Shaira Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has had experience of the Close Combat and Closing spot rules yet, as I'm trying to figure them out. My current game has one character with a halberd who insists on taking it on a dungeon bash, so... Here's my understanding (based on a SIZ 3 Halberd fighting a SIZ 1.5 Broadsword): There are two types of melee combat: "Close Combat" and a "standard melee combat". STANDARD MELEE COMBAT The Close Combat spot rule says: The SIZ 3 Halberd will always attack before the SIZ 1.5 Broadsword, regardless of DEX rank. If the Halberd wants to (and at the cost of one of its attacks), instead of doing damage a successful To Hit roll will keep the Broadsword "at bay" - it can't attack. HOWEVER, the Broadsword can get round this with a successful Dodge roll - it can then attack normally. (IE it costs the longer weapon user an Attack Action to "keep at bay", and is opposed by the shorter weapon user's Dodge). CLOSE COMBAT The Close Combat spot rule says: The SIZ 3 Halberd will always parry as a Difficult action.The Closing spot rule says: The shorter weapon (Broadsword in this case) will always attack first. IN ORDER TO MOVE FROM STANDARD MELEE TO CLOSE COMBAT The Closing spot rule says: The Broadsword must declare they are "Closing" as an action. If they are being "kept at bay" they must make a Dodge roll to successfully Close. MY QUESTIONS Is the "Closing" action instead of an attack? Or can you attack whilst "Closing"?The Closing spot rule then says "Though a character with the longer weapon may parry, attack, or dodge, he or she may perform only one of these actions in that DEX rank." What does this refer to? Is this only whilst the Broadsword user is doing his Closing action on the Halberd, or is it a constant for Close Combat? Also, does it mean the longer weapon user can only make EITHER an attack OR a parry OR a dodge each combat round? (The following sentence suggests so). In which case, does this contradict the Close Combat spot rule which says the longer weapon "will always parry as a Difficult action"?The Closing spot rule finishes with "As noted in “Close Combat”, above, a short weapon-user can close on a long weapon-user with a successful Dodge attempt." Is this "can" or "must"? IE, the Close Combat spot rule and the same Closing spot rule earlier suggests the Dodge roll is only needed if the longer weapon is trying to "keep at bay" the shorter. Which is it? I'm wondering how the entire Closing / Close Combat thing works in practise - does it add a great deal of tactics to play, or is it a lot of bookkeeping (or both!)? I'm probably going to use the "Enclosed Environments" spot rule to hammer the halberd user anyway, but thought that Close Combat might help too! Finally, I'm using Strike Ranks rather than DEX ranks. I can't see any reason why Close Combat shouldn't work the same either way - can anyone else? Cheers, Sarah Quote "The Worm Within" - the first novel for The Chronicles of Future Earth, coming 2013 from Chaosium, Inc. Website: http://sarahnewtonwriter.com | Twitter: @SarahJNewton | Facebook: TheChroniclesOfFutureEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosenMcStern Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Shaira hits the spot, as usual. These rules are really fine, but there are contradictions. I bet they were written by two people in different moments. The first paragraph, Close Combat, should be labeled "Closing", and it is the best and the most usable. It explains what happens when a long weapon user and a short weapon user engage in melee. The only question here is "When to use the Difficult parry with the Long Weapon rule?" The second paragraph, Closing, should be labeled "Close Combat". It is a bit messy and contradicts the first one with regard to how to enter close combat. Is it declaring that you are closing enough? Or must you also succeed in a Dodge roll if the long weapon user is keeping you at bay? It also uses the old RQ3 rule of "One action only when caught in Close Combat with a long weapon." which I did not like (and I am a _very_ _big_ supporter of RQ3). All in all, I would just drop paragraph 2 and use only paragraph 1. But I know there are Close Combat fans out there that will not agree Oh, and I do not like BRP Strike Ranks. I have used SR for over 20 years and I appreciate them, but the basic system in BRP 1 is more elegant. SRs would be usable in this BRP, were it not for the rule that states that you can attack twice if your SR is 5 or less. Read it carefully. Big clumsy guy with long weapon attacks twice or thrice. Fast small guy with short weapon attacks once. Not good. The basic theory of SRs say that they dictate when you attack, not how often. Quote Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaira Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 I've been having a think about this, and am going to try the following: Combat between a longer weapon user and a shorter weapon user starts as "Standard Melee Combat", ie not Close Combat. This means the longer weapon user always goes first, regardless of DEX (or Strike) rank. There are no other mandatory consequences of "Standard Melee Combat". The longer weapon user can use the "Keep At Bay" option (costing an attack action) to prevent the shorter weapon user from attacking, if desired. This is opposed by the shorter weapon user's Dodge; if the "Keep At Bay" option fails, the shorter weapon user can make a subsequent attack action, but has not actually closed. To enter Close Combat, the shorter weapon user must make a Dodge roll on his attack action; this is opposed by the longer weapon user's attack chance (it's the "Keep At Bay" option in reverse). It costs an attack action. If it succeeds, Close Combat begins; if it fails, you are still in Standard Melee. In Close Combat, the shorter weapon always goes first. In addition, the longer weapon parry (and Dodge?) is always Difficult. CONSEQUENCES: you could have a combat where the longer weapon user constantly tries to Keep At Bay the shorter, costing an attack action each time. Even if the Keep At Bay fails, the shorter weapon user will still be at "long range" in his attack, UNLESS he uses his own attack action to make a successful "Close" (ie Dodge) roll. Conceivably, you could have a combat round where no actual blows are exchanged: longer weapon user attempts to Keep At Bay, succeeds, result: shorter weapon user unable to act; longer weapon user attempts to Keep At Bay, fails, result: shorter weapon user may make a Dodge roll to try to Close. Does that make sense? Regarding the "attack twice if your SR is 5 or less" rule that RosenMcStern mentions, I'll be ignoring that and using the "split attacks over 100%" rule instead. I agree (with the exception of the Missile SR rules) that Strike Ranks indicate *when* you act, not *how often*. I may just use the rule from Missile SR that says, if you have over 100% attack (and can therefore split), the second attack happens 3 SR after the first. I'll see how it pans out - it's a nice twist, but it seriously compromises attack chances over 150% (you're gonna have trouble sandwiching that 3rd attack in the SR list) - it might just make sense to have everything occur on the same SR. After all, SRs (and by extention DEX ranks too) don't represent second-by-second countdowns, only the relative ability to act in a combat round. Cheers, Sarah Quote "The Worm Within" - the first novel for The Chronicles of Future Earth, coming 2013 from Chaosium, Inc. Website: http://sarahnewtonwriter.com | Twitter: @SarahJNewton | Facebook: TheChroniclesOfFutureEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleriad Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 The basic theory of SRs say that they dictate when you attack, not how often. You know that is a very good point and very well put and gets to the heart of why SRs cause so much confusion. RQ3 muddied the waters horribly. Basically, SRs measure who goes when, not "how long" an action takes. Obviously there is a relationship between how long an action takes and when you go but it's not a one to one relationship. Nothing else to add here. sorry :innocent: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RosenMcStern Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Regarding the "attack twice if your SR is 5 or less" rule that RosenMcStern mentions, I'll be ignoring that and using the "split attacks over 100%" rule instead. I agree (with the exception of the Missile SR rules) that Strike Ranks indicate *when* you act, not *how often*. I may just use the rule from Missile SR that says, if you have over 100% attack (and can therefore split), the second attack happens 3 SR after the first. I'll see how it pans out - it's a nice twist, but it seriously compromises attack chances over 150% (you're gonna have trouble sandwiching that 3rd attack in the SR list) - it might just make sense to have everything occur on the same SR. After all, SRs (and by extention DEX ranks too) don't represent second-by-second countdowns, only the relative ability to act in a combat round. A fighter could have trouble making three attacks even if you use DEX ranks: the DEX rank for the second will be at 5 DEX ranks lower, the third at 5 DEX after that, etc. If an attack is at DEX rank 0 or below, no further attack can be made. So a character with 150% skill and DEX 10 cannot make three attacks. However, having DEX 11+ is far more common than having SR 4 or less. The point here is that when you use SRs to determine what you can do then SIZ gets in the way. A halfling with a dagger strikes last regardless of DEX, but he can do as many actions as other characters. The best solution IMO is to use DEX ranks and weapon length, and adjust weapon length if one of the combatants is significantly bigger than the other (big troll with fist and duck with long spear should go in DEX order, no closing whatsoever). Quote Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merak Gren Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The rules as written are not very clear. From my experiences in Iaido and Kendo, distance and footwork are very important. Tae sabaki (sp?) - body movement can determine whether the next attack can hit or miss you by a fraction of an inch. One of my favourite tricks, is to lull my opponent to strike and quickly step in with a tsuki to the face as they raise their weapon. By the way, I am only a beginner and so where most of my sparring partners. When matched against a competent fighter, you realise how little skill you have. Judging the right distance and when to move is a combination of training, experience, awareness, skill and luck in different proportions. Dodging does not exist in my experience. However, it is the most appropriate skill to use for this. Therefore in a typical contest, the more experienced and fluid combatant will be able to control the distances than the less skilled or club footed combatant. However applying this to any rpg is difficult because the attributes used in game are not realistic enough. My house rule to manage the situation with common sense is simple. 1. Statement of intent to say a closing attempt will be made. 2. Use opposed Dodge rolls to resolve the closing attempt at the DEX rank of the combatant attempting to close. Quote Likes to sneak around 115/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunGuyFromYuggoth Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 My house rule to manage the situation with common sense is simple. 1. Statement of intent to say a closing attempt will be made. 2. Use opposed Dodge rolls to resolve the closing attempt at the DEX rank of the combatant attempting to close. I like what you wrote about your house rule. I've been using a similar rule for years. Overall, I am fairly happy with the rules as written and every GM should feel free to use common sense in addressing the grey areas. The GM should feel free to tell a player that a Dodge, Block, Shield, or Attack is appropriate at that moment once their turn comes up (SR or not) and to alert them ahead of time with a brief tactical assessment of the opposition. The player can't see their face, read their fighting style, feel the ground under their feet, or see the tall grass moving in the wind. That's the GM's job to bring all of those elements to life. Therefore in a typical contest, the more experienced and fluid combatant will be able to control the distances than the less skilled or club footed combatant. In an academy/dojo setting, conditions are fairly controlled and the style/rules of the game fairly well agreed upon ahead of time. I have studied and trained in kali (knife, baton, sword, and staff principally) for over ten years, so I look at combat in a similar way to you. While I don't fully disagree with the statement you provided, I would wish to add that situations change dramatically when you factor in ferocity and surprise by an apparently less skilled opponent when the mask of decorum is lifted. Some can batter and wear down a more skilled and nimble opponent in short order in single combat just by doing unorthodox things. I have trained and trained with people coming from a variety of other martial arts backgrounds in edged and other melee weapons and have seen "double kills" happen frequently. So that even if the superior combatant scores a kill, he or she is also often dealt a mortal blow at about the same time. Who won, she did. Who died? Probably both of them. It must be remembered that the most effective fighters in history were not the individual heroes or their teachers, but the generals and the armies who worked as a unit with better technology to overcome the opposition, even though their individual soldiers perhaps were not the best in single combat. Quote Roll D100 and let the percentiles sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alairduk Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 My current game has one character with a halberd who insists on taking it on a dungeon bash, so... A Halberd, inside a dungeon? Hope for his sake the dungeon has tall roofs, wide passages and open corners or he's going to get it stuck a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason D Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 A Halberd, inside a dungeon? Hope for his sake the dungeon has tall roofs, wide passages and open corners or he's going to get it stuck a lot. One product I worked on long long ago with a friend was a system-nonspecific resource book dealing with exactly what exploring and maneuvering in underground areas was like. We'd done a lot of cave crawling in the Pacific Northwest in caverns ranging from those you could almost take a wheelchair through, to those where you were shimmying on your stomach over rocks through passages where if you weighed more than 230 or so, you'd be unable to make it. Both of us had also been in several European cities and visited real catacombs (as well as taking a few unsanctioned explorations of Seattle's weird underground city). We wanted to create something that would really spell out how difficult and chaotic doing battle in an underground environment could be, and what sort of conditions were going to be encountered there. The notion would be it would address modifiers for a variety of systems on the market (not named) and present some sample "realistic" caverns, dungeons, catacombs, and other underground situations for game use. Oh well... maybe someday I'll dust it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simlasa Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 One product I worked on long long ago with a friend was a system-nonspecific resource book dealing with exactly what exploring and maneuvering in underground areas was like. That sounds pretty cool... I seem to remember some old AD&D book that set out to do something similar... but it was pretty disappointing (IIRC). The bit of cave exploration I've done suggested that fighting in such an environment might be pretty darn clumsy... uneven floors and horrible lighting (I once fell off a cliff despite having a great big lantern). Taking something like a halberd into such an environment just seems really dumb... and deserving of all sorts of disadvantageous modifiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunGuyFromYuggoth Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Oh well... maybe someday I'll dust it off. Is there enough you can put into a short article before putting the whole shebang together or did you want to finish the book first? There would be interest of course. Perhaps more from the WotC gamers, but I see applications in games like Call of Cthulhu too. Quote Roll D100 and let the percentiles sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trifletraxor Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have studied and trained in kali (knife, baton, sword, and staff principally) for over ten years, so I look at combat in a similar way to you. What style? A Halberd, inside a dungeon? Hope for his sake the dungeon has tall roofs, wide passages and open corners or he's going to get it stuck a lot. He can stab with it! :cool: SGL. Quote Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub! 116/420. High Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehobbit Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 A Halberd, inside a dungeon? Hope for his sake the dungeon has tall roofs, wide passages and open corners or he's going to get it stuck a lot. Are halberds really that big? I always thought they were about 5-6 feet long. Kinda like a staff. (isn't a 10' pole standard dungeon delving equipment?) Also, are there rules for half-swording? On dungeons, it always bothered me that they always had nice tall ceilings. Think how nasty goblins or kobolds would be if they're homes only had a 4 foot tall ceiling. Fighting while crawling ... ouch. Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rurik Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have heard from someone who has used a halberd that they are actually very good for fighting in close quarters. They are not primarily used as very long axes swung about in huge arcs as many people seem to think. They were commonly used in tight formations, and are excellent for fighting against shield walls (a tight formation). They can be used as a thrusting weapon, so even a low ceiling shouldn't be a problem. Weapons whose primary attack involves swinging the weapon (axe, mace, flail) would be harder to use than a halberd in a narrow corridor I would think. Quote Help kill a Trollkin here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rurik Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 On dungeons, it always bothered me that they always had nice tall ceilings. Think how nasty goblins or kobolds would be if they're homes only had a 4 foot tall ceiling. Fighting while crawling ... ouch. PLAYERS: This sucks! GM: Well you said you guys said you wanted me to run a dungeon crawl! >:-> Quote Help kill a Trollkin here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaira Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have heard from someone who has used a halberd that they are actually very good for fighting in close quarters. They are not primarily used as very long axes swung about in huge arcs as many people seem to think. They were commonly used in tight formations, and are excellent for fighting against shield walls (a tight formation). They can be used as a thrusting weapon, so even a low ceiling shouldn't be a problem. Weapons whose primary attack involves swinging the weapon (axe, mace, flail) would be harder to use than a halberd in a narrow corridor I would think. I've never seen anyone using a halberd, but I've seen a lot of naginata practice during my time in Japan, and a lot of that involves using it as a "sword on a stick", ie not waving it around like a long-hafted axe. That sort of style would work in a confined space as long as you maintained distance - if the opponent closed with you, you'd pretty much be toast unless you could retreat and break off. I'm using that setup as a guide to dealing with the halberd-wielder in my game. The halberd-wielder is a legionnaire who's using it as her regimental weapon - it's what she generally carries around with her and is trained with. Carrying it into a confined space underground was not something planned - the party came across the tunnel whilst doing something completely different and outdoorsy and she ended up having to drag the weapon along as it's her best combat skill. Though, from the trouble she's been getting, I'm expecting her to try and get some training in a shorter melee weapon soon! Cheers, Sarah Quote "The Worm Within" - the first novel for The Chronicles of Future Earth, coming 2013 from Chaosium, Inc. Website: http://sarahnewtonwriter.com | Twitter: @SarahJNewton | Facebook: TheChroniclesOfFutureEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunGuyFromYuggoth Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 The halberd-wielder is a legionnaire who's using it as her regimental weapon - it's what she generally carries around with her and is trained with. Carrying it into a confined space underground was not something planned - the party came across the tunnel whilst doing something completely different and outdoorsy and she ended up having to drag the weapon along as it's her best combat skill. This gets to me thinking that weapons that were designed to be used in the open with tight formations (others) under the control of a good sergeant (see "300") would probably enjoy a boost to their attack/defense with those weapons until fatigue set in or they took an appreciable number of losses. Yes, this is drifting into small unit rules, I know. :ohwell: Quote Roll D100 and let the percentiles sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehobbit Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I've never seen anyone using a halberd, but I've seen a lot of naginata practice during my time in Japan, and a lot of that involves using it as a "sword on a stick", ie not waving it around like a long-hafted axe. At the Royal Armories in Leeds, they had a really good video showing a dual between two knights using halberds. It gave a feel for how these weapons were used. Unfortunately, I can't find that video online. Here's a historical text concerning pole axes which give a similar feel for the size and use of these weapons. The pictures aren't of good quality but will work. Notes on Le Jeu de la Hache Talk About Historical Art The difference between a poleaxe and a halberd was mainly the length of the spikey bit on the tip as the halberd was used as a replacement for the pike to defend against cavalry or in "pike & musket" formations where the pikes were used to protect the otherwise vulnerable musketeers. Since "halberd" has been used by gamers for years to represent any large polearm, I'm not sure which weapon you're using in your game. Notice the length of the halberd compared to the similar poleaxe pictures above. Image:Halberdier-corps.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'm not sure how to model many of the figthing techniques that involved rapid closing followed by weapon binds or grappling. Close combat was a nasty and dangerous affair. I remember one story (that I can't quote). Two sides of knights were lined up for battle when the French knights sheathed their swords and drew their daggers. Whereupon the other side immediately surrendered! This is because their armor made them relatively immune to swords but daggers where used to jab through the eye and kill. Faced with the prospect of a fight to the death (instead of the usual ransom), they chose to surrender. Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehobbit Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 This gets to me thinking that weapons that were designed to be used in the open with tight formations (others) under the control of a good sergeant (see "300") would probably enjoy a boost to their attack/defense with those weapons until fatigue set in or they took an appreciable number of losses. I too would love to see a set of rules where it would make sense for Roman's to use short sword instead of the longer swords of their german opponents (of course they eventually did switch to longer swords but that's another issue). The only thing I could think of would be to make the stabbing damage of a gladius be equal to the stabbing damage of a longer sword (which, in a way, makes sense). That way they aren't punished as they are with most RPG rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunGuyFromYuggoth Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 At the Royal Armories in Leeds, they had a really good video showing a dual between two knights using halberds. It gave a feel for how these weapons were used. Unfortunately, I can't find that video online. Thanks for the tip! I think it's in this dogpile of videos they collected here, but there are alot of them. Can you tell us which one it is? Quote Roll D100 and let the percentiles sort them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehobbit Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Thanks for the tip! I think it's in this dogpile of videos they collected here, but there are alot of them. Can you tell us which one it is? I think it was part of the jousting video because I remember watching it in the jousting room. But those online are just clips. The ones in the museum were pretty long and had voice-overs and stuff. There was another cool on in the Japanese section that went step-by-step in making a Katana. Plus there was one that showed all the different types of crossbows. I learned alot from that vacation. At the time my main interest was acient greece and rome so I didn't pay quite as much attention in the medievil rooms as I should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloster Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I too would love to see a set of rules where it would make sense for Roman's to use short sword instead of the longer swords of their german opponents (of course they eventually did switch to longer swords but that's another issue). The only thing I could think of would be to make the stabbing damage of a gladius be equal to the stabbing damage of a longer sword (which, in a way, makes sense). That way they aren't punished as they are with most RPG rules. I still don't have the new BRP (not available at my flgs), but with RQ3, the advantage of the gladius comes when you close distance. With RQ, the owner of the shortest weapon has a disadvantage (strikes last), but as soon as he can go to close combat, he has a big advantage as he still has 2 weapon actions whereas his opponent with the longer weapon has only 1 left. The long weapon guy can thus only parry, dodge or attack. This was the way the (post-Marius) roman legionaries were fighting: going close combat, protected by their scutum, giving fast stabbing strike with the gladius, as the back ranks were throwing plumbata on the enemies and pressing the line. An enemy with long weapons has trouble handling them when a rank of large shiled is pushing. Runequestement votre, Kloster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloster Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Are halberds really that big? I always thought they were about 5-6 feet long. Kinda like a staff. (isn't a 10' pole standard dungeon delving equipment?) Also, are there rules for half-swording? On dungeons, it always bothered me that they always had nice tall ceilings. Think how nasty goblins or kobolds would be if they're homes only had a 4 foot tall ceiling. Fighting while crawling ... ouch. Aaron The one I have seen have a 10 to 12 feet haft (3.0 to 3.5 meters for us non imperial). Runequestement votre, Kloster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merak Gren Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 The main deterrant for someone attempting to close in with an opponent wielding a long weapon, is of course, being hit! The game that remains nameless includes this fear, in its 'Attacks of Opportunity' rule although they never got it working properly. However, from experience (as poor as that is) the only ways I could close against an opponent, are on the back of a parry deflecting his weapon, locking weapons together or moving in whilst he initiates a swing and attempt stop his attack by attacking him first or getting in the way of his arm movements. This is were two weapon combat really gives an advantage. As fun guy pointed out, a draw is no good, This would only work momentrarily as each combatant would then seek to return to a safe distance, or you'd end up grappling. On the other hand, if the long weapon user's movement is restricted in some way, like in a defensive wall, entrenched etc, then, pity him. In game terms, inorder to close an opposed dodge roll to simulate footwork. If long weapon user wins he maintains distance, either by moving himself, or forcing shorty back. If shorty wins, he's closed and can enjoy the benefits. Next round long will want to initiate movement. The opposed dodge roll will replace the defense of the combatant initiating the closing. If unsuccessful, Long will have the advantage. There is always a risk to trying to get too close. Quote Likes to sneak around 115/420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.