December 07, 2019, 02:06:54 PM

Author Topic: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG  (Read 123432 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #120 on: October 09, 2010, 08:27:55 AM »
Hi,
playtesting and feedback around the globe on many forums showed that a 45* Emissary is not worthwhile taking in any incarnation.
There, said it ;)

Custodian has only 4 Manta Launch bays, not a single more. Dropping bays is something I heavily favour. The old list by the HA had the Custodian at 4 launch bays!!! and 8 missiles. I approve (check project distant darkness). 60cm not allowed is given.

The problem with 2 ion cannon is not the ion cannon but that Eldar in official rules are bad-broken ;)

I really do not understand your aversion towards 90* Protectors with fixed forward weapons. Emissary as well 90* fixed forward. Custodian as a grand cruiser.

aaah, just a lovely concept of an unique fleet.

I cannot imagine how your playtesting could approve of the current difference between the 2 Protectors.

Oops, we cross-posted. Hereís some fast-passes before I go to bed:

-   I will talk to Bob again about the Emissary, but this will need a lot more playtesting before it gets 90deg turns. However, that doesnít mean it canít be revisited, but I really hate how it goes against fluff for this model. That being said, if the model is just plain junk, we can look at it, but judgment will be made by playtest, not by slide-rule formulas.
Iíll be honest- I use four of them in squads of two, and Iíve been pretty happy with them, and I NEVER use them as Warden towtrucks. I HATE that rule, but EVERYONE wanted that one so I relented.

-   The Custodian will likely NOT be brought down to just 4 bays, but 6 sounds reasonable. Man, Rayís going to like that. Make sure you tell him you got me to see the light- he came to the USA just to kick my butt in person over the Custodian and didnít get me to bend over the launch bays. That and something about one of his blokes in a wedding or something like that, but mainly his visit was for BFG!!  (thatís the story Iím sticking too anyway!)   :D

-   Protectors will NOT be 90deg. I can waffle on the Emissary, but Protectors turning 90deg will make them insane! Have you playtested that?? As for revisiting their profiles, like I said, Iím fine with that.

-   The Custodian will be a battleship. The very idea of the Tau having a grand cruiser is anathema to the fleet design notes. Like Eldar, grand cruisers make for cool homebrew models but nothing that should ever be made official.
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #121 on: October 09, 2010, 08:35:49 AM »
Horizon, I forgot to mention that we CAN'T allow a ship design based on the opinion that another unrelated fleet is broken. I know you feel the 2IC Warden not working is an Eldar problem, but we're not trying to fix Eldar right now, we're trying to fix Tau.

Note that this thing also punished the Necrons. I know it's easy to say "Well, that's a Necron problem," but can you imagine what six of these locked on did to a battlebarge? Is that a Space Marine problem? You see how this logic quickly starts to turn on itself?

NOW I'm going to bed.   ;)

- Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #122 on: October 09, 2010, 08:39:08 AM »
You're weird, haha. What background books do you read? ;)

Chaos vs Tau? On a galactic scale Chaos is the enemy Tau will face the least. Tau have to worry about Orks, Tyranids and Imperial Navy foremost.

The Hero eats Imperial cruisers for breakfast. Tone down the Ion Cannons for a starter.

The Emissary 90* has been tested, just like the 45*. The first gets a chance to do something, the 45* just is victory points for the enemy.
Per your own background it should have 90*. ;)

The Emissary needs to tow Wardens because that is how FW sells them plus they have hooks modelled.

4 bays was Ray's idea iirc on the Custodian. Heh. Good to see you agreeing on the lowering of bays. Yay. I'll sent him a mail right away. :)

4 Emissaries in a squad: juicy target.

Protecor's 90 have been tested. Works. They can die, they can win. How it supposed to be. Still crap at boarding ;)

Grand Cruisers: there is always a first time : Eldar Battleship, Eldar light cruiser, escort with 2 shields (Dhow), etc.
Also, technically, modelwise, the Flame of Asuryan is a Grand Cruiser to the Eldar. As the model was first shown on the web it was classified as a Void Dragon nonetheless.

warnz
Necrons are punished by batteries as well, you just need to see the trick.

Offline KivArn

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #123 on: October 09, 2010, 09:56:12 AM »
Firstly, Stop posting while I sleep!!! :P It means i have loads to read through ;)

Horizon, I forgot to mention that we CAN'T allow a ship design based on the opinion that another unrelated fleet is broken. I know you feel the 2IC Warden not working is an Eldar problem, but we're not trying to fix Eldar right now, we're trying to fix Tau.

Note that this thing also punished the Necrons. I know it's easy to say "Well, that's a Necron problem," but can you imagine what six of these locked on did to a battlebarge? Is that a Space Marine problem? You see how this logic quickly starts to turn on itself?

NOW I'm going to bed.   ;)

- Nate
Yes it is a space marine problem ;) any way averages say it'll only do 5 points of hull damage (assuming it gets bumped up to 4 shields) and that's when it doesn't brace! It's not too bad... is it?... Maybe it is... Anyway :D

No Tau 60cm weapons - This was a given :D

Custodian Dropping LB for weapons - Yep, all in favour of this

Getting the Custodian to be more manoeuvrable is easy, let it take the 'come to new heading' order, or as horizon suggested grand cruiser.

With the protectors going to 90* turns, yes they would be powerful... however we'd also want the stats adjusted to compensate
Something more along the lines of the Le'shi'vre but with railguns fixed forward and a drop in LB and TT, That gives it a prow attack of a similar level to a lunars broadside... and would only be able to attack once (unlike the lunar who has 2 broadsides) I really can't see how that would be too powerful.

Sleep well Nate ;)


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #124 on: October 09, 2010, 10:05:40 AM »
Weeeeell, you can call the Custodian a battleship if you want, just give it a rule allowing it to turn after just 10cm. I mean, a xenos race could have a corvette sized vessel as their battleship with their cruisers and escorts being no bigger than attack craft of other races. What a race calls a battleship and what the rules call a battleship are different things.

The thing that gets me is the size of the ships. They're smaller than their IN/Chaos/whatever counterparts. Hell, they're smaller than their own precursor ships. So their BB is 10 hits, rather than 12, their CA is 6 hits instead of 8 and their CL is 4 instead of 6. Why is this so? Well the answer to that is ... Forgeworld have no idea of scale. They made the models too small. So we can't justify giving them the regular amount of hit points. Fine. However, while we know what the REAL reason is for why they're smaller, that doesn't mean that we can't give a design oriented reason for it.

In other words, why did the Tau take the successful design of the Hero and then make it less durable? If Forgeworld had have made the model larger it would have been 8 hits, but since they didn't, why did the Tau make it smaller? Well, a reduced mass should be easier to turn. Tau philosophy of war is to try to outmanoeuvre their opponents. They have skimmer technology and try to remain mobile rather than holding ground. Sure, they're not as fast as any of the Eldar races, but they're pretty much on a par in terms of agility.

Of course, this is all on the ground stuff. You could make the argument that they're not as advanced in space. Well, that was true, and hence we got the SG Tau fleet out of it. Now however, we have had some sort of revolution in Tau technology. This must be the case since they've gone to all the trouble of making an entirely new fleet rather than just modifying their old one. Where their old ships were bulky and blocky, much like the alien ships they were copying, this new fleet is so advanced that the Tau are even able to input their own aesthetic into the design. If they have advanced so far as to produce ships that are quintessentially Tau then it stands to reason that these ships should be able to fulfil the Tau war doctrine too. Why bother making an entirely new kind of ship if you're just making it look nice?

Of course, some argue that it's just the new warp dive technology at play. However, that's still no reason to make their ships smaller. They have to be getting something back for doing this. It had to be by design. If we were talking about another race then it would be a no-brainer to say that since they're lighter they have greater agility. For some reason just because it's Tau we don't make that same connection?

The SG fleet was not a "Tau" fleet. It was a "new guy" fleet. That was fine. I liked the SG fleet for that reason. However we should not stop the FW fleet from becoming a "Tau" fleet on the basis of some nostalgia for the "new guy" feel. It's not as if we're going to get a new Tau fleet of models released any time in the next 10 years for us to fully give them all the rules they need to become a proper Tau fleet.

So the argument for greater agility rests on 3 things:

1) Tau doctrine of war.
2) Basic premise of mass/agility trade-off
3) Tau imperative for making smaller ships

The Tau want to be more agile. Making lighter ships should make them more agile, assuming technological capability. They did make their ships lighter, they did stamp their aesthetic on their ship designs, they did make an entire new fleet. This suggests they did have the technological capability.

As for balance, well, the Dark Eldar are as agile or even more so and much faster, are you saying they're overpowered? Surely it would be best just to give them the 90į turn and balance their guns accordingly. With predominantly forward-only facing firepower this added agility is not as deadly as it would be for the broadside armed races.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #125 on: October 09, 2010, 01:57:17 PM »
Like, I agree with Sigoroth and Kivarn. That's a given. lol


Project Distant Darkness arises. :)


Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #126 on: October 09, 2010, 02:22:10 PM »
Nate

Let the players fiddle with the models as they see fit
Based on you comment I will use the forge world small demiurge model for the citadel and will bulk it out some for the bastion
Similarly I will debulk the kroot sphere for a 4-6 up "battle sphere" if you make the rules


Re: GW tau
The hero is good, the explored decent, and the merchant is poor
They average out ok

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #127 on: October 09, 2010, 02:25:34 PM »
Not so Fracas,
the Merchant can be left out. And I don't think the Explorer is decent.


Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #128 on: October 09, 2010, 03:15:35 PM »
Oh, and regarding the 2IC Warden and specific fleets, well, if the armour was dropped to 4+ then just about any fleet would be as dangerous to them as they are in return, even Necron and SM. As for being useless against Eldar, well they could be equipped with 10 WBs and still never get a shot off! Unless we're talking tournament terrain of course, in which case the Eldar player is scrooo ood anyway. Besides, a squadron of 6 Wardens would actually average 1.83 hits against a squadron of 6 non-braced Eldar escorts. Goes up to 2.25 if locked on! Peh!  :P

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #129 on: October 09, 2010, 08:05:18 PM »

"For every Nicassar Caravan in the fleet, there must be at least four detached Dhows in the fleet. The Dhows that make up the Caravan don?t count toward this total. You may not have more Dhows than the gravitic hook capacity of the fleet."

do you have to buy 4 dhows for every nicasaar rig?
or is it every rig allows you to purchase up to 4 dhows? or did you really mean a caravan with four attacked dhows may only be bought after you have 4 free dhows, which required a rig as well?

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #130 on: October 09, 2010, 08:24:57 PM »

"For every Nicassar Caravan in the fleet, there must be at least four detached Dhows in the fleet. The Dhows that make up the Caravan don?t count toward this total. You may not have more Dhows than the gravitic hook capacity of the fleet."

do you have to buy 4 dhows for every nicasaar rig?
or is it every rig allows you to purchase up to 4 dhows? or did you really mean a caravan with four attacked dhows may only be bought after you have 4 free dhows, which required a rig as well?

We can clarify this in the write-up, since it appears we're pulling the staples out of this document. The rule's intent is that if you buy a Caravan, your fleet has to ALSO include four detached Dhows, but they can be "attached" to any ship in the fleet that has gravitic hooks. Meaning if your fleet has a Caravan, two Merchants and an Explorer, the Explorer can tow whatever it wants, but the two Merchants are tied up supporting Dhows.

Basically, the Nicassar (and the Tau for that matter) will NEVER willingly let a Nicassar caravan fend for itself in a firefight. The difference between a rig and a caravan is that the rig is stationary because the Dhows have detached to fight, whereas the caravan is still hooked together and the Nicassar are trying like heck to get their families, homes, etc. away. The Caravan profile represents a rig and four Dhows that remain hooked together for the duration of the battle and for all intents and purposes are treated as a single vessel.


When defending a caravan, the detached Dhows do not have to come from a rig. They can come from ships capable of towing Dhows. In other words, an absolutely minimalist fleet containing a Nicassar Caravan can consist of a Caravan, four detached Dhows and two Tau Merchants, if desired. Of course, it is also legal if desired to have nothing but a Rig, four Dhows and a Caravan, I guess to represent the Nicassar all alone and making the decision to abandon one rig to at least ensure the other gets away, for example, but that would represent a pretty small battle!

This was a flavor and seasoning issue so if there is a great deal of hate involved with making the fleet take four extra Dhows, this can be changed. We would prefer that it NOT be zero ("prefer" doesn't mean "damn well gonna be,") but I think two would be fine. Thoughts?   :)

- Nate 

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #131 on: October 09, 2010, 08:38:58 PM »
Since Dhows are no longer being sold by GW I have totally no opinion on the subject. I'd rather see some modelling tips added on how to represent them in the game. :)

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #132 on: October 09, 2010, 08:49:54 PM »
i have 6 dhows
can i get more than one rig?

caravan: can be only taken for every 3 dhows (because an explorer can take up to 3)

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #133 on: October 10, 2010, 04:41:48 AM »
i have 6 dhows
can i get more than one rig?

caravan: can be only taken for every 3 dhows (because an explorer can take up to 3)

If you have 6 Dhows, then you want it to be "no more than 2" because you need four for the Caravan.

Horizon is right about the greater travesty that these models are gone. It's actually an unusually cool and different model as well: hollowed-out footballs with sails.  :-\ <sigh>

Scratchbuilt Dhows should be perfectly legal as long as they all look the same. I would say get them from another vendor, but you won't be able to use another brand of models at Games Day or at many tourneys, not that many companies are even left out there selling spaceship minis!  <sighs again>

- Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: Tau Kor'or'vesh Commerce Protection Fleet draft rules for BFG
« Reply #134 on: October 10, 2010, 05:27:28 AM »
Weeeeell, you can call the Custodian a battleship if you want, just give it a rule allowing it to turn after just 10cm. I mean, a xenos race could have a corvette sized vessel as their battleship with their cruisers and escorts being no bigger than attack craft of other races. What a race calls a battleship and what the rules call a battleship are different things.

The thing that gets me is the size of the ships. They're smaller than their IN/Chaos/whatever counterparts. Hell, they're smaller than their own precursor ships. So their BB is 10 hits, rather than 12, their CA is 6 hits instead of 8 and their CL is 4 instead of 6. Why is this so? Well the answer to that is ... Forgeworld have no idea of scale. They made the models too small. So we can't justify giving them the regular amount of hit points. Fine. However, while we know what the REAL reason is for why they're smaller, that doesn't mean that we can't give a design oriented reason for it.

In other words, why did the Tau take the successful design of the Hero and then make it less durable? If Forgeworld had have made the model larger it would have been 8 hits, but since they didn't, why did the Tau make it smaller? Well, a reduced mass should be easier to turn. Tau philosophy of war is to try to outmanoeuvre their opponents. They have skimmer technology and try to remain mobile rather than holding ground. Sure, they're not as fast as any of the Eldar races, but they're pretty much on a par in terms of agility.

Of course, this is all on the ground stuff. You could make the argument that they're not as advanced in space. Well, that was true, and hence we got the SG Tau fleet out of it. Now however, we have had some sort of revolution in Tau technology. This must be the case since they've gone to all the trouble of making an entirely new fleet rather than just modifying their old one. Where their old ships were bulky and blocky, much like the alien ships they were copying, this new fleet is so advanced that the Tau are even able to input their own aesthetic into the design. If they have advanced so far as to produce ships that are quintessentially Tau then it stands to reason that these ships should be able to fulfil the Tau war doctrine too. Why bother making an entirely new kind of ship if you're just making it look nice?

Of course, some argue that it's just the new warp dive technology at play. However, that's still no reason to make their ships smaller. They have to be getting something back for doing this. It had to be by design. If we were talking about another race then it would be a no-brainer to say that since they're lighter they have greater agility. For some reason just because it's Tau we don't make that same connection?

The SG fleet was not a "Tau" fleet. It was a "new guy" fleet. That was fine. I liked the SG fleet for that reason. However we should not stop the FW fleet from becoming a "Tau" fleet on the basis of some nostalgia for the "new guy" feel. It's not as if we're going to get a new Tau fleet of models released any time in the next 10 years for us to fully give them all the rules they need to become a proper Tau fleet.

So the argument for greater agility rests on 3 things:

1) Tau doctrine of war.
2) Basic premise of mass/agility trade-off
3) Tau imperative for making smaller ships

The Tau want to be more agile. Making lighter ships should make them more agile, assuming technological capability. They did make their ships lighter, they did stamp their aesthetic on their ship designs, they did make an entire new fleet. This suggests they did have the technological capability.

As for balance, well, the Dark Eldar are as agile or even more so and much faster, are you saying they're overpowered? Surely it would be best just to give them the 90į turn and balance their guns accordingly. With predominantly forward-only facing firepower this added agility is not as deadly as it would be for the broadside armed races.



Okay everyone, youíre all going to want to sit down for this one. You ready?

Are you sure?

Okay, here goes.

For the most part, I agree with Sigoroth.   :o  <gasp!>

Thatís right, there, I said it. The reason why this response took so long is because first I broke out all the fluff and materials, then spent several conversations on the phone with Bob, then we pushed some models around, then I spoke with Bob some more, then we traded e-mails, then I once again pushed some models around. Here are the very valid points Sigoroth brought forward, including some points that have come up earlier (mainly form Horizon) that didnít come up here:

1.   He is right- the new Forgeworld ships are physically a lot smaller than the GW ships. The fluff for this is that the new ships were built from the Tau aesthetic instead of the clunky, modular older designs based on recovered technology. The larger problem is this- how do we interpret the size change in fluff? The largest combat experience they have is against the Orks, which is another prow-heavy fleet, which explains a lot about their design philosophy, and why they were so poorly prepared for the Imperials.

2.   Making ships faster as at least as difficult as making them more maneuverable if not more so, and the biggest problem with this fleet is maneuverability so the smaller size of the fleet can actually be justified quite nicely by saying ďTau made them smaller so they could be more maneuverable.Ē Sigoroth brought forward an argument too valid to ignore. The whole point of the Forgeworld fleet is exactly the point he makes above- The Tau moved away from the clunky, modular ships they made (because it was all they knew how to fabricate at the time) to create starships more in keeping to the way they actually fight.

3.   What Sigoroth doesnít address here is Horizonís biggest argument- the Custodian has too many launch bays. Ray is of the same mind, and I fought it tooth and nail because frankly, it was part of the Tau fleetís design theme that they be ordnance-heavy, which I was trying to stick to. However, Their older fleet was ordnance-heavy because Mantas and Barracudas were the very first space-based weaponry they perfected, with Explorers being little more than their name suggested, giant trade and exploration carracks that were so poorly defended, the fast and dirty solution was to gut some the cargo bays to create Barracuda and Manta hangars. The Hero was an intermediate solution as the first purpose-designed warship, but it was with the Emissary that the new design philosophy was perfected. Though the Emissary itself was never designed to be a purpose-built warship, the technology perfected in its design later brought about the Castellan, Protector and then the Custodian.

4.   This impacts the entire fleet in a way far greater than anyone addressed here, which only came about when I started building a test fleet to push models around. By making these changes, the more Koríorívesh ships you take, the more ordnance-poor and gun-rich the entire fleet becomes. This may not be themeful for the original GW fleet design, but it makes PERFECT sense if the Tau have evolved enough that they no longer need Mantas to defend their ships because they created a true fighting force in its own right, which is what the Koríorívesh is supposed to be.

5.   So what? Well, the Tauís biggest problem is how ordnance-reliant they are, and how overpowering the Koríorívesh ships made the fleet based on the original fleet list from Forgeworld. Following the guidance we have always been working under, our intent was merely to tweak the insanity that was the Forgeworld list to something more bearable. I for one have strongly resisted completely re-doing the Forgeworld fleet list because I believed it to be beyond our mandate, but the reality is this- the Forgeworld fleet list from Imperial Armor #4 was broken, and in any case it was never official anyway. As it was never official, there really is no reason why we canít simply toss the whole thing in the bin and start from scratch.

6.   We are not going to incorporate all the suggestions here. Once again, the goal is to make ALL the players happy, which means game balance and fairness against ALL fleets will always trump cool ideas and fluff-accuracy. However, hereís our solution set that I will work on this weekend:

  • a.   The internalized tracking systems for the Koríorívesh vessels was something new that we created to make up for crappy turning. We can get rid of this and say the Custodian has the Messenger-style external system. That gives the odd circular sensor array a function and a reason to really want this model. It is also a cheap and easy way to re-balance the Koríorívesh after we make other changes. For instanceÖ

    b.   Protectors and Emissaries will turn 90deg and have deflectors, and they ONLY move 20cm. Tau are not better than Imperials: better turning means slower speed. They will also lose their internalized tracking systems, which was a gimmick we created specifically for this fleet and can get rid of if we are instead making these ships more maneuverable. Launch bays will be reduced to 1, and like before the Emissary carrier variant can only launch fighters.

    c.   For something as important as creating new rules, I take nobodyís word as gospel unless I playtest it myself. I pushed two of Horizonís Distant Darkness ships around. With small tweaks, it will be one of the Protector variants. (Will somebody PLEASE restrain Horizon!!!)  :D

    d.   If Protector launch bays get dumbed down, they no longer need a fleet restriction of any kind because they are now self-limiting. (has Horizon been restrained yet? ReallyÖ)

    e.   To make up for what we take away, the firepower for some of these vessels will be slightly tweaked upward, and the prices remaining as-is. Caveats: 45cm ion cannons will be L/F/R only on the Custodian, prow-only on the Protector and no other ship gets them (it will be an exceedingly rare weapon in general). NO 60cm weapons whatsoever.

I should have all this ready by Monday night.

-   Nate



Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate