution as it allows you to have pretty models but also provides a solution to finicky table situations the one or two times per game when stuff gets unmanageable.  

You shouldn't really have problems clustering your own stuff in most cases*  - 4 to 5 heights of flight pegs will allow your squadrons to be in base to base without bumping each other, if you keep the really long ships on higher pegs, so its generally only a problem when your stuff gets on top of your opponent's stuff.  

*This is with lots of experience playing with original 1.0 ships - I can't speak for the newer ships outside of Terrans.

Let me comment on one thing, if I can. Isn't it illegal in most tournaments to mod the flight stands and pegs? Since most events are played with "play with the base the model comes with"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, modifying the peg alloes you to cluster ships in otherwise illegal (directly out of the box) positions,, therefore giving you an advantage over your opponent. I don't know how or why you are comparing it with painting the base to get a cool-looking fleet without gaining any sinificant advantage (greater interceptor screen coverage for starters)

Link to comment
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.

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.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.