Ares Games
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 64

Thread: A closer look at the Dive cards

  1. #1

    Default

    Attachment 147804
    Austria-Hungry started to look for an indigenous built fighter in 1916 since Germany was reluctant to give up its best front line fighters. Austria-Hungry started out with the Phonix built Hansa-Brandenburg D.I(Ph). The Brandenburg was quite tricky to fly and it took the pilots full attention just to keep the aircraft under control. It had a tendency to spin and, like the Sopwith Camel, was almost impossible to recover the spin. The performance of the Brandenburg was discouraging. The improvements that Flars ordered were not totally successful and the remaining fighters were assigned to training units

    Phonix used their experience building the Brandedburg to build the Phonix D.I. The Phonix D.I was a great improvement over the Brandenburg, in fact a German Idflieg report stated “it possesses totally amazing qualities, especially the quickness of maneuver and stability when throttled down. The pilot can stall the aircraft virtually on the spot and drop several hundred meters without losing control.”

    This Aircraft was very stable and many two seater pilots made the transition into the D.I without incidence. After flying the Hansa-Brandenburg D.I pilots favored the Phonix D.I. However not all was of good report. Flik 60/J reported that the Phonix D.I was not favored, as it was said to be slower than the SPAD and could not maneuver with the Nieuport or the Sopwith fighters.

    120 Phonix D.Is were produced between September 1917 and March 1918 of these, 72 were still operational on 1August 1918. It was a very well rounded aircraft with no hidden vices and these numbers speak well of its qualities
    Attached Images  

  2. #2

    Default A closer look at the Dive cards

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    The pilot can stall the aircraft virtually on the spot and drop several hundred meters without losing control.”
    Would be cool if the gave this plane a dive card that used the short (climb) arrow. This could be either in addition to or in place of one of the normal long arrow dive cards.

  3. #3

    Default

    I would like to see it in addition to the normal dive card. An extra card would not be too hard to produce by simply changing the climb marker in the bottom right hand corner of the climb card to a dive marker, as you suggested, Keith. Is it to late to pass this idea on to Ares?

  4. #4

    Default

    Would other planes deserve such a card?

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Would other planes deserve such a card?
    Off the top of my head: Pfalz D.III, Spad VII and XIII and SE5a.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Would other planes deserve such a card?
    I'm not really sure Andrea. This is the only time I've heard of a plane being described as stalling on the spot and losing lots of altitude with out losing control. In game terms, it sounds if that pilot is saying the D.I could lose a lot of altitude with minimal horizontal movement. Little changes like this to a deck really help to make the planes fly different. The D.VII's hang on the prop stall is similar, but very different as it does not have a change in altitudes. Whenever I talk to people abut the D.VII's deck, that non-steep stall is always brought up (more so then the 45 degree stalls).


    Quote Originally Posted by john snelling View Post
    Off the top of my head: Pfalz D.III, Spad VII and XIII and SE5a.
    Those planes are all noted for their ability to dive rather fast/steep with out structural damage. To me that means they can "out run" their enemies during a dive... so a longer than normal dive card would be more appropriate for them in game terms I think. That would allow them to either gain on, or pull away from opponents during a dive.

    I've always thought the climb and dive cards could have been used more effectively to distinguish planes in this game. Slight changes in the climb card length could have give different climb aspects to two planes with the same climb rating. Same with diving. Poor diving planes could have had a shorter dive card... making it harder for the to escape a battle by diving.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    I've always thought the climb and dive cards could have been used more effectively to distinguish planes in this game. Slight changes in the climb card length could have give different climb aspects to two planes with the same climb rating. Same with diving. Poor diving planes could have had a shorter dive card... making it harder for the to escape a battle by diving.
    This is a great point. Diving/climbing ability is huge huge huge when reading combat accounts. The pilots of the time knew all about this and planned their combats accordingly. Gaining speed, losing speed, altitude - all core tactical combat variabilities - you can never have to much variety and specificity in these elements in game terms and aircraft abilities.

  8. #8

    Default

    Thanks a lot for all the info! I am really thinking about the dive matter. I do not know if we are in time. Let's see. But anybody else who has anything else to say about it, please say it now. We already have steep dives and vertical dives in WW2 (even if very simplified), we could do something here oo if we keep previous released stuff 100% compatible (as acting just on the Phoenix).

    Balloons are already described in the Rules Pack, with all their rules. We only need models... Ares knows that we need them and should behave accordingly. Soon, I hope.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 10-14-2014 at 18:43.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Thanks a lot for all the info! I am really thinking about the dive matter. I do not know if we are in time.
    Means a new deck of course, and worse, new game mechanics. But I'm in favour of a stall where you lose a climb counter (using rules as written) or a single peg (rather than two as with normal dives) using the simplified rules (climb - up 1 peg, dive - down 2 pegs). Anything to add character.

    If we had such a game mechanic, there'd be the temptation to have one existing 90 degree turn and steep sideslip in each deck also lose a climb counter. But that means altering existing decks.. maybe via a boardgame geek release. In other words, madness, "advanced WGF".

    A reasonable compromise would be to have a stall which drops a full peg (in the rules as written). But then we have a situation where a Phoenix could do a stalldive, straight, normaldive and lose 2 altitude. Effectively the same as an overdive (stall, dive(lose 1), straight(lose1)). Still, a Phoenix could out-dive a Berg, so maybe that's OK.

    No need for new mechanics. No change for existing decks. One new card - an additional short-move (stall) dive for the Phoenix deck. That's my final recommendation .
    Last edited by Zoe Brain; 10-14-2014 at 20:56.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    No need for new mechanics. No change for existing decks. One new card - an additional short-move (stall) dive for the Phoenix deck. That's my final recommendation .
    My suggestion and recommendation as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post

    A reasonable compromise would be to have a stall which drops a full peg (in the rules as written). But then we have a situation where a Phoenix could do a stalldive, straight, normaldive and lose 2 altitude. Effectively the same as an overdive (stall, dive(lose 1), straight(lose1)). Still, a Phoenix could out-dive a Berg, so maybe that's OK.
    There is still the rule where you can not perform two dives in the same turn (right? I don't have the rule book with me)... so the Phoenix would still need to do and overdive to lose 2 altitude levels in a single turn.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Thanks a lot for all the info! I am really thinking about the dive matter. I do not know if we are in time. Let's see. But anybody else who has anything else to say about it, please say it now. We already have steep dives and vertical dives in WW2 (even if very simplified), we could do something here oo if we keep previous released stuff 100% compatible (as acting just on the Phoenix).
    I could be of assistance here -- I have a set of simple climb|dive rules which requires nothing more than an editing of the climb|dive values list.

  12. #12

    Default

    If you want, contact me via private message. Thanks!

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Thanks a lot for all the info! I am really thinking about the dive matter. I do not know if we are in time. Let's see. But anybody else who has anything else to say about it, please say it now. We already have steep dives and vertical dives in WW2 (even if very simplified), we could do something here oo if we keep previous released stuff 100% compatible (as acting just on the Phoenix).

    Balloons are already described in the Rules Pack, with all their rules. We only need models... Ares knows that we need them and should behave accordingly. Soon, I hope.


    couldnt you accomplish the same thing with a special token and not have to resort to adding a special card?

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milcoll73 View Post
    couldnt you accomplish the same thing with a special token and not have to resort to adding a special card?
    For the Stuka, I used a special tokenm but mainly because... you did not move at all, no need for a maneuvre card. Steep dives for dive bombes were cards anway (dives, as sgort as stalls/climbs).

    My idea, as a rule of thumb, is that a very special maneuvre for a single plane, as curved/unlimited stalls of the D.VII, are better depicted as special maneuvres in their deck. Something that can be used by a whider range of planes can be depiucted with special tokens, and the new rules to handle them.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    For the Stuka, I used a special tokenm but mainly because... you did not move at all, no need for a maneuvre card. Steep dives for dive bombes were cards anway (dives, as sgort as stalls/climbs).

    My idea, as a rule of thumb, is that a very special maneuvre for a single plane, as curved/unlimited stalls of the D.VII, are better depicted as special maneuvres in their deck. Something that can be used by a whider range of planes can be depiucted with special tokens, and the new rules to handle them.

    and a special card in the deck does give it a unique feel.

  16. #16

    Default

    I haven't yet played with a WW2 dive bomber so I don't know the card. If the dive travels the same distance as a climb then we can use a climb card as the dive, nothing new needed as long as you can't climb and dive in the same turn.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    I haven't yet played with a WW2 dive bomber so I don't know the card. If the dive travels the same distance as a climb then we can use a climb card as the dive, nothing new needed as long as you can't climb and dive in the same turn.
    Yes, but then a player could change the card on the table from special dive that he planned, to a normal climb that works out better for him after seen all the other cards. It has to be a specially marked card to prevent this.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    Yes, but then a player could change the card on the table from special dive that he planned, to a normal climb that works out better for him after seen all the other cards. It has to be a specially marked card to prevent this.
    Ah, I don't think that way. How low if a player would stoop to, dare I say, cheating? Ok, a special card is necessary.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Would other planes deserve such a card?
    SPAD?

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    I've always thought the climb and dive cards could have been used more effectively to distinguish planes in this game. Slight changes in the climb card length could have give different climb aspects to two planes with the same climb rating. Same with diving. Poor diving planes could have had a shorter dive card... making it harder for the to escape a battle by diving.

    I always thought the same as, in my opinion, this would be a huge enhancement to the game.

    Mau

  21. #21

    Default

    The dive card does come in different lengths via the difference in maneuver decks. A SPAD XIII moves much farther than a Fokker Dr1 in a dive.

  22. #22

    Default

    I am not at home right now (so I canno't check it) but I always seen climb and dive cards exactly the same in all decks ...

  23. #23

    Default

    Peter is right. Although the climb cards vary only slightly, the dive cards are quite apparent when you compare them.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  24. #24

    Default

    Sometimes I wonder which game I am playing ... oh uhmmm wait ... isn't this Monopoly????
    Sorry guys, I am on the wrong forum!

  25. #25

    Default

    There may be some variance in dive and climb cards, but it is not strong enough to really effect gameplay the way it did historically. I wonder if this decision was made to make the maneuver decks more flexible to fit to more aircraft? Fewer decks = more profit$? Also, a modifier for consecutive climbs/dives would be huge - is there anything that shows this?

  26. #26

    Default

    Seriously, how did I never notice that the dive cards within a certain speed band were of different lengths Looking at the Camel and the Albatros D.Va, which are from the same speed band, the D.Va has a much shorter dive card! So this does take into account that the poor diving abilities of the D.Va. This makes me happy! lol

    As for the climb cards, they are the same length across all decks. Any variance are do to print and cut alignment.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    Seriously, how did I never notice that the dive cards within a certain speed band were of different lengths
    Umm... I'll take this one step further: Dive cards within diferent printings of the same maneuver deck are different.

    Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to assume that all dive cards are intended to be the same length as straights, and any differences are due to the planes being different speeds or printing errors.

  28. #28

    Default

    Yes sorry, Pseudotheist you are right - the B deck had problems in a WoW booster pack.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    Albatros D.Va
    That's exciting (must resist getting more geeky...nope ) not that I've studied the cards that hard, but that definitely makes up for wing failure. Cool!

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudotheist View Post
    Umm... I'll take this one step further: Dive cards within diferent printings of the same maneuver deck are different.
    Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to assume that all dive cards are intended to be the same length as straights, and any differences are due to the planes being different speeds or printing errors.
    You are definitely correct, dives should be the same as straight in the same deck.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudotheist View Post
    Umm... I'll take this one step further: Dive cards within diferent printings of the same maneuver deck are different.

    Until I hear otherwise, I will continue to assume that all dive cards are intended to be the same length as straights, and any differences are due to the planes being different speeds or printing errors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Yes sorry, Pseudotheist you are right - the B deck had problems in a WoW booster pack.
    Ahh, okay. So all these years I've not been blind and the dive card have been the same length... with the exception of the B deck from the ill fated booster Which, is apparently, the one I pulled out to double check this stuff yesterday. Out of the 15-20 B decks I have in my bag, I pulled the one with the error. lol

    But that error is actually what I would have loved to see from the very beginning. Different length arrows to account for different diving abilities between planes of the same speed band.

  32. #32

    Default

    So wait, should the B deck have the longer or shorter dive arrow then? I don't have my decks with me to compare and I can make out the annotation in Todd's photo enough to be sure where the card on the left came from.

  33. #33

    Default

    mmmm ... guys, I keep on thinking that a dive is a dive not a straight and levelled flight.

    Thus the dive card should be unlinked from the lenght of the straight card and, otherwise, "linked" to the technical distinctiveness and structure of the several aircraft.

    *That* would be a huge improvement in my most humble opinion.

    Mau

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    But that error is actually what I would have loved to see from the very beginning. Different length arrows to account for different diving abilities between planes of the same speed band.
    Ditto

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    mmmm ... guys, I keep on thinking that a dive is a dive not a straight and levelled flight.

    Thus the dive card should be unlinked from the lenght of the straight card and, otherwise, "linked" to the technical distinctiveness and structure of the several aircraft.

    *That* would be a huge improvement in my most humble opinion.

    Mau
    Yep, we are on the same page. The Dive card should only be based on the Straight card. I might even go so far as to say that the Dive card should be longer then the Straight card. In a dive, you gain more speed then you can going straight. More speed over the same time frame (each maneuver card) means a greater distance traveled. Climbs could be worked this way to a lesser degree as well.

  36. #36

    Default

    Thread Hijacked! We need a new one to discuss the Dive-Card-Length!

    back to the off-topic-discussion:
    I agree with Oberst Hajj, Mau Fox and the other guys that expressed that a Dive should not have the same length of a Straight...
    At least not on every plane.
    With current altitude rules, different planes climb at different rates, but they don't dive at different rates!
    Clib-markers represent the time a plane takes to reach a next (upper) level and that gives a good idea of different climb rates... but that concept (again, in current rules) is not applied to Dive: when diving, all planes basically lost an altitude level at the same vertical speed (since all loose it at the same time: you dive, loose an altitude level and all your counters), different diving speeds are then represented only by the horizontal speed given by the Dive-Card -- which is the same of a Straight-Card for each given plane.

    Now think about the Pfalz D.III: as far as I know it was a good diver and had better diving speed than the Albatross D.III and D.V. But in the game the Pfalz D.III dives slower than the Albatross models: since it's a slow airplane, it just dives as far as its (short) straight card allows it.
    Same thing with SPAD models: a SPAD S.XIII (arguably the best diver in WWI) dives fast in the game... but only because it is already a fast plane in the game. It should dive faster than the SE5 though, but both have the same diving 'speed'

    The "house-rule" solution I've come up with is giving good divers a longer diving card (but of course I have to home-made one), and allowing some planes (SPAD, Pfalz D.III) to treat the Dive-Maneuver as a non-<steep> one: so they can pull a dive after the other: so if a SPAD or a Pfalz had played a DIVE as a 3rd maneuver in the previous turn, they can play another DIVE as the 1st maneuver of the next turn.

    But it would be nice if the Official Rules take a step forward and fixes this problem coming up with a real solution

  37. #37

    Default

    Having somewhat generic maneuver decks for all planes in the deck is what we have to play with. Individual decks for each plane would be great but who knows all the idiosyncrasies of each plane and how to implement them in card form?

    In some PBEM games I have played in there is a house rule for Zoom dives where you can ad a card to the straight after the dive. If certain planes are known to be better at diving this can be toyed with. Something to think about.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    Thread Hijacked! We need a new one to discuss the Dive-Card-Length! )
    You are correct sir and I have acted accordingly

  39. #39

    Default

    In the distant past I toyed with swapping out the Dive cards from various decks so that each plane had a dive card that more closely reflected it's diving characteristics. The SPAD XIII kept it's normal Dive card since there is not a faster option out there. The SE 5a would get a dive card from the next slower speed band (to distinguish it from the better diving SPAD). The Albatros D.III / D.Va would get a Dive card from a deck either 1 or 2 speed bands slower (I never decided which was best). There are still some limitation with this kind of system since there are only 4 different speed bands. Another drawback was that your maneuver decks were all mixed up  On the other hand, it does allow us to add some more “resolution” into the different maneuver decks without any changes to the rules as written and adheres to the KISS principle.

  40. #40

    Default

    Actually it would be better to get rid of the dive cards. The cards represent distance moved over the ground. In the case of a dive distance over ground depends on the angle of the dive. A more accurate depiction would to have dive markers the same as we have climb markers. Diving would be allowed on any card and could be repeatable. Thus each aircraft could have a different dive speed just as they have different climb rates. I could see a house rule that requires a loss of altitude for each Steep card played and you could play one steep card after another if you are willing to lose the altitude.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    In the distant past I toyed with swapping out the Dive cards from various decks so that each plane had a dive card that more closely reflected it's diving characteristics. The SPAD XIII kept it's normal Dive card since there is not a faster option out there. The SE 5a would get a dive card from the next slower speed band (to distinguish it from the better diving SPAD). The Albatros D.III / D.Va would get a Dive card from a deck either 1 or 2 speed bands slower (I never decided which was best). There are still some limitation with this kind of system since there are only 4 different speed bands. Another drawback was that your maneuver decks were all mixed up  On the other hand, it does allow us to add some more “resolution” into the different maneuver decks without any changes to the rules as written and adheres to the KISS principle.
    Here is a way to give the SPAD XIII a longer dive without mixing up Manevuer Decks:

    Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 004.jpg
Views: 407
Size:  63.1 KB Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 011.jpg
Views: 399
Size:  64.4 KB

    do you want it longer? add a STALL card to the DIVE card

    Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 022.jpg
Views: 445
Size:  72.5 KB

    later option is what I use to beef up the Pfalz D.III

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    There are still some limitation with this kind of system since there are only 4 different speed bands.
    Yes Herr Oberst, but that would be a perfect springboard to start working on this subject ...

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phililphall View Post
    Actually it would be better to get rid of the dive cards. The cards represent distance moved over the ground. In the case of a dive distance over ground depends on the angle of the dive. A more accurate depiction would to have dive markers the same as we have climb markers. Diving would be allowed on any card and could be repeatable. Thus each aircraft could have a different dive speed just as they have different climb rates. I could see a house rule that requires a loss of altitude for each Steep card played and you could play one steep card after another if you are willing to lose the altitude.
    I'm more inclined to find a solution using the current rules and sticking with the KISS method. I'm not a fan at all of the climb counters, so I personally would not be adding more such devises to handle dives. But in reality, you are correct that the angle of the dive would determine the ground distance covered. But in game terms, the climb and dive maneuvers are to move the planes into or out of firing/bombing solutions. Simply increasing or decreasing the horizontal distance accomplishes the same thing with how the shootin system works. And it does it with out need of additional rules, tokens or charts.

    Steep maneuvers not only about altitude though. Sure doing multiple "steep" maneuvers in a row would bleed off altitude, but it would also bleed off airspeed (which is not account for in the game... a good think I think) to the point of them entering a stall/spin. So you'd need to add special rules for that as well. The steeps also account for the structural integrity of the planes as well. That is why some maneuvers are steeps for plane A, but not for plane B. I think it's a pretty good compromise for playability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    Here is a way to give the SPAD XIII a longer dive without mixing up Manevuer Decks:

    Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 004.jpg
Views: 407
Size:  63.1 KB Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 011.jpg
Views: 399
Size:  64.4 KB

    do you want it longer? add a STALL card to the DIVE card

    Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 022.jpg
Views: 445
Size:  72.5 KB

    later option is what I use to beef up the Pfalz D.III
    I've actually thought about both of those as well (they same great minds think alike). I did not think putting the SPAD at the front of the card was really enough separation form the other planes in that speed band (but some is better then none I guess), and adding the stall on to the end of it seem a little bulky to me.

    On another note, did your A deck dive card come with the base outline at the top like that? I've never seen one like it.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    Here is a way to give the SPAD XIII a longer dive without mixing up Manevuer Decks:

    Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 004.jpg
Views: 407
Size:  63.1 KB Name:  SPAD S.XIII DIVING 011.jpg
Views: 399
Size:  64.4 KB
    Gallo, I like this one as a band-aid solution.
    The top would be using one card only thus shortening dive cards of aircraft with lesser diving ability.

    We only just have to remember that climb markers represent time not spacing.
    Hence a longer dive card represent a lesser time needed to lose altitude and, possibly, be out of troubles.

    Mau

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    On another note, did your A deck dive card come with the base outline at the top like that? I've never seen one like it.
    nope, it didn't. I did draw it myself

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Gallo, I like this one as a band-aid solution.
    The top would be using one card only thus shortening dive cards of aircraft with lesser diving ability.

    We only just have to remember that climb markers represent time not spacing.
    Hence a longer dive card represent a lesser time needed to lose altitude and, possibly, be out of troubles.

    Mau
    Thanks Maurizio

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallo Rojo View Post
    nope, it didn't. I did draw it myself
    It came out very nice.

  48. #48

    Default

    To broaden this discussion, I would like to see a shallow dive card where the plane loses only one peg of altitude. That would increase the ground speed. It would probably be of more use with WW2 aircraft, in particular night-fighters with Schrage Musik mounts and bombers wanting to perform the 'Corkscrew'.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Yes sorry, Pseudotheist you are right - the B deck had problems in a WoW booster pack.
    Thanks! Can you just confirm that this problem is only for the B deck, and only for the Hit & Run booster pack? Pretty impressive that I managed to stumble on that out of all the decks in my collection...

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    To broaden this discussion, I would like to see a shallow dive card where the plane loses only one peg of altitude.
    If you have no climb markers, isn't this what the current dive does?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Turning while diving: various dive cards at Files Section's Maneuvers Decks
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-19-2014, 11:46
  2. Steep-Dive House Rule (different to Over-Dive)
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-18-2013, 13:04
  3. DH5s in a Dive
    By Mike W in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 16:15
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 13:13
  5. "Climb" and "dive" cards?
    By rosscoc87 in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 08:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •