Switch Theme:

GW rules development team.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





5 game designer or 50 game designers. It's all the same if company policy says "screw balanced rules". Fixing quality requires bit more than just hiring more designers. Not even better quality designers rather than existing ones would help except remove worst of stupidities.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Unless GW plc let the game developers actually develop games, it does not matter how many or how good the game developers are in GW towers.

If you look at the work these developers do when they are not constrained by the 'G.W. game play is not important ' mentality.The difference is staggering.

   
Made in us
Bounding Assault Marine





Illinois

Lanrak wrote:
Unless GW plc let the game developers actually develop games, it does not matter how many or how good the game developers are in GW towers.

If you look at the work these developers do when they are not constrained by the 'G.W. game play is not important ' mentality.The difference is staggering.



Do you have any examples of this work Lanrak? I'm genuinely curious.
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

Kings of War and Warhammer Fantasy 7/8th Edition
The Legend say Cavatore was complaining in a pup that he could write much better rules if the management would give him the freedom to do it.
Ronnie heard and and offered him a chance and Cavatore came up with the first Kings of War rulebook.

Starship Troopers and 40k 4th edition
Andy Chambers wanted to make 40k a modern SciFi Skirmish game, but the management just wanted a small update and "fix it later", so he wrote the game he wanted 40k to be and sold it to mongoose and lucky for GW they did not know what they bought and killed the game 2 years later by trying to fix it (and they are known for killing each licence they get their fingers on).

actually there is a community based 2nd edition of SST that fixed all the bugs MP put in the rules and added rules for some 40k factions

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 09:28:16


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






All sounds terribly apocryphal to me....

The original 'rumour' about SST actually being 40k is that Andy Chambers took it with him - except that's not actually possible. Any work done belongs to GW, as per contract. That's not a term limited to just GW either (Post-It Notes are another, possibly apocryphal tale).

Kings of War? Who knows - I've not heard that one before, and to be honest, I don't know anyone who plays it.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





Ramsden Heath, Essex

KoW has its flaws as does that Terminator game.*

Starship Troopers as you say required fixing by others after it failed.*

So unfettered of GW corporate restraint/hamstringing both Cavatore and Chambers didn't provide the balance that Dakkanauts demand. It would seem to me that balancing a game is not as easy as it is made out.

40k is a beast of a games with a huge amount of units and factions and layers of detail. I don't think what is demanded here is going to happen outside of an equally complex system for calculating points values - which 40k did have in RT. But in those nascent days that was with 4 faction races, few troop types and vehicles that were prohibitively expensive (in-game).

* - not to say they are not fun or functional games.


How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website " 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Then there's the human factor.

You can have a much better balanced game, and there's still workmen that'll blame their tools - get an echo chamber going, and suddenly a game gets a bad rep it doesn't deserve.

Not that 40k doesn't deserve it's balance bashing - I'm not a lunatic. Just illustrating that for some the game will never be balanced, simply because their win rate isn't 100%.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in us
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





Ramsden Heath, Essex

Indeed.

The oft given exemplar of balance - Warmachine, never seemed get it right for me. A game that requires you to bring multiple lists because of inherent mismatches seems far from balanced to me. and that without factoring the TFG element you note.

How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website " 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

 notprop wrote:
KoW has its flaws as does that Terminator game.*

Starship Troopers as you say required fixing by others after it failed.*

So unfettered of GW corporate restraint/hamstringing both Cavatore and Chambers didn't provide the balance that Dakkanauts demand. It would seem to me that balancing a game is not as easy as it is made out.


All hail glorious leader GW, eh?

Kodos is perfectly right. That SST failed is not the fault of Andy Chambers. (That Warlord had to step in and take the Juge Dredd game off Mongoose's hands is neither new nor surprising.) That Grotsnik knows no-one who plays KoW, does not mean it's not a good or popular game. That 40K has a (slackening) stranglehold on gamers and Dakka, doesn't mean it's the best game. Both former games may have their flaws, but compared to GW's main efforts they're the golden mean of rules design.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 10:52:34


I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Good example?

Magic The Gathering.

In theory, it's all down to luck. Not just the luck of the draw from turn to turn, but the luck you have when buying your cards.

Except, due to the single card market, that goes right out the window. We had a small group that used to play up the pub. All but one were just casual players, making decks that appealed. But that one guy? Net Lists. Every time. He'd meticulously construct his deck by buying single cards - which gets expensive. And we were pretty sure he'd stack his decks just right before arriving - he always had a good hand, with the right mix of mana.......but then wouldn't use that deck again that evening. Suddenly, killer combo (inifinite mana loop type stuff).

Doesn't mean the game itself is flawed - just that one decided to seek victory by outspending everyone else in a manner that didn't match the general ethos of the group.....

Yet I'd still beat him, because I was simply better at the game - my decks typically contain a range of tricks, so it's harder for my opponent to beat or break my synergy in a single stroke, whilst being much rarer for me to have a genuinely duff hand. He only knew his own tricks, and couldn't see other people's tricks coming.

So arguably, his win-rate was artificial. He wasn't that good a player (he really, really didn't like it when I beat him!) but because of his approach, most didn't stand a chance.

His best reaction was against my aging Simic deck. Too busy show boating to notice what was going on. Before he knew it, my dream combo had been deployed....Momir Vig so I could more-or-less reorganise my draw order to suit me (Mix of being able to put a card on top of my deck, and then draw said card), and an Enchantment which allows both players to play creatures from their hand without paying their mana cost. He'd never seen that combo before, and in short order I'd emptied my library onto the field, and he had no answer...

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Hey look! It’s my 2025 Hobby Log/Blog/Project/Whatevs 
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

 notprop wrote:

So unfettered of GW corporate restraint/hamstringing both Cavatore and Chambers didn't provide the balance that Dakkanauts demand. It would seem to me that balancing a game is not as easy as it is made out.

40k is a beast of a games with a huge amount of units and factions and layers of detail. I don't think what is demanded here is going to happen outside of an equally complex system for calculating points values - which 40k did have in RT. But in those nascent days that was with 4 faction races, few troop types and vehicles that were prohibitively expensive (in-game).


A game needs 2 editions to get balanced
First one is the to bring the rules to the community and get a large beta test, than the second edition get all the tweaks needed

Cavatore is said to be the best to write a first edition but the worst to write a second one.
Kings of War is good and improving, having 20 factions and the difference between the best and worst faction regarding balance is less than in the top 2 of 40k or fantasy.

Same for SST, but here MP messed it up and the second edition provides the balance Dakkanauts demand.


GW never tried to fix their game, they only changed thinks without even knowing what they doing (copy&paste old rules, add some new ones, selling it as new edtion) and therefore having passages in the book referring to stuff that is long gone just because no one ever cared to check it.

From a design point of view, the rules are a mess and the main problem why it seem to be so hard to balance is that because of this mess it is not possible to change or add a minor tweak without causing a huge impact to something completely different
(in german we call this "pulling a long rat tail")

If you would clean up the rules, keep everything the same, but write it from scratch and take care of "wording" (not using similar words for different rule terms, for example to mess with "to wound" and tank armour because to wound can only remove wounds and not hull points etc), layers would vanish and it would be much easier to balance the factions.

At the moment there is not much difference between the different factions regarding playstyle.
One factions of other games offers more different playstyle in 2 lists than the most different factions in 40k, the difference here is just how good units are and with balanced rules/point costs the difference in 40k faction books would be gone completely


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Kings of War? Who knows - I've not heard that one before, and to be honest, I don't know anyone who plays it.


take Bolt Action instead, also from Alessio Cavatore or Gates of Antares from Rick Priestley
this is how their version of 40k would look like

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 11:10:44


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

My understanding - and someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong - is that there is no rules team. Writers, as in the people who write the fluff, are also the ones who cost the units and come up with special rules for them.

A Codex gets assigned to a writer who is responsible for the text / narrative, and also comes up with the statline and special rules for each unit. Other people have input, but it's not like there is some dedicated team working on making the game balanced and enjoyable.

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Gates of Antares is basically a modern (as in rules style) 40k anyways.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




All those games (Bolt Action, Warrpath, Antares, KoW) are vaaastly superior games. But they're not 40k.

I have a feeling people do not want to change games because the alternatives are "not 40k".
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





The number of people involved with a design doesn't reflect the quality of the product. The coherency, balance, understanding of the rules (and basic game mechanics - something often overlooked) can be managed by one or two people.

However, demanding X, Y, or Z on a short time table, or the biggest issue - "make this unit different" requirement can be really painful. Playtesting is an obvious component - but even that is not necessary if the designers have a complete understanding of the way the game works (and it helps if the game itself is solid/balanced to start with).

I design games for fun and occasional profit. I've been hung up for two or three weeks before over one or two small items in a somewhat large game. I won't put stuff to print until I sort it out. Then it just hits me and it's all solved and put together.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


So arguably, his win-rate was artificial. He wasn't that good a player (he really, really didn't like it when I beat him!) but because of his approach, most didn't stand a chance.

His best reaction was against my aging Simic deck. Too busy show boating to notice what was going on. Before he knew it, my dream combo had been deployed....Momir Vig so I could more-or-less reorganise my draw order to suit me (Mix of being able to put a card on top of my deck, and then draw said card), and an Enchantment which allows both players to play creatures from their hand without paying their mana cost. He'd never seen that combo before, and in short order I'd emptied my library onto the field, and he had no answer...


I have found that many warhammer/40k players are the same. Without the netlist or exploit list helping them, in an environment where lists are more or less not as busted, they tend to struggle. Thats why I have always wanted tournaments to be less about list building. I think to me i'd rather have table-skill present and highlighted.

Kings of War - why I don't play it? The rules are far too generic and uninspiring for me. Very bland. Very static. Few players in my area touch it.

Gates of Antares - why I don't play it? Same as above.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 15:38:26


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 auticus wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


So arguably, his win-rate was artificial. He wasn't that good a player (he really, really didn't like it when I beat him!) but because of his approach, most didn't stand a chance.

His best reaction was against my aging Simic deck. Too busy show boating to notice what was going on. Before he knew it, my dream combo had been deployed....Momir Vig so I could more-or-less reorganise my draw order to suit me (Mix of being able to put a card on top of my deck, and then draw said card), and an Enchantment which allows both players to play creatures from their hand without paying their mana cost. He'd never seen that combo before, and in short order I'd emptied my library onto the field, and he had no answer...


I have found that many warhammer/40k players are the same. Without the netlist or exploit list helping them, in an environment where lists are more or less not as busted, they tend to struggle. Thats why I have always wanted tournaments to be less about list building. I think to me i'd rather have table-skill present and highlighted.


A tournament where players can choose one of several pre-selected lists, each balanced to the meta of that tournament, would be an interesting way to reveal players relative skills. It's been done before, I just can't remember when or where.


   
Made in us
Clousseau




This is precisely what I would love to see
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

What I do notice, and I don't mean for this to come off as harsh, is that a lot of GW players now refuse any alternative. Everything is dismissed as not being as "complex" as 40k (which normally tends to mean "a ton of insignificant choices that feel like I'm making decisions"), the models not having GW aesthetics, etc. So it's sort of a self-defeating thing: People don't play these games because they "aren't 40k" so nobody sees them played, so don't pick them up, etc.

I see quite a few people at my local GW who, while I feel they should "know better", are basically complete GW fanboys, and eat up everything and blanket ignore anything produced by anyone else. It's actually very interesting, because I always considered myself a wargamer who dabbles in GW games, not a GW hobbyist, while these people are GW hobbyists, not wargamers, since they don't look outside the GW ecosystem.

I saw similar in RPGs years ago with people who wanted to have a "D&D group" not an "RPG group" and dabble in other RPGs.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




HI folks.
I do not even have to go and look at games written outside of GW towers ,to see the difference in clarity , brevity and elegance, when out of the 'WHFB/40k game play does not matter ' mentality inflicted by Tom Kirby.

LoTR (at the start,), Epic Armageddon , Blood Bowl, Space Hulk,Warhammer Quest, to name a few of the games that were allowed to be actually developed,( with the help of their player base.)

This was before T.Kirby focused GW plc on selling expensive plastic toy soldiers for WHFB/40k to children and collectors .
Higher model counts and bigger more expensive kits is all that matters !!

There are as mentioned previously even more examples from ex GW devs at Warlord Mantic and others.

Personal preference is valid, for picking the game YOU want to play.

However, when you look at a game and it has clearly defined scale and scope, and the resulting game play is intuitive and arrived at with the minimum of complication.
The rule set is good, no matter if you personally like the game play it delivers or not.

Pointless complication in a rule set is not good for any play style.

It is much easier to add 'narrative based rules and scenarios ' to a well defined and balanced rule set.

Than it is to try to correct over complication, and serious balance issues with a poorly defined and implemented rule set.
(People play games of 40k despite the awful rules! )

That is why games companies try to write well defined rules that are balanced enough for random pick up games.
Its very hard to do and so people pay for their hard work.

It is no surprise the re-release of the old Specialist Games are received so well by gamers!
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Wayniac wrote:
What I do notice, and I don't mean for this to come off as harsh, is that a lot of GW players now refuse any alternative. Everything is dismissed as not being as "complex" as 40k (which normally tends to mean "a ton of insignificant choices that feel like I'm making decisions"), the models not having GW aesthetics, etc. So it's sort of a self-defeating thing: People don't play these games because they "aren't 40k" so nobody sees them played, so don't pick them up, etc.

I see quite a few people at my local GW who, while I feel they should "know better", are basically complete GW fanboys, and eat up everything and blanket ignore anything produced by anyone else. It's actually very interesting, because I always considered myself a wargamer who dabbles in GW games, not a GW hobbyist, while these people are GW hobbyists, not wargamers, since they don't look outside the GW ecosystem.

I saw similar in RPGs years ago with people who wanted to have a "D&D group" not an "RPG group" and dabble in other RPGs.


People like different things and play / participate for different reasons.

I know I have a shelf full of models from about 12 different game systems. That I can never use because no one will play them. As such I dont deviate far from GW as well because I don't see the point in collecting models for a game no one will play (its a self fulfilling prophecy)

We have a store in the area that is full of very ANTI gw players that will go out of their way to play anything but GW, but that rhetoric also gets tiring to listen to all the time.
   
Made in bg
Storm Trooper with Maglight






The Decision Makers may be 5, but the developers are highly unlikely to be so few. What are they, a starting company making games for smartphones? There are tons of codecs, supplements and let's don't forget that they don't have only one game. There is Sigmar and there a lot of board games they do lately.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





I agree with Wayniac. GW, I believe more so than any other company has rabid fans which play GW games exclusively, possibly 40K. I liken it to Madden Football on the Xbox/Playstation. How many people do you know who just have one big sports title for an Xbox/Playstation - they'd never ever label themselves a gamer, or answer yes to the question "oh, you play video games?".

They just have one title that interests them, but are not interested in the entire world of video games. I see this a lot with GW players, namely 40K players. I think there is a much larger portion of people who play solely 40K to the exclusion of all others. You can see a gigantic divide between people at conventions when you have a 40K tournament on one half of a hall and general wargaming on the other half.

I'm not saying this is bad, but it's definitely a thing.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Elbows wrote:
I agree with Wayniac. GW, I believe more so than any other company has rabid fans which play GW games exclusively, possibly 40K. I liken it to Madden Football on the Xbox/Playstation. How many people do you know who just have one big sports title for an Xbox/Playstation - they'd never ever label themselves a gamer, or answer yes to the question "oh, you play video games?".

They just have one title that interests them, but are not interested in the entire world of video games. I see this a lot with GW players, namely 40K players. I think there is a much larger portion of people who play solely 40K to the exclusion of all others. You can see a gigantic divide between people at conventions when you have a 40K tournament on one half of a hall and general wargaming on the other half.

I'm not saying this is bad, but it's definitely a thing.


Pretty much. I've met a lot of nice people but you mention other games and it's immediately how they tried it and hated it (usually with some reference to the models being ugly) or just like.. this incredulous look that there are other games out there. Mention anything by Privateer Press/Warlord/Mantic and you'll get a tirade about how they either "stole from GW" (someone once went on this rant over I think Bolt Action or Warpath) or a tirade about how terrible the figures look compared to GW models or how the game isn't as "tactically complex" (ha!) as GW games. Now, the flipside is often true to a point - chances are most of the people playing Warmachine/Bolt Action/Kings of War used to be GW customers a long time ago, but it's rare to find as vehement "I must prove you wrong" type of approaches; you're likely to hear how the price/bloat/business practices turned them away, but many of them often have a soft spot for GW games still, on the flip side though talking to a GW player about other games is like showing up to a Philadelphia Eagles tailgate party and mentioning something about the Cowboys.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 19:40:53


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler






 kodos wrote:
Kings of War and Warhammer Fantasy 7/8th Edition
The Legend say Cavatore was complaining in a pup that he could write much better rules if the management would give him the freedom to do it.
Ronnie heard and and offered him a chance and Cavatore came up with the first Kings of War rulebook.


Cavatore was very open about why he left GW. It was to produce and push his chess variant Shuuro. He developed it while at GW and showed to it to them to see it they would produce it. They passed, but let him take the game with him to produce and publish himself. He openly stated that in a couple podcast interviews I followed.

*edit* Just to add, he said he had been given the freedom to produce his own army rule set and that was the War of the Ring rules set. He said that was the work he was most proud of when from his time at GW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/02 20:11:01


 
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

Never said that this was the reason why he left

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

RoninXiC wrote:All those games (Bolt Action, Warrpath, Antares, KoW) are vaaastly superior games. But they're not 40k.

I have a feeling people do not want to change games because the alternatives are "not 40k".


To Wayniac and Elbows too: Yup.

I bleat enough about this subject, but...

auticus wrote:Kings of War - why I don't play it? The rules are far too generic and uninspiring for me. Very bland. Very static. Few players in my area touch it.

Gates of Antares - why I don't play it? Same as above.


The problem with that is something Wayniac mentioned:

Wayniac wrote:Everything is dismissed as not being as "complex" as 40k (which normally tends to mean "a ton of insignificant choices that feel like I'm making decisions")


I know the way you feel, by the way. I felt that when 40K and WFB were the only games I knew, and GW released Epic:A. You couldn't modify your space marine units beyond adding a commander or a couple of vehicles! No big list of pistol variants or fancy armour for your veteran sergeants! No huge characters with +1S +3A +2 invulnerable save etc.! The rules were far too generic and uninspiring. Very bland. Very static.
Then I played it, and it made sense.* KoW players got it too when they moved over. That was how a big wargame should be played - commanding platoons or regiments rather than individuals. Army maneuvre and core rule tactics rather than flashy superheroes and list micromanagement.

Not long after I was sorting out a list for WFB, weighing up the pros and cons of a core unit's wargear, when I thought 'why should it matter?' It was such an insignificant difference to what was pretty much a one-trick unit in what was supposed to be an army; but that kind of obsessive ferreting after a point here, a point there, mathhammering long before the term was coined, was the bread and butter of GW's core two. I gave up almost immediately.

'Cos this has been said many times, but GW's core two are weird. They're strange outliers; they're abberations. They're skirmish game rules that have inflated to involve 200 or more miniatures, and the necessary abstraction has not increased with mini count. (AoS is included - switching to round bases doesn't make a skirmish game, when GW sells 200-count army bundles) Years of their high street dominance and closed ecosystem** has made that seem like the norm to an awful lot of gamers (or 'GW Hobbyists'), but those games that are derided as 'too abstract, not tactical' (KoW, Gates of Antares, etc.) are the norm, and the barest tip of the iceberg, when you consider discrete games rather than units shifted per annum! I can only think of three non-GW mass battle games that have similar mechanics and that come anywhere close to the complication of WFB, and two of those are almost direct successors to Warhammer Ancient Battles. Every other mass battle game I've seen cleaves closer to KoW's principles - or should I say KoW cleaves closer to theirs.

* I'm having flashbacks to when I was a child faced with a tiny spoonful of peas on the side of my plate. "How do you know you don't like them if you haven't tried them?"

** That might also have something to do with the assumption that a set of rules, a specially-made range of miniatures, and a background setting should be inextricably linked. Complaining that you don't want to play KoW rules because you don't like Mantic's minis is a bizarre non-sequitur - especially after a few years of KoW players using their WFB minis, and Mantic putting out compatible army lists.

auticus wrote:I know I have a shelf full of models from about 12 different game systems. That I can never use because no one will play them. As such I dont deviate far from GW...

We have a store in the area that is full of very ANTI gw players that will go out of their way to play anything but GW...


I get the feeling there are some dots that aren't being connected.

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




@Vermis.
Totally agree with you.

The difference is GW plc focus on selling models directly.

Eg GW plc focus on rules for what the model looks like.Slightly bigger gun, different colour armour, more spiky bits etc.

Rather than look at what the models function is from a game play perspective, and write rules from that direction.

This is not the fault of the game devs working at GW plc. It is the fault of the GW corporate management.
   
Made in gb
Posts with Authority






Norn Iron

You're right, and I'll bet that's part of the reason why GW stick with their giant-skirmish model: it's not about selling and playing with armies, it's about selling and playing with a horde of individual heroes. From £3.50 witch elves to £20-30 space marine characters. If it were otherwise, more people might question why their indivisible unit block of state troops isn't priced comparably to plastic historicals. (More than those who did, anyway)

I'm sooo, sooo sorry.

Plog - Random sculpts and OW Helves 9/3/23 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






Catachan

The "Rules development team" is either the same as the merchandising team, or reports to them.

   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: