Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Morglum Ironhide

New Gods for Death & Destruction

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, FrekyDoogal said:

It's Warhammer Fantasy lore, which I think is still relevant here since it's the same Grungni, Grimnir and Valaya as from the Old World.

Yeah, it's relevant, and I'm glad to know it. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are talking gods, I have a lore question.

So I have only skimmed through End Times lore honestly but from my understanding most of the main Gods that made it to the Mortal Realms were at one time the Incarnates (Sigmar, Malekith, Nagash, ect).  

But the Dwarf gods are the original gods from the old world.  Shouldn't in theory the Mortal Realm Dwarf gods be Thorgrim and Ungrim who held Metal and Fire winds respectively? 

Any lore I missed that elaborated on this? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

I see Valaya listed as sister to the other dwarven gods, but isn't she their wife?

It's divine incest, they're all siblings and married to each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, King Under the Mountain said:

Since we are talking gods, I have a lore question.

So I have only skimmed through End Times lore honestly but from my understanding most of the main Gods that made it to the Mortal Realms were at one time the Incarnates (Sigmar, Malekith, Nagash, ect).  

But the Dwarf gods are the original gods from the old world.  Shouldn't in theory the Mortal Realm Dwarf gods be Thorgrim and Ungrim who held Metal and Fire winds respectively? 

Any lore I missed that elaborated on this? 

They died during the end times and the wind the magic that was bound to them apparently bound to the dwarf gods instead. 

If I remember correctly. The lores of metal and Fire, As well as of the lore of Beast ( grimgor Ironhide was slain during the last fight)  did not have hosts when the world was destroyed, so I guess they bonded to the Gods.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xking said:

They died during the end times and the wind the magic that was bound to them apparently bound to the dwarf gods instead. 

If I remember correctly. The lores of metal and Fire, As well as of the lore of Beast ( grimgor Ironhide was slain during the last fight)  did not have hosts when the world was destroyed, so I guess they bonded to the Gods.

Gotcha.  I know Grimnir showed up in the End Times but did Grungi as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, King Under the Mountain said:

Gotcha.  I know Grimnir showed up in the End Times but did Grungi as well?

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One of the more interesting fantasy concepts to me are death gods who aren't pure evil and one of my disappointment with AoS fluff is Nagash being in near complete and total control of Death, with all over gods being explicitly snuffed by him. I wouldn't mind so much if he wasn't such a huge ******. Having a viable alternate of worship to Sigmar in the Mortal Realms could've been very interesting when it came to the Soul Wars conflict (revere Nagash, get a cozy spot in the underworld instead of being tortured by Chaos for eternity).

Sure, it would've been Out Of Character for Nagash to be anything but said arsehole however it read like Black Library was at least trying a bit with snippets of Malign Portents and some of the books to give just a little bit more nuance than Skeletor. Of course much like Abaddon, GW's writing team can't seem to manage anymore than Saturday morning cartoon villain mode 24/7.

Edited by Clan's Cynic
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

One of the more interesting fantasy concepts to me are death gods who aren't pure evil and one of my disappointment with AoS fluff is Nagash being in near complete and total control of Death, with all over gods being explicitly snuffed by him. I wouldn't mind so much if he wasn't such a huge ******. Having a viable alternate of worship to Sigmar in the Mortal Realms could've been very interesting when it came to the Soul Wars conflict (revere Nagash, get a cozy spot in the underworld instead of being tortured by Chaos for eternity).

Sure, it would've been Out Of Character for Nagash to be anything but said arsehole however it read like Black Library was at least trying a bit with snippets of Malign Portents and some of the books to give just a little bit more nuance than Skeletor. Of course much like Abaddon, GW's writing team can't seem to manage anymore than Saturday morning cartoon villain mode 24/7.

There are other death gods, the anvils of the heldenhammer Revere them. Such as the death god Morrda. Read forbidden power.

Edited by xking
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/1/2020 at 5:09 AM, FrekyDoogal said:

Death is characterized by Nagash's absolute order and iron grip upon it so that there are no genuine threats from within his own faction, the extreme opposite of Chaos where they bicker with each other just as much as the other Grand Alliances. Order has that internal strife as well, and Destruction is.. Well, destruction. Death not having as much of that gives them a reason to exist without just being the other Alliances but more.

I agree with this. On one hand it is kinda unique about Death that is it pretty much unified under Nagash' banner, on the other hand it is very boring to me. He seems way too strong compared to any other character within the faction and it seems like nobody can really question his rule or commands. All the factions follow his lead. It makes for a very boring and monotone grand alliance for me personally. 

Destruction is also kinda just.. There. I guess it doesn't help that almost all lore/story seem to be fixated upon Chaos (esp Archaon), Stormcast/Sigmar and Nagash. They started to tease Gordrakk and his ram made partly of a godbeast, but not too much so far. 

Edited by Kasper
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:

One of the more interesting fantasy concepts to me are death gods who aren't pure evil and one of my disappointment with AoS fluff is Nagash being in near complete and total control of Death, with all over gods being explicitly snuffed by him. I wouldn't mind so much if he wasn't such a huge ******. Having a viable alternate of worship to Sigmar in the Mortal Realms could've been very interesting when it came to the Soul Wars conflict (revere Nagash, get a cozy spot in the underworld instead of being tortured by Chaos for eternity).

Sure, it would've been Out Of Character for Nagash to be anything but said arsehole however it read like Black Library was at least trying a bit with snippets of Malign Portents and some of the books to give just a little bit more nuance than Skeletor. Of course much like Abaddon, GW's writing team can't seem to manage anymore than Saturday morning cartoon villain mode 24/7.

I get what you mean but the way Josh Reynolds has handled him is a lot closer to a not-quite-pure-evil god. I suppose that's what you mean by nuance and Nagash himself in his main aspect is of course monstrous but his worshippers have been depicted rather closer to ancient Greeks or the Aztecs: sure the gods might be fickle, violent, actively destructive but hey, that's life for you, best just get along with the inevitable. Particularly if you worship/perceive Nagash in the positive form of the Forlorn Child or the Black Priest or even Nagash-Mor, which are ways for that slightly less horrific death god archtype to come through. On the other hand, well, a nightmare titan of bone and iron isn't such a bad thing when it's driving chaos from your borders.

And then of course Reynolds gets at the benefits. "Revere Nagash, get a cozy spot in the underworld instead of being tortured by Chaos for eternity" is fairly spot on, though cozy might be a bit of a push. It's bleak but it's got that appeal of a totalitarian regime, "a place for every man and every man in his place".

Needless to say this only really applies on the day-to-day or cultural level rather than the top-down Marvel-esque "Sigmar does this, Alarielle does that" framing of AoS that the studio (perhaps inevitably?) deals with, so YMMV.

Edited by sandlemad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, King Under the Mountain said:

I know at this point the ship has long since sailed


but Hashut would of been a great contender for another God of Destruction. 

Nope, too much industry, and he has daemons(mechanical ones).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What I'd personally like to see moreso than new Gods, is cross-pollination of the races between Gods they worship, and the GA that they sit in.

Specifically we are still trapped by a one-to-one mapping of old WHFB armies to Grand Alliances.  If you were some kind of Elf in the old game, you have to be Order in this one, even if it's a completely new army.  That's way too narrow-minded.

For example it's established in the lore that there are humans in Ghur who worship Gorkamorka and paint themselves in green warpaint.  Let's see them explored on the tabletop.

Similarly, Death could have Aspirant Vampires: mortal humans who idolise Vampires, and serve them in the hope of being turned.

If it was still April 1st I could have move on to Duardin stilt-walkers who follow a Cult of Behemat, but you get the point 🙂

Edited by PlasticCraic
  • LOVE IT! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2020 at 7:57 PM, Neverchosen said:

Much to everyones chagrin, I keep on pushing forward the idea that Malerion is being corrupted by Slaanesh.  I think that it would be an interesting narrative to have him think that he could supplant Slaanesh and bring order to chaos, while actually playing into Slaanesh's hand. Furthermore, it would cause tension with his former allies particularly his mother. 

In warhammer fantasy I was certain, absolutely convinced, that Khaine was an aspect of Slaanesh. 
the enjoyment of dealing death, the absolute single minded focus on improving killing techniques, reward through ritualistic and ecstatic sacrifice. It screamed Slaanesh to me. Then later they had the cults expansion and narrative in there. So it become more likely....

in the current lore though it seems like a stretch 😅

Malerion as a Slaanesh worshipper could work. Although he has already corrupted the gladiatorium and there is plenty of narrative reasons there for him to (openly) break with sigmar. 
but placing him in Chaos currently would seem weird to me. He’s to much of a kingdom creator too fit there, nor in destruction or death for that matter. So Order seems the right place in that regard. Could still be worshipping an aspect of a chaos god though. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kramer said:

but placing him in Chaos currently would seem weird to me. He’s to much of a kingdom creator too fit there, nor in destruction or death for that matter. So Order seems the right place in that regard.

This is the problem with the Grand Alliances. Death, Chaos and even Destruction are narrowly defined - you have to meet very specific criteria in order to "fit", e.g. worshipping specific gods. Order, by contrast, is broadly defined as "anything that doesn't fit into the other Alliances". Any attempt to narrow the definition of Order to a more specific ideology will leave several armies without an Alliance.

GW should just do away with Grand Alliances altogether at this point. They were a necessary crutch while the game was limping along with an incomplete set of Allegiances, but now they're restrictive and irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter if Malerion's aelves are Order, Chaos, whatever... the only meaningful consideration is who they can ally with, because Grand Alliance armies are non-viable.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

This is the problem with the Grand Alliances. Death, Chaos and even Destruction are narrowly defined - you have to meet very specific criteria in order to "fit", e.g. worshipping specific gods. Order, by contrast, is broadly defined as "anything that doesn't fit into the other Alliances". Any attempt to narrow the definition of Order to a more specific ideology will leave several armies without an Alliance.

GW should just do away with Grand Alliances altogether at this point. They were a necessary crutch while the game was limping along with an incomplete set of Allegiances, but now they're restrictive and irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter if Malerion's aelves are Order, Chaos, whatever... the only meaningful consideration is who they can ally with, because Grand Alliance armies are non-viable.

Chaos is not  narrowly defined, it's Chaos as it has always been.  Destruction  is not narrowly defined, it's rampaging destroyers who like to fight, eat and kill stuff, they are more like  natural disasters.   Only Death is narrowly defined, "Nagash is all and all are one in Nagash".   Malerion is Order because he is orderly, he is a builder of civilization and he is a part of Sigmar's pantheon.

Grand Alliances are not going anywhere, they are  ingrained into Age of Sigmar as a game system and as a setting.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, xking said:

Chaos is not  narrowly defined, it's Chaos as it has always been.  Destruction  is not narrowly defined, it's rampaging destroyers who like to fight, eat and kill stuff, they are more like  natural disasters.   Only Death is narrowly defined, "Nagash is all and all are one in Nagash".   Malerion is Order because he is orderly, he is a builder of civilization and he is a part of Sigmar's pantheon.

You've fundamentally misunderstood what "narrowly defined" means in this context.

Edited by Kadeton
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, xking said:

Chaos is not  narrowly defined, it's Chaos as it has always been.  Destruction  is not narrowly defined, it's rampaging destroyers who like to fight, eat and kill stuff, they are more like  natural disasters.   Only Death is narrowly defined, "Nagash is all and all are one in Nagash".   Malerion is Order because he is orderly, he is a builder of civilization and he is a part of Sigmar's pantheon.

Grand Alliances are not going anywhere, they are  ingrained into Age of Sigmar as a game system and as a setting.

 

I disagree.  Destruction in theory isnt narrowly defined but in practice it ends up being all Gorkamorka worshipers, even when it has to be shoehorned in.

Additionally I think the biggest reason the Grand Alliance system should go away is many people thing there should be some equal in terms of release.  I have seen complaints that Order has gotten too many armies (even thought they have the most potential for creativity in this system) and where is the Destruction armies or death armies.  I wish they would do away with this system and their creativity go in whatever direction they want.   

Edited by King Under the Mountain
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

This is the problem with the Grand Alliances. Death, Chaos and even Destruction are narrowly defined - you have to meet very specific criteria in order to "fit", e.g. worshipping specific gods. Order, by contrast, is broadly defined as "anything that doesn't fit into the other Alliances". Any attempt to narrow the definition of Order to a more specific ideology will leave several armies without an Alliance.

GW should just do away with Grand Alliances altogether at this point. They were a necessary crutch while the game was limping along with an incomplete set of Allegiances, but now they're restrictive and irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter if Malerion's aelves are Order, Chaos, whatever... the only meaningful consideration is who they can ally with, because Grand Alliance armies are non-viable.

Nah I don't think they should do away with them, just split up Order. Like have a "Natural" order and an "Industrial" order for example.

My personal preference would be to split DoK/Malerion/IDK into their own thing somehow as they are the least fitting in my opinion, but they are also all Aelves and I don't want to make it just an Aelf faction, more shadow murder faction...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, King Under the Mountain said:

I disagree.  Destruction in theory isnt narrowly defined but in practice it ends up being all Gorkamorka worshipers, even when it has to be shoehorned in.

Additionally I think the biggest reason the Grand Alliance system should go away is many people thing there should be some equal in terms of release.  I have seen complaints that Order has gotten too many armies (even thought they have the most potential for creativity in this system) and where is the Destruction armies or death armies.  I wish they would do away with this system and their creativity go in whatever direction they want.   

All of the destruction factions are not gorkamorka worshippers, the bad moon is an entity unto itself, the spider God is an entity unto itself.

The grand alliances are not going away, they are part of age of Sigmar's identity. They are integrated into both a setting and the game system. I don't see it changing.

There is also the giant god Bermhat who is believed to be part of Destruction.

Edited by xking
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Morglum Ironhide said:

Nah I don't think they should do away with them, just split up Order. Like have a "Natural" order and an "Industrial" order for example.

My personal preference would be to split DoK/Malerion/IDK into their own thing somehow as they are the least fitting in my opinion, but they are also all Aelves and I don't want to make it just an Aelf faction, more shadow murder faction...

Why do you say that? Order is not good or evil. Now there are good and evil factions in the Grand Alliance of order. But that's the point, it's a Grand "Alliance", order is vastly outnumbered by chaos. Then you have Nagash trying to literally eradicate all life, and he has access to the vast host of the Dead. The reason of the Age of Chaos was so bad, genocide on a cosmic scale, the complete annihilation of entire civilizations, and entire species wiped out. Was because there was no Unity, all the other gods went off and did their own thing. Sigmar was trying to fight by himself on all fronts, a lesson should have been learned, only through Unity and cooperation can any lasting Victory be had.

Edited by xking
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

the only meaningful consideration is who they can ally with, because Grand Alliance armies are non-viable.

Bull****. Agree with the rest of it though ;) . But this last bit is just a bit narrowminded.  
GW could/should widen the contents of Grand Alliances but they should remain because:

- it helps structure those alliances. Its hot random mess without it. 

- It's a great tool to help new players start playing. The allegiance abilities are only the first of many layers you add on top of the core rules and warscrolls. 

- You might not see them on this forum all that much but there are still players that like the grand alliances as a way to play just the models they like from all different factions. 

- And non-viable is just a qualification from your perspective. A lot of my games I. don't mind losing. So I don't care about what you would qualify is 'viable'. A Grand alliance would absolutely be viable to me when it supports the story. Most of our campaigns are narrative to some degree and it's a great tool for that. 

Okay i'll get of my soap box now 😅 But on a final note, all these arguments are easily waylaid if you're an experienced player. But it's such an important baseline to have for new players. And that steady stream of new players is so important for the community and the game. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, xking said:

There are other death gods, the anvils of the heldenhammer Revere them. Such as the death god Morrda. Read forbidden power.

Indeed, and in "A Dirge of Dust and Steel" Shyish duardin worshipping a death diety are able to bring him back through faith to drag a Slaanesh daemon into the underworld even though their Stormcast allies noted Nagash had long since devoured their god. Their response was "What is death to a god? Dust and less than dust."

So being devoured by Nagash isn't permanent as long as faith remains to have those death gods manifest in some way even though it may be as a assimilated aspect of the Undying King himself.

That's really an important thing to remember with the Mortal Realms gods, it's actually more that they're the realms themselves but can use avatars to physically appear and through different faiths can spawn different ones for different followers like God-king Sigmar as a golden god for most Azyrites while the Crawling City made a Sigmar worm god aspect and the Vurm-tai raiders of the amber steppes worship him as wraithful storm god Zig-mah who helps them capture merchants and prey.

Nagash has a great list as an example:

He has a number of aspects for like Sigmar he contains multitudes - All are one in Nagash and Nagash is all.

Black Priest: He who gives succour to those whose deaths are too painful to be borne. 

Nagash-Mor: Calm and silent, he weighs the hearts of dead souls against a feather

Nagash unbound: A titan of death who strides across a field of corpses and wherever his shadow falls the dead rise and walk, ravening for the flesh of the living.

The Forlorn Child: He leads those who die before their allotted time to gentle slumber.

The Undying King: He leads the nine hundred and ninety-nine legions to war and walks in every man’s shadow and wades in every man's blood. The one who draws up the bodies of the enemy and hurls them back at their allies and who will not rest until the realm of death is scoured clean of false life.

And then there's this art of Grimnir's aspect being warped by Flesh Eater faith.

tze-kun-chin-ghoulvsfyreslayers.jpg?1528

"No, it's just that in this particular image, he is witness to a battle where the Fireslayers are losing. Since the Gods are powered and shaped by belief, the death of the Fireslayers, who picture him as a giant flaming dwarf, is slowly being replaced by the picture of him as whatever the Flesh Eaters might see him as.

On the other hand, if it was Nagash who was witness to this battle, and the Fireslayers were winning instead of losing, Nagash might appear as a giant, burning skeleton."

Two final notes.

One, Gorkamorka does already split into Gork and Mork when they begin to argue, it's been that way even since Sigmar saved them in the Age of Myth from the original god-beast of Ghur (a great blob of sentient amber) and after being saved Gorkamorka punched out Dracothion and fought Sigmar whose blow split them in twain but when they're in agreement and ready to unleash waaaghs they become Gorkamorka. Also, Taal was mentioned in "Sacrosanct and other stories", he was a minor diety that was worshipped by tribal kingdoms in the realm of beasts among several other deities that were  also forgotten in the Age of Chaos which saw the kingdoms destroyed and things like their sentient mammoth allies they traded labor for food with corrupted into mindless monsters. Some may still worship them but many had to go to stronger faiths to protect them from Chaos like Sigmar or Nagash.

Two, I think Nagash is fine for now as he does unify the faction and his aspects cover the death god bases enough. I'd say wait until much after the Soul Wars before having Nagash take a step back and other death gods carve out their places in the underworlds but with the ever looming threat of Nagash regaining his momentum and pulling them back into him. Him as a god of death juggernaut that's making chaos think twice is really good for the current plot and adding variety to the wars.

I will say I want more God-beasts but it's looking like that's in the cards with the Lumineth spirits getting more attention and the Sons in the near future. Definitely more of that and the original dieties of the realms before Sigmar and his pantheon arrived.

Edited by Baron Klatz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kramer said:

GW could/should widen the contents of Grand Alliances but they should remain because:

- it helps structure those alliances. Its hot random mess without it.

I like things being messy, to be honest. Life is a complicated, messy thing, and generally resists simple categorisation. There are always contexts and circumstances where the "normal" order of things is switched up, flipped, twisted, etc. That should be as true of the Mortal Realms as anywhere, if not more so. "Natural" allies won't always be on the same side, nor will "natural" enemies always be opposed.

Besides, it's still kind of a hot mess anyway.

25 minutes ago, Kramer said:

- It's a great tool to help new players start playing. The allegiance abilities are only the first of many layers you add on top of the core rules and warscrolls.

As someone who was sort of a new player not that long ago, I personally found the Alliances really confusing. I initially liked the look of the Deepkin, and was told they were like soul-pirates who plundered and pillaged, killing people and stealing their life force to extend their own. But when I went to the website to learn more, I couldn't find anything about them... because I was naturally looking under "Destruction", and it turns out the Deepkin are actually "bold defenders of Order".

You actually need a grounding in the lore and background to understand why certain forces are in particular categories. The groupings only make sense once they're explained, not at an intuitive level.

25 minutes ago, Kramer said:

- You might not see them on this forum all that much but there are still players that like the grand alliances as a way to play just the models they like from all different factions.

Well, not all different factions. Just a certain set of factions, which is really my point. If I want to play a force of Beastmen and Wanderers, banding together in a fragile temporary union to defend their forest against rapacious lumberjacks, then the Alliance rules don't do anything for me.

If on the other hand I just want to throw together a bunch of random Death units, I can do that with Legions of Nagash and I don't need the Death Allegiance. Similarly for Order units and the Cities of Sigmar.

I fully support people who want to play with whatever units they like, I just don't see how Alliances help them do that in any meaningful way. Allies are a better mechanic for surfacing the links between factions in gameplay.

25 minutes ago, Kramer said:

- And non-viable is just a qualification from your perspective. A lot of my games I. don't mind losing. So I don't care about what you would qualify is 'viable'. A Grand alliance would absolutely be viable to me when it supports the story. Most of our campaigns are narrative to some degree and it's a great tool for that.

Yeah, "viable" is purely a Matched Play concern. But... so are Grand Alliances, by and large. In Narrative and Open Play games your models aren't required to share an Alliance, they just add "flavour" if you choose to. But you could equally go "****** that, it makes more sense for my general to use this trait from the Allegiance rules" and that would also be fine even though you don't technically "qualify" for them.

Perhaps this is just symptomatic of the "Matched Play is the default / only way to play" attitude that's prevalent in the community, but people who want to play narrative games already have a proper outlet where they can do whatever supports the story.

A Grand Alliance army is still going to get their teeth kicked in every game at a tournament. I'm not convinced that's worth supporting.

Good discussion, no need to abandon your soapbox. This is what these forums are for! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xking said:

All of the destruction factions are not gorkamorka worshippers, the bad moon is an entity unto itself, the spider God is an entity unto itself.

The grand alliances are not going away, they are part of age of Sigmar's identity. They are integrated into both a setting and the game system. I don't see it changing.

There is also the giant god Bermhat who is believed to be part of Destruction.

The Bad Moon is still related to Gorkamorka .

 

 It has a leering face which shifts when one blinks, looks away or else a cloud passes before it which according to greenskins are 'faces of da moon' representing different sides of Gorkamorka. -  Battletome: Gloomspite Gitz. 

So my point still stands.

 

You might be right the Grand Alliance system may not go away, but I wish it would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...