Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hollismason wrote: Please don't tell people that, ugh. No it's quite clear that it's 1 spyder. A minority of people choose to try and work a way around that restriction but those people are literally cheating their opponents.
Huh? The cheaty thing is people claiming RAW for something that is only their RAI argument and then having the audacity to call my RAW a farce. So please don't claim RAW Hollis unless you can actually back it up with RAW like I can. I will argue RAW all day long with you and win.
A formation that has "no restrictions" and points directly to an army entry list and that uses rules for formations that specifies units can unequivocally access the option to add additional spyders. You literally have nothing to counter that chain of permission except the feeling that more than one spyder is not fair.
And yes I will spread and make known that correct RAW reading of the rules and counter act the misinformation that is being popularly spread around and I will happily add 1-2 spyders to each Canoptek Harvest because that is indeed RAW and I follow RAW consistently since I do not want to be a hypocrite.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:33:04
RAW the unit is one Tomb Spyder. I just backed my RAW argument up. Are 3 Tomb Spyders 1 Tomb Spyder? No. Sorry you have no RAW because RAW it says 1 Tomb Spyder, no tourney's allow it, because it's as clear as day to everyone but the people who are insistent that it is some sort of grammatical semantic argument or loophole to make it so that 1 = 3 or 3= 1.
You're just straight up incorrect.
By your argument because a formation has "no restriction" I can take as many Wraiths as I want or I can take a Dedicated Transport for my Wraiths because there are "no restrictions".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:34:28
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: RAW the unit is one Tomb Spyder. I just backed my RAW argument up. Done.
So just like I can add more warriors to a unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion I can add more spyders to the spyder unit. Done and done. Remember you absolutely have to be consistent!
If you feel I cannot add spyders to the unit as easily as I can add warriors to the unit of warriors please go into explicit detail why I cannot. The Reclamtion Legion specifies a unit of 10 warriors and does not even mention a Ghost Ark.
You are straight up wildly inconsistent and hypocritical in your application of rules.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:37:09
No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
The Formation rules specify unit and army list entries so its a unit of Spyders containing 1 Spyder by definition. My argument is rock solid and I am applying the rules consistently and exactly as they are written.
If the Formation specified 1 Canoptek Spyder 'model' then you would have the specific override you need. But you are not allowed to imagine the word 'model' to be there when it clearly is not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:41:18
It was a couple of pages ago but within the scope of the Destroyer formation I rate normal Destroyers pretty well. That re-roll to wound and pen goes a long way with S% AP 3 and Gauss. If you have two normals and a Heavy the Normals are contributing almost a full HP of shooting against anything with AV 11 or above, making them jive quite well with the HD's shot. It's also a decent salvo when aimed at Flying Hiveys and the like.
Outside the formation they are okay, but in the formation they are as solid as units get, imho. I'd still upgrade each HD I had a slot for, though. HD's are super rad, man, and an HD with Re-Roll to Pen and Wounds standing next to a Stalker is just nuts. 95% chance to wound just about anything along with about an 86% chance to peal a HP off AV 12? Yes please.
It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
Yes I would be allowed to take 6 wraiths because the Formation rules means its a unit of 3 wraiths and I can use the options in the wraith army entry list to add 3 more wraiths just like I can add a Ghost Ark to a formation that has a unit of 10 warriors.
The line would have to say 3 Wraith models to override the very specific rules that the Formation rules use that specify units and army entry lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
We aren't arguing math. We are arguing rules. You are trying to pull the fast one here by saying the rules specify 1 Canoptek Spyder model, when it flat out obviously does not specify that. The Reclamation Legion does not have a Ghost Ark on its listing and yet I can add a Ghost Ark and seemingly break your math argument. How is it even possible for me to add a Ghost Ark. Because it is on the army entry list and the Formation rules give access to the options. I am being wholly consistent in my application of the rules. I have no problem claiming my argument is honest, logical, and consistent. I am amazed at how the counter argument can make their claim when they are being totally inconsistent and even possibly outright deceptive (although I am not accusing you of that)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:49:01
You can try and argue semantically over this but 3 does not equal one.
The formation itself requires that you take only 1 Tomb Spyder to make that formation because that formation only consists of 1 Tomb Spyder and 1 unit of Wraiths , 1 unit of Scarabs.
Now explain to me why all other entries in the Decurion all 20+ are written as UNIT and this one entry is not.
It's because they want to clarify that this formation only will consist of 1 Spyder.
This is like you coming onto the forums and claiming the world is actually hollow and giving advice to people on travel of taking the Moloch tunnels to get to where they need to go even though everyone else is like , yeah just take the train.
" No take the Moloch tunnels, it's quicker" ,
" No, seriously there are no Moloch tunnels",
" There's probably a moloch tunnel you can take" ,
" Please don't go in that cave you will get lost and die"
" Look some people think there are moloch tunnels"
" There are not Moloch Tunnels please do not take your children into that cave"
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:51:46
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: I want to live in your world because I would make 3x. You can try and argue semantically over this but 3 does not equal one.
The formation itself requires that you take only 1 Tomb Spyder to make that formation because that formation only consists of 1 Tomb Spyder and 1 unit of Wraiths , 1 unit of Scarabs.
Now explain to me why all other entries in the Decurion all 20+ are written as UNIT and this one entry is not.
It's because they want to clarify that this formation only will consist of 1 Spyder.
Here is where you are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
1 Canoptek Spyder does not specify unit or model
The Formation rules explicitly and unequivocally specify unit and army entry lists are always to be used.
So how can you even make the beginning of a claim that we are talking about just a Canoptek Spyder model?
The line would have to say '1 Canoptek Spyder model' to work the way you intend the rule to work. Feel free to ask GW to add 'model' to the rule.
As the rule actually exists in the text it can only read 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders with 1 Canoptek Spyder.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:53:19
Yeah it specifies 1 Tomb Spyder. That's what it means when it says 1 Tomb Spyder. If it said 1 Tomb Spyder unit then you could take 3, it's singular. It's also easier to write 1 Tomb Spyder instead of 1 Tomb Spyder Unit *
*May only take 1 Tomb Spyder maximum.
Again, please stop suggesting this crazy idea it's not supported by any tournaments, and like you, that's it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:56:52
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah it specifies 1 Tomb Spyder. That's what it means when it says 1 Tomb Spyder.
Per the rules its a unit and I access the army entry list options to add additional spyders. Please show me the rule that I break doing so. And for a bonus show me how the Spyder case is in any way different than adding warriors to a unit of 10 warriors or adding a Ghost Ark to the warriors.
Like I said I can argue RAW all day because all of the rules are on my side here and you are literally trying to argue off of a vapor of a gut feeling with no support.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 05:58:27
No, because it states 1 Tomb Spyder it's giving you permission to purchase 1 Tomb Spyder because of the formation. no more , no less. 3 is not in fact the number.
There are multiple instances of this in multiple forms across the myriad of Formations.
There is no way you can make 3 = 1. It clearly states 1 Tomb Spyder. If later they amend it, then sure. For now you are it unless there is a complete collapse of all reality as we know it on the 3 = 1 thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:00:37
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: No, because it states 1 Tomb Spyder it's giving you permission to purchase 1 Tomb Spyder because of the formation.
There are multiple instances of this in multiple forms across the myriad of Formations.
I laid out in hyper clear fashion my full permission to add spyders to the spyder unit. The burden is on you to show a rule that I break. Otherwise I simply exercise the permission the rules grant me as a player in a game where we both abide by the rules as they are given. You don't get to break rules simply because you do not like them unless we both decide to allow the breaking of that rule. Please just show anything here. Anything at all. You have so far produced nothing at all.
I don't know about you but I for sure would not allow someone to claim RAW who did not have some actual rule supporting their argument.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:03:49
No, you haven't you've consistently repeated yourself with a ad nauseum argument , which has no basis in the written text with out inference of a additional word that does not exist.
You will never disprove me because it clearly states that you are allowed to take 1 Tomb Spyder.
If it said you were allowed to take 1 Tactical Marine would you be able to take a full squad of Tactical Marines?No because that does not equal 1.
3 does not equal 1.
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: No, you haven't you've consistently repeated yourself with a ad nauseum argument , which has no basis in the written text with out inference of a additional word that does not exist.
You will never disprove me because it clearly states that you are allowed to take 1 Tomb Spyder.
If it said you were allowed to take 1 Tactical Marine would you be able to take a full squad of Tactical Marines?No because that does not equal 1.
3 does not equal 1.
As I said, because unless it say '1 Tactical Marine model' the Formation rules are exceedingly specific in that they always and unequivocally refer to units and you can add more Tactical marines by accessing the options. I am sorry but that is just the rules as they exist.
Why are you choosing to ignore the exceedingly specific use of unit in the Formation rules? I should remind you that you cannot ignore rules and what they specify. And the Formation rule is one of them.
And the one who is resorting to ad nauseum is you. I have a fully delineated argument and you have failed to topple any of the points I have made because every point is directly supported by rules that you cannot contradict.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:09:49
Hollismason wrote: Why are you ignoring the fact that all other formations including all the ones in the Decurion say exactly when it is a unit and not a single model?
Cause you are, also you're incorrect on the formation thing always referring to units.
Formations
Spoiler:
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
Please Hollis, please find something, some actual rule to peg your counter argument on, because I don't like beating up on the defenseless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:14:57
Units also refers to FMCs and all other models in the game not just used as a term for a collection of models in a unit. Models of 1 are still a unit.
That Tomb Spyder doesn't stop being a unit, by stating 1 we know we can only have 1 Tomb Spyder , that is still a unit. It cannot go beyond 1 because the formation states 1.
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Hollismason wrote: Units also refers to FMCs and all other models in the game not just used as a term for a collection of models in a unit. Models of 1 are still a unit.
That Tomb Spyder doesn't stop being a unit, by stating 1 we know we can only have 1 Tomb Spyder , that is still a unit. It cannot go beyond 1 because the formation states 1.
I can add spyders to the unit of 1, just like I can add warriors to the unit of 10, and just like I can add a Ghost Ark to the formation when the formation doesn't even mention a Ghost Ark.
If you feel otherwise, show a consistent line of reasoning that allows you to treat a unit of 1 spyder any differently than a unit of 10 warriors. I am all ears and welcome your pearls of wisdom.
Have I not abundantly shown you that you have no actual rules support? Why do you persist in this folly? This is self-deception and you are masquerading a RAI argument as a RAW argument and spreading misinformation by doing so.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:55:19
adamsouza wrote: Hollismason and Col Impact, respectfully, BOTH of you please let it go.
It clearly needs to be FAQ'ed because of it's gakky wording.
Yes, it says Spyder.
Yes, there is no limitation listed.
It should either say Spyders, or Limitation 1 Spyder, but it says neither. We get it.
That is fine. A bystander has thrown in the towel for Hollis. The argument was one-sided. At any rate it is clear what the rules actually support doing until we get a FAQ. And for the record I do not mind if they FAQ that it is a Spyder model. I just insist people actually follow the rules and are consistent and logical, which is what I am doing here. And I certainly oppose wholeheartedly the people who try to pass RAI as RAW by virtue of nothing more than mob thinking on the matter which is what has happened in this case. I don't adopt an illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical interpretation of the rules just because its popular, and indeed no one should. If people want to collectively vote and implement a house rule then more power to them, as long as they don't lie to me that it is RAW.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 06:36:04
If you have the necron codex, look at the Canoptek formation in the fluff (pg 34), it says unit of spiders there. Games Workshop wanted to give people something to argue about on the internet.
Warmonger2757 wrote: If you have the necron codex, look at the Canoptek formation in the fluff (pg 34), it says unit of spiders there. Games Workshop wanted to give people something to argue about on the internet.
It certainly has worked as a litmus test to detect who is prone to mob thinking and who can maintain rational and consistent thinking on the rule set. In fact, this rules case presents a challenge to this forum itself, since this boils down to mob thinking versus reasonable thinking. The counter argument literally has zero rules support and only popular support. It uses sheer numbers to make everyone believe that the rules say '1 Spyder model'
So I posted a sick list that I think is possibly the best Decurion list I have seen so far (and naturally its my own creation)
Spoiler:
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Decurion Detachment
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
8 x Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
20x Necron Warrior
Canoptek Harvest
6 x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander (Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Target lock, Vectored retro-thrusters, Velocity tracker)
XV104 Riptide Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
Comments? This list seems like a solid and hard to beat TAC. The only hard counter would be a list with a metric ton of objective secured troops and transports.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 07:33:39
col_impact wrote: So I posted a sick list that I think is possibly the best Decurion list I have seen so far (and naturally its my own creation)
Spoiler:
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Decurion Detachment
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
8 x Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
20x Necron Warrior
Canoptek Harvest
6 x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander (Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Target lock, Vectored retro-thrusters, Velocity tracker)
XV104 Riptide Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
Comments? This list seems like a solid and hard to beat TAC. The only hard counter would be a list with a metric ton of objective secured troops and transports.
The combo of Tau + Necrons is really good especially with the cheese combo that is Buffmander + Zahndrekh. Tau shooting with Necron wraiths? *spew* Why so big on the blob of 20 warriors? and only one riptide?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/24 07:45:53
Well its an allied force so only 1 Riptide is allowed unless I am mistaken. Usually tournaments allow one Primary detachment and one ally so this list adheres to that expectation. A dual CAD format could get you more Riptides. The Riptide is actually optional. The Tau allied force is there to access the buffmander mainly. The riptide is a backup source of easy buffs and included also since its arguably the best unit in the game (so why the heck not)
I suppose an additional power up would be to squeeze Obyron or a Cryptek with a Veil (or hey why not both?) and a Royal Court in there so you could buff up a warrior blob with TankHunters, MonsterHunters, etc. and then deep strike the unit into range and shred just about anything.
The blob is there to provide massed fire that is impossible to take down, especially with a Ghost Ark regenerating warriors, re-roll to morale that the Overlord of the Decurion grants (or is that just the bargeLord??), and the stubborn and hit and run USR that the buffmander can grant. That's about as fearless you can get.
3 X Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
10x Necron Warrior
Royal Court
Vargard Obyron
Cryptek, Staff of Light, The Veil of Darkness
Overlord Staff of Light
Auxiliary
Canoptek Harvest
3x Canoptek Scarab
2 x Canoptek Spyders (1 with Gloom Prism)
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Velocity tracker
XV104 Riptide, Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
This seems like a solid power up. The ICs join a warrior blob making it 14 bodies and roughly the same number of shots. Zandrekh grants a Warlord buff and a buffmander by proxy buff. Then the warriors in the Ghost Ark disembark. Zandrekh embarks. Ghost Ark moves 12". Obyron makes his protected deep strike move. Warrior blob lights up and eliminates the biggest available threat with shooting that far surpasses anything Centurions could put out. Invisible target? Who cares? Super heavy? who cares? GMC? Who cares? This is a sick sick deathstar.
Actually that slingshot method doesn't fully work in the space of 1 turn. Zandrekh needs to rejoin since the USRs are granted to him and his unit. So basically you deep strike the whole unit with the Cryptek with the Veil and then set up some teleporting combos with Obyron later.
Alternatively you can just hang back and form a relentless, move through cover gunline, that ignores cover and razes the earth like a blitzkrieg with a buffmander or a riptide feeding you buffs. The wraiths are there to go out and harass, tarpit, and/or kill anything that has any hopes of stopping you.
This list started out as a way to find something better than a conclave. Well it looks like I succeeded at just that and proving you have better options than the conclave for where to sink points. And if you compare this combo with Destroyer Cult, the Tau ally force wins hands down.
The buffmander combo is so sick that it probably should be house ruled to not work on allies, only enemy enemies. Without the combo you switch to Ethereal, and add a unit of Broadsides (and maybe rethink the buffmander going here instead of switching him out for the cheaper Ethereal) for something that still outperforms Conclave or Destroyer Cult handily.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 09:02:09
Tekron wrote: The Decurion isn't a CAD though, so presumably most tournaments would allow a Decurion + an allied CAD?
Triptides & Decurion & Harvest sounds fun.
If by fun you mean slaughtering everything in your way then yes lots of fun. The Zandrekh Buffmander is silly sick. It's as silly as Void Shield + Green Tide. Silly, silly, silly. Play it until its banned people!
But sure if you get a Tau CAD then by all means strip down to best of Tau (Riptide + Broadsides + Buffmander + 2 Kroot) and best of Decurion (Zandrekh, Ghoast Ark, Tomb Blades + Canopteks with TransD) and if you have the Zandrekh Buffmander combo the opponent might as well just concede and if that has been house ruled away you should dominate the match still. Adding Tau covers all your weaknesses and is the perfect Yin to your Yang. I prefer Broadside spam over Triptides since they can benefit from the buffmander directly per 7th rules.
I think adding Tyranids (Flyrants, etc.) instead of Tau is also a sick combo, but I do think Tau has the edge over it. This is undoubtedly the case if the Zandrekh + Buffmander combo is legal, and still narrowly the case elsewise. But Flyrants (FMC + Psychic hotness) is still a solid alternative that also does much more than the Conclave or the Destroyer Cult.
Plus if you go Tau + Necrons you can still claim "No Psychic" purity! I much prefer skipping that phase altogether. I feel so much cleaner doing so!
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 09:26:28
Despite the Buffmander giving a lot of stuff, I'd be more inclined to optimise by skipping him. Zandrekh can get split fire, tank hunters and hit and run from Riptides and Broadsides which both contribute by shooting stuff every turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/24 09:54:23
Therion wrote: Despite the Buffmander giving a lot of stuff, I'd be more inclined to optimise by skipping him. Zandrekh can get split fire, skyfire, interceptor, and tank hunters from Riptides and Broadsides which both contribute by shooting stuff every turn.
Interesting point and a nice creative contribution. Loading up on buffs from the resilient Riptide alone who hangs in the backfield already is a way of freeing up some points. Of course you lose the tactic of Ghost Mantling or Veiling forward and drop the Royal Court and stick to the Raze the Earth gunline approach. But yeah, that's a good line of thought.
So sure, switch to Ethereal. Buff off of the resilient Riptide. Add more Riptides or Broadsides and even more wraiths for a more surefire core. Maybe even room for a bargeLord who I think really shines once you flood the opponent with too much other stuff to worry about. Good suggestion. I like broadsides but riptides in this line of thought also seem juicy and thematic. Nothing seems cooler than a bunch of giant robots stomping around and wraiths ghosting around for fights like some sick mashup between Harry Potter and Pacific Rim. Seems like a fully doable alternative. I will plunk away on a list that works in those suggestions.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/24 10:00:23
