Jump to content
Shanty Pete's 1st Mate

Let's Grade Some Gambits, Epilogue: Results on Page 4!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Here's the thing. Its greatest availability is on a mage battalion (complete with a penalty to P Atk), but it's physical,. So in practice it's probably worse than this. Better on Brigid Hunters, a nice battalion for an infantry dodgetank. Still, we're supposed to be ignoring availability, and I assume that for gambits that deals physical damage, we rate it as a "how much do we value this on a hypothetical physical battalion". Maybe I'd push it up to 7 then. I'm unsure.

I'm trying to figure out how to factor this in during the next series - that is, rating the battalions themselves. In theory, both the gambit and the stat boost can be granted independent scores, which are then factored into the total. But if a battalion lowers physical attack (and has a physical gambit), shouldn't it get a lower score than one with the same stat modifiers (but a comparably-graded magical gambit)? So I may end up applying a slight malus, in cases where there's a "stat boost - gambit mismatch". But, that's a bridge to cross later on.

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Pretty unfortunate this isn't getting more responses, but this forum has definitely died down in the past few months. A shame, I definitely find it one of the most pleasant places to discuss the nitty-gritty aspects of the game.

Yeah, I've thought of this for a while, but part of the reason for the timing was that things have really quieted down here. That's partly understandable, for a game nearly two years old, but disappointing nonetheless. Still, it's been a cozy experience - and fewer regular respondents mean I could have quicker turnaround on the chapters. And the foci are simple enough that, should anyone show up late, back-grading the gambits isn't out of the question.

6 hours ago, lenticular said:

I agree with this.

Sounds good! I still don't have the energy for doing it daily, but I may be able to make an "every other day" schedule work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that because it is a two year old game, someone probably already posted topics about things that don’t need to be rehashed because it’s all been there done that at this point. But I like talking about these things with all of you here because it gives me a fresh perspective from all of your PoVs and I get to share mine as well.

 

As for the other battalions there is to grade 

 

Blaze I’d give a 7/10 because while one use is slightly underwhelming, I love it’s huge AoE it has. It’s great for taking out monster barriers after something else hits it first. Makes saving your gambits easier and a viable tactic decision in a game that where battalions are pretty much a godsend on maddening.

Poison tactic same as Blaze but mildly more useful since poison and still chip away at enemies overtime as opposed to the blaze one time residual damage.

Absorption I’d give a 5/10 mainly because the damage output sometimes isn’t just high enough to compensate. Plus like blaze and poison tactic it has one use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's chapter 4! People seemed to hold Blaze and Poison Tactic in roughly equal regard, around the middle-of-the-barrel among offensive gambits. Meanwhile, Absorption had grades all over the place, but low enough to make it the second-lowest thus far (after the glitched-out Reversal). So, what have we got today?

Chapter 5: Mad Melee, Group Lance Attack, and Random Shot

We're moving back, from gambits with some of the largest areas-of-effect, to those with some of the smallest. How will they stack up against one another?

Mad Melee

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 4

Hit: 60

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Front

Effect: None.

Group Lance Attack

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 6

Hit: 50

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Front

Effect: None.

Random Shot

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 8

Hit: 40

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Front

Effect: None.

Quick reminder of the Grading Guidelines:

On 6/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's what I'm thinking - each Gambit will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. If difficulty would be relevant to the ranking, let's assume New Game Maddening (if you're ranking by a different standard, of course I won't stop you, but please make it clear). In case it's relevant, again, assume access to DLC and Nintendo Switch Online. I'll provide my score, and everyone else is welcome to share their own score, too. Gambits will be graded on:

  • Damage and hit rate (offensive only)
  • Charges per map
  • Range and Area-of-Effect
  • Side and/or support effects

As important to figure out, though, is what I'd rather NOT see gambits graded on, such as:

  • What battalions they're attached too
  • Availability and Usability
  • Aesthetic considerations or personal taste

...Okay, maybe a +/-1 bias point will be allowed on the last one. But attributes of any associated battalion should not be considered. Why not? Well, when we eventually get to grading the battalions themselves, then those considerations (stat boosts, availability, usability) will be factored in, alongside gambit performance. For the time being, however, I'd like to try looking at each gambit, as much as possible, in a vacuum. Make sense?

Anyway, how do I rate these three gambits? Find out in the box below:

Spoiler

Mad Melee introduces a new area-of-effect, which I'm calling "Front". Basically, the attacking unit hits the target, plus one unit each to their left and right, for up to three foes total. So, slightly better than Disturbance, and slightly worse than Assault Troop - although, which one is preferable in a given case will vary with enemy arrangement. And like those gambits, it comes with 2 charges per map - a welcome adjustment from those we considered last chapter. 60 Hit is also very welcome, making this a fairly reliable tool. That said, the good news ends here - 4 Might isn't impressive (again, in line with Disturbance). Moreover, it can only strike at 1-range, and has no interesting or useful side effects. So as a tool, its utility is fairly... limited. That said, 60 Hit and 2 uses per map are enough for me to consider this one "not terrible". I'll grant this gambit a grade of 4 out of 10.

Group Lance Attack should not be confused with "Line of Lances", as that is a totally different gambit. Not sure why they decided to name multiple gambits after one weapon type, without including them in any other gambits (wouldn't "Sea of Swords" just roll off the tongue?). Anyway, if it sounds like I'm filling time because I have nothing of substance to say, it's because... yeah, I am. Relative to Mad Melee, Group Lance Attack gains 2 points of power (for 6 Might), at a loss of 10 points of accuracy (for 50 Hit). Whether this trade-off is a fair one is somewhat subjective - but for my part, I'd prefer a more assured hit, over a couple points of damage. Since I view this gambit as slightly worse than Mad Melee, I'm giving it a 3 out of 10.

Random Shot is not to be confused with "Random Task" - you know, the villain from Austin Powers who fought by throwing his hat? As gimmicky as that attack was, at least it offered more than a miserable 1-range. If you go for this gambit, you'll really be taking a shot in the dark - while it offers 8 Might, it only has a Hit rate of 40. With the pattern I've established by this point, it should be no surprise when I give this one a grade of 2 out of 10. Not totally worthless, but among the weakest in the game.

Thank you for reading! I'm looking forward, as usual, to what everyone else has to say about these ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the "Front" are effect to the "Short Line" are effect, I think there are pluses and minuses to each. "Front" covers one more square, which is good. But there are times when you can only get at one side of a monster and then being able to reach to the squares in the back with "Short Line" is useful. "Short Line" is also much more common than "Front". On the one hand, this means that adding in a "Front" gives more options. But on the other hand, it means that my brain is better trained to use "Short Line" to its best advantage. Overall, I don't think there's much to call between the two. I think that "Front" probably has the slight but it's only slight.

Mad Melee: 5/10. Outside of the area effect, this is identical to Disturbance, so I give it the same rating for the same reasons.

Group Lance Attack: 3/10. This is the same basic problem as the repositional gambits. It takes a gambit (in this case, Mad Melee) whose only good point was its reliability, and then it gets rid of the reliability. If you're going to do that, you'd better replace it with something else, and this just doesn't. 2 points of might isn't nothing, but it may as well be. This just doesn't have anything to recommend it.

Random Shot: 2/10. And you can count yourself lucky to even get that much, Random Shot. There just isn't any area where this excels. It has bad accuracy, one of the worst area effects in the game, and no secondary effect. Its might is decent enough but not a standout. Having two uses is better than one, at least, but that's nothing rare. There's just no reason to ever want this gambit. Whatever niche you're looking to fill, there are always other commonly available gambits that do it better. With other awful gambits like Onslaught or Absorption, at least they offer something that other gambits don't. This one doesn't. It's just bad. About the only positive thing I can say about this one is that it isn't bugged. Or rather, it probably isn't bugged. I'm not sure anyone has ever used it to find out. I certainly haven't. Actually, you know what? I've talked myself into changing my mind. This doesn't even deserve 2/10. I'm giving Random Shot: 1/10.

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Not sure why they decided to name multiple gambits after one weapon type, without including them in any other gambits (wouldn't "Sea of Swords" just roll off the tongue?).

Line of Lances, Sea of Swords, Avalanche of Axes, Barrage of Bowfire, Flurry of Fists, Maelstrom of Magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lenticular said:

Random Shot: 2/10. And you can count yourself lucky to even get that much, Random Shot. There just isn't any area where this excels. It has bad accuracy, one of the worst area effects in the game, and no secondary effect. Its might is decent enough but not a standout. Having two uses is better than one, at least, but that's nothing rare. There's just no reason to ever want this gambit. Whatever niche you're looking to fill, there are always other commonly available gambits that do it better. With other awful gambits like Onslaught or Absorption, at least they offer something that other gambits don't. This one doesn't. It's just bad. About the only positive thing I can say about this one is that it isn't bugged. Or rather, it probably isn't bugged. I'm not sure anyone has ever used it to find out. I certainly haven't. Actually, you know what? I've talked myself into changing my mind. This doesn't even deserve 2/10. I'm giving Random Shot: 1/10.

Harsh, but I can appreciate the reasoning. I've not yet pulled a 1/10, because I've always thought that "well, there's a way it could be worse". We'll see if anything comes up that I consider 1-worthy.

2 hours ago, lenticular said:

Line of Lances, Sea of Swords, Avalanche of Axes, Barrage of Bowfire, Flurry of Fists, Maelstrom of Magic.

These are pretty much perfect! It could have been nice to have some gambits affected by weapon skills - like, "Sea of Swords" gambit would get a hit boost from Sword Prowess and Axebreaker. Or, "Flurry of Fists" could damage the targets twice in a row. Then again, even if they didn't do this stuff, it'd be nice flavor. Just in terms of style, I'd say gambit names are of... varying quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

These are pretty much perfect! It could have been nice to have some gambits affected by weapon skills - like, "Sea of Swords" gambit would get a hit boost from Sword Prowess and Axebreaker. Or, "Flurry of Fists" could damage the targets twice in a row. Then again, even if they didn't do this stuff, it'd be nice flavor. Just in terms of style, I'd say gambit names are of... varying quality.

It could also have been a nice way to differentiate between similar gambits based on their accuracy and damage. We're currently looking at three gambits that have different hit and might but are otherwise identical. One of them being (relatively) high might and low hit, another being high hit and low might, and the third being somewhere in the middle for both of them. If someone told me that they were called Group Lance Attack, Group Sword Attack and Group Axe Attack then I would intuitively be able to remember not only that they were related, but also which one was which. ("Group [Weapon] Attack" is a boring and very dry name scheme, but it gets my point across.)

Or they could have gone with minor additional effects based on the represented weapon type. This already exists with the bow-based gambits having effectiveness against flying units, but they could also have done something similar for gambits based on other weapons. Maybe lance gambits could have had been effective against horses, axe gambits could have been effective against armour, and sword gambits could have had extra crit chance? Just little effects that wouldn't come up very often but would be nice to have and really help differentiate things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2021 at 6:49 PM, lenticular said:

Comparing the "Front" are effect to the "Short Line" are effect, I think there are pluses and minuses to each. "Front" covers one more square, which is good. But there are times when you can only get at one side of a monster and then being able to reach to the squares in the back with "Short Line" is useful. "Short Line" is also much more common than "Front". On the one hand, this means that adding in a "Front" gives more options. But on the other hand, it means that my brain is better trained to use "Short Line" to its best advantage. Overall, I don't think there's much to call between the two. I think that "Front" probably has the slight but it's only slight.

I think this is a very good summary. I want to say that front should be better than short line... after all, 50% more potential targets! But in practice, it doesn't really work out that way, I feel. I will also add that once enemies are aggroed, they tend to come towards you on the same route... i.e. a line, rather than in parallel. Which means that hitting 2-3 enemies with a front attack often involves reaching around to their side, which is 2-3 squares of extra movement. I find myself thinking that the two are really about equal to me.

As such!

Mad Melee: 4/10

Group Lance Attack: 3/10

Random Shot: 2/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back, everyone! I meant to kick off the next chapter a touch earlier, but I was tired Saturday night, and I try to stay off the site on Sundays. In any case, Mad Melee and Group Lance Attack both received some faint praise, while Random Shot managed to take the crown, as the worst-reviewed gambit thus far! Will any of today's contestants underperform it?

Chapter 6: Line of Lances, Linked Horses, and Battleground Cleanup

To begin with, as usual, I'll cover the stats of each of these gambits:

Line of Lances

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 5

Hit: 50

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Box

Effect: Deals bonus damage to cavalry.

Linked Horses

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 12

Hit: 50

Range: 1

Uses: 1

AoE: Box

Effect: None.

Battleground Cleanup

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 15

Hit: 40

Range: 1

Uses: 1

AoE: Box

Effect: None.

A brief recap of the grading guidelines:

On 6/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's what I'm thinking - each Gambit will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. If difficulty would be relevant to the ranking, let's assume New Game Maddening (if you're ranking by a different standard, of course I won't stop you, but please make it clear). In case it's relevant, again, assume access to DLC and Nintendo Switch Online. I'll provide my score, and everyone else is welcome to share their own score, too. Gambits will be graded on:

  • Damage and hit rate (offensive only)
  • Charges per map
  • Range and Area-of-Effect
  • Side and/or support effects

And now, let's unbox my own thoughts about these gambits!

Spoiler

Line of Lances should, first and foremost, not be confused with Group Lance Attack, which we covered yesterday. You know, the gambit where you attack a line of enemies in Front of you? This time, you're attacking a group of enemies in a Box formation, with lances. Make sense yet? Still, there are some similarities there - they're close in Might, each have 50 Hit, as well as two charges. But Line of Lances comes with double the AoE, attacking up to 6 enemies at a time, in a 3x2 Box. This is larger than the Cross (Fusillade) or Long Line (Assault Troop) AoEs, but smaller than the Triangle (Blaze) and Diamond (Absorption). In other words, it's the largest area-of-effect of any 2-charge gambit we've looked at thus far. And while a Might of 5 may seem middling, this jumps to a far more respectable 15 against enemies on horseback - and there are a lot of horseback classes from the midgame onward. 1-range is pretty poor, but it's nothing new. While this doesn't offer as "clutch" a way of stopping an imposing horde as, say, Blaze (which matches it in Hit), it can still halt a decent number of enemies in their tracks - and the utility of using one now, and saving the other for later, cannot be overstated. I feel comfortable granting this gambit a 6 out of 10 - it has some staying power, especially in maps where mounted foes ride.

Linked Horses... Linked Horses... Linked Horses, run faster, run faster, run fast- ahem. At first, this may just look like a better "Line of Lances". Although it loses the cavalry effectiveness, its Might jumps up to a very solid 12, while still retaining a respectable Hit rate of 50. But see, here we encounter a problem. The gambits we've looked at thus far can be cleanly split into two groups: "small AoE with 2 charges", and "large AoE with 1 charge". As of the last paragraph, we were inhabiting the former group. Now, however, we've fallen into the latter group. This creates a paradox - the Box is, simultaneously, a small AoE and a large AoE. It's the first time we've seen that two gambits, with the same AoE, have different charge numbers - and it won't be the last. As for this discrepancy, it's firmly to the detriment of Linked Horses. What first seemed to be a better "Line of Lances" (same AoE, same Hit, higher damage in most cases) has instead turned into a worse version of "Blaze" (slightly higher Might, sure, but 3 fewer tiles affected, and no bonus damage from fire). The damage can be good, and the Hit rate is fine, but it's hard to justify bringing a one-use gambit with the Box AoE when a two-use version exists. As such, I'm grading this one a 3 out of 10.

Battleground Cleanup is for those among us who played Fates, and were really into the Maid and Butler classes. Like, to an uncomfortable degree. For real, though, this gambit is truly one of the greatest disappointments that the DLC had to offer. It's a new gambit, exclusive to one DLC-only battalion, and what does it do? It's just Linked Horses, with 3 more Might, and 10 less Hit. It's not magical, it doesn't debuff the enemies, it's not monster-effective, it doesn't smite whoever it hits, and it certainly can't be used with anything but 1-range. Whether or not said effects would have made the gambit better, at least they might make it stand out more. As it is, it's a one-charge Box attack. 15 Might is seriously high, but it's undercut by a lackluster 40 Hit. There may be an occasion where the power is necessary, and the hit issue can be overcome by high Charm and supports. But otherwise, I'm really not impressed with what these servants are bringing to the table. Like Linked Horses, I think a score of 3 out of 10 is fair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line of Lances: 6/10. This is one of my personal favourites, for reasons that are maybe not entirely justified. The big selling point here is that it's a gambit with two charges that can hit all four squares of a monster's armour in a single shot. And only Line of Lances and the gambits from the Lord Battalions can say that. Which is why I love it. But objectively, being able to hit all four squares isn't all that much stronger than the small cross area effect that hits three squares. It still takes two of these to take down all armour, or it still takes one of these plus a short line gambit plus a regular attack. There really isn't that much difference. There definitely are circumstances where the box is better, like if you're doing a box gambit plus three regular attacks, but it's not a huge difference. Likewise, the box can also be better against regular enemies, since it hits six squares and (hot take alert!) six is a bigger number than five. Again, though, it's a fairly small difference. The closest comparison among the gambits we've already graded is Fusillade. They have the same might, same accuracy and same number of charges. Fusillade was effective against fliers; this is effective against cavalry. I consider these effects to be approximately equally as strong. Then Line of Lances has the better area effect but Fusillade has the range going for it. Again, these two things roughly cancel out and leave the two gambits at about the same level. Subjectively, I really want this to be better than Fusillade but objectively I just don't think it is, so I give it the same grade.

Linked Horses: 4/10. "Worse Blaze" is a good way of looking at this. For the purposes of breaking monster armour, they're basically equivalent. Against troops, Blaze gives you a 50% larger area effect and it gives you fire as a secondary effect. This gives you an extra plus two points of might which I absolutely don't care about. Single-use gambits need to be impactful, and this one just isn't.

Battleground Cleanup: 2/10. If Linked Horses is worse Blaze, Battleground Cleanup is Worse Linked Horses. I just don't ever want to be using these high-might low-accuracy gambits if I can help it. Superficially, it makes some amount of sense. It's like comparing Fire to Fimbulvetr. Do you want to have Fire with its high uses, high accuracy and low might, or do you want to have Fimbulvetr with its low accuracy, low uses and high might? And in the case of black magic the answer is that you want to have both of them. (Not that Fimbulvetr is a great spell, of course, but it's still nicer to have it than not.) Except that in this case, you can't choose to have both. Your unit has to choose between either Fire or Fimbulvetr and it's hard tot hink of many circumstances where i'd pick Fimbulvetr if I had that choice. Exacerbating this problem is that damage isn't really what I want to be using gambits for. Sure, they can do damage, but I have so many other ways of doing damage. Regular attacks and spells all do damage as well. Not to mention that a lot of bosses take reduced damage from gambits, which makes gambits that focus on damage even worse. On the other hand, there are abilities that gambits have that regular attacks and magic just don't. Regular attacks can't rattle. Regular attacks can't take down a monster's full armour in only two attacks. Regular attacks can't do amazing support attacks like Stride or Retribution. Gambits can do all these things. So why, when I have only a limited number of gambits per map, am I ever going to use them to replicate effects that I can already do anyway? The answer is that I'm not. Maybe this is a playstyle thing and there are other ways of playing that can make use of this sort of gambit, but it's not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line of Lances: 7/10. Dedue's personal battalion always feels a bit lord-adjacent, and the gambit which has the most squares of effect out of any 2-use gambit that isn't a lord gambit (right? Hopefully I'm not forgetting something) is certainly part of that. I think it's better than Blaze (you get three less panels, but twice as many uses, winning trade) or Assault Troop, and comparable to Fusillade... one more panel but less range flexibility.

Linked Horses: 4/10. Being only one use is quite a downgrade! Now instead of being among the best two-use offensive gambits, it's among one of the worst one-use ones. It's just Blaze with three less panels of effect, and those can often be critical ones. That said, I think it still comes out ahead of the Onslaught-type gambits; one shot of 6 panels still sounds better than two shots of 2 to me. Power's also pretty good.. for what that's worth.

Battleground Cleanup: 3/10. I've generally given gambits ±1 score based on every ±10 hit they have compared to 50 (assuming some sort of power to compensate), suppose I'll be consistent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the votes are in! People seem to like a Line of Lances. Linked Horses, meanwhile, get a "nay" from most. And Battleground Cleanup is just a total mess.

Chapter 7: Group Flames, Group Ice, and Group Lightning

Today we'll be looking at something a bit different - magical gambits! While physical gambits use strength and target defense, magical gambits use magic and target resistance. That said, Charm remains as influential as ever in impacting damage and hit rates. So, let's go!

Group Flames

Spoiler

Type: Magical

Might: 2

Hit: 60

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Plus Sign

Effect: Sets terrain on fire.

Group Ice

Spoiler

Type: Magical

Might: 3

Hit: 50

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Plus Sign

Effect: None.

Group Lightning

Spoiler

Type: Magical

Might: 4

Hit: 40

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Plus Sign

Effect: None.

Reminder of the rules:

On 6/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's what I'm thinking - each Gambit will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. If difficulty would be relevant to the ranking, let's assume New Game Maddening (if you're ranking by a different standard, of course I won't stop you, but please make it clear). In case it's relevant, again, assume access to DLC and Nintendo Switch Online. I'll provide my score, and everyone else is welcome to share their own score, too. Gambits will be graded on:

  • Damage and hit rate (offensive only)
  • Charges per map
  • Range and Area-of-Effect
  • Side and/or support effects

Now, how do I assess these three gambits? Here goes:

Spoiler

Group Flames may be the most common magical gambit you encounter, particularly in the early game. Like Fusillade and Poisoned Arrows, it strikes a "Plus Sign"-shaped area, locking up to 5 enemies in place. It can also attack at range, albeit only 1~2 (rather than 2~3). There are, however, two critical differences when comparing these sorts of gambits. Group Flames deals magical damage (unlike the physical bow-themed gambits), so in the hands of a mighty mage, it can really punish enemies with low Resistance. Conversely, it struggles against high-Res enemies, and also lacks the anti-flier effectiveness. The bigger issue, though, is that Group Flames is a one-and-done gambit. And hitting only 5 tiles, it covers an even smaller area-of-effect than Linked Horses or Battleground Cleanup (both of which I thoroughly chewed out last time). The flame effect can allow it to do a touch more damage than its paltry 2 Might would suggest, but only a touch. Still, a ranged battalion with 60 Hit is pretty nice - think of it as a one-use, magical Poisoned Arrows. Ultimately, I feel a grade of 4 out of 10 is appropriate for this gambit.

Group Ice seems to be a kind of magic favored by troops from the chilly Kingdom region. Relative to its fiery counterpart, it has 1 more Might and 10 less Hit. Not a winning trade, if you ask me. It can freeze (heh) the foes in place, but as we all know by now, that's not a unique effect at this point (even if it works well thematically here). With 50 Hit, we might compare this gambit to Fusillade - one with 2 more Might (12 against fliers), longer range, and an additional charge. The ability to strike at resistance helps it rise above obscurity, but not by much. I'd consider this battalion worthy of a 3 out of 10.

Group Lightning... uh, exists. I genuinely don't remember whether this gambit moreso resembles thunder magic or light magic (a la the "Lightning" tome from the GBA games). Granted, that should speak more to my lack of experience than to its actual relevance. I thought I'd mention here - while magical gambits can be a good tool against certain monsters, some particularly powerful monsters have Anti-Magic Armor, which allows them to get through magical attacks (including gambits) unscathed. For these enemies, physical gambits will have to do. Anyway, this gambit has 4 Might, and a pitiful 40 Hit, making it possibly the second worst Might/Hit combo we've reviewed, after Absorption's 4/30. While it's almost never worth using, its extra range and magical damage compels me to give it a 2 out of 10.

Looking forward to what everyone else has to say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, a note about magic damage: it's actually a fair bit better than physical damage, per hit. (Physicals often outperform magic in this game, but they do so by hitting twice or more.) There's a few reasons for this:
-PC magic is a bit higher than PC strength generally, every dedicated mage has 10-12 base magic while non-lord physical units vary from 7-11 str. Also, every mage tends to grab Mag+2, while some fighters will go for Spd+2 or Reposition instead.
-The Magic Staff exists, for a free +3 as needed.
-Enemy Res is significantly lower than enemy Def... to the tune of 5 to 10 points depending on the map, on average.

What does this mean? It means that magical gambits are much more likely to OHKO enemies than physical gambits. Certainly midgame I find they reliably kill archers and sword-users, and may get a few others like brawlers and axe-users depending on the exact stats involved.

... granted, it's also worth mentioning that by the time you get Fiendish Blow (which is all but needed for OHKOs), you've usually moved on from the gambits we're rating today, because aside from dealing magic damage, they're not great! But something to keep in mind (spoilers: I'm going to give the Resonant series high scores).

Group Ice, as the middle one, is best compared with Linked Horses. It gets one less panel, but is more flexible in how you target it due to range 2; I'll call that balanced. It deals magic damage, but it also has much less might... 9 less, to be precise. Now, as per above, this means it still does a bit more damage on average... but probably not enough to justify a score change. I gave Linked Hoses 4/10, so that works here too.

It also means that I value these gambits a bit more than the Disturbance/Onslaught series (by 1 point), which sounds right.

Group Flames: 5/10
Group Ice: 4/10
Group Lightning: 3/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to note about magic gambits is that while they won't deal any damage to monsters with anti-magic barriers, they will still break armour. I actually wasn't sure about this until I went and tested it a few minutes ago. I find this behaviour a little weird and unintuitive, but it is what it is. Comparing magical and physical gambits, I agree that magical ones are generally better when everything else is equal. Though I will also note that there are circumstances where physical ones are better. Dealing with anti-magic barriers, for instance, or attacking Pegasus Knights. That said, there are more enemies where dealing magic damage is an advantage than ones where it's a disadvantage.

I think that comparing Group Ice to Linked Horses is apt, with their advantages and disadvantages largely cancelling out. I then feel comfortable enough giving an extra point to Group Flames for its accuracy, and I think taking two points away from Group Lightning for its bad accuracy. I've generally been very harsh on low-accuracy gambits up until this point, and Group Lightning doesn't show me anything to make me reconsider that stance.

Group Flames: 5/10. // Group Ice: 4/10. // Group Lightning: 2/10.

10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, the votes are in! People seem to like a Line of Lances. Linked Horses, meanwhile, get a "nay" from most. And Battleground Cleanup is just a total mess.

Just wanted to mention that I am enjoying your recap puns!

Share this post


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

One thing to note about magic gambits is that while they won't deal any damage to monsters with anti-magic barriers, they will still break armour. I actually wasn't sure about this until I went and tested it a few minutes ago. I find this behaviour a little weird and unintuitive, but it is what it is.

Yep. This applies to physical gambits which fail to break defence too (which I have seen... usually if a mage is using a physical gambit for some reason, like Poison Tactic from Merchant Military or Assault Troop from Gloucester Knights). While most attacks need to do non-zero damage to break barriers, gambit attacks do not; any successful hit counts for barrier destroying.

Share this post


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

Just wanted to mention that I am enjoying your recap puns!

Haha, thanks a ton!

4 hours ago, lenticular said:

One thing to note about magic gambits is that while they won't deal any damage to monsters with anti-magic barriers, they will still break armour. I actually wasn't sure about this until I went and tested it a few minutes ago. I find this behaviour a little weird and unintuitive, but it is what it is.

Weird. I swear I tried this, and it failed. It was a long time ago, though, so I'm likely misremembering.

3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Yep. This applies to physical gambits which fail to break defence too (which I have seen... usually if a mage is using a physical gambit for some reason, like Poison Tactic from Merchant Military or Assault Troop from Gloucester Knights). While most attacks need to do non-zero damage to break barriers, gambit attacks do not; any successful hit counts for barrier destroying.

It seems like giving physical gambits to magic-boosting battalions (admittedly, Gloucester Knights is hybrid) could have presented the developers with a wake-up call: "hey, maybe we should have more than 6 magically offensive gambits". Alas, it was not to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Weird. I swear I tried this, and it failed. It was a long time ago, though, so I'm likely misremembering.

I thought the same thing as well, but decided to test it just to be sure. It might be one of those things where I'd never tried it before but just assumed that it would work that way. After all, it's generally a pretty bad idea to attack when you aren't going to do any damage.

4 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

It seems like giving physical gambits to magic-boosting battalions (admittedly, Gloucester Knights is hybrid) could have presented the developers with a wake-up call: "hey, maybe we should have more than 6 magically offensive gambits". Alas, it was not to be.

Having a magically attacking gambit with two charges would have been really nice. Even if it had just been "Disturbance but magical" that still would have been a welcome niche. Or maybe it could have been a long line gambit and the animation could have been a big group Thoron going straight through everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results are in - did we give in to groupthink? It's hard to say: Group Flames received a fairly warm reception, while attitudes toward Group Ice were somewhat chillier. As for Group Lightning, let's just say it didn't strike many as an optimal choice. So, what will we look at today?

Chapter 8: Resonant Flames, Resonant Ice, Resonant Lightning

Today we'll be looking at a few more magical gambits - generally stronger ones, this time around.

Resonant Flames

Spoiler

Type: Magical

Might: 6

Hit: 60

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Diamond

Effect: Sets terrain on fire.

Group Ice

Spoiler

Might: 7

Hit: 50

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Diamond

Effect: None

Group Lightning

Spoiler

Might: 8

Hit: 40

Range: 1~2

Uses: 1

AoE: Diamond

Effect: None

A brief recap of the grading guidelines:

On 6/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Here's what I'm thinking - each Gambit will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. If difficulty would be relevant to the ranking, let's assume New Game Maddening (if you're ranking by a different standard, of course I won't stop you, but please make it clear). In case it's relevant, again, assume access to DLC and Nintendo Switch Online. I'll provide my score, and everyone else is welcome to share their own score, too. Gambits will be graded on:

  • Damage and hit rate (offensive only)
  • Charges per map
  • Range and Area-of-Effect
  • Side and/or support effects

Now, did these gambits resonate with me? Find out in the box below:

Spoiler

Resonant Flames seriously ups the ante from Group Flames. Both share a fairly reliable hit rate of 60, but this time, we're increasing Might, from 2 to 6. And it's not at the cost of any charges, since they're both single-use gambits. The biggest boost, however, comes in the area of effect. Rather than affecting a paltry 5 tiles, this gambit can now affect as many as 13 tiles (well, 12, since one of them will be occupied by the casting unit). So far, that kind of AoE has only been matched by Absorption - and Resonant Flames is doing more damage, much more accurately. As such, I feel comfortable giving this gambit the best assessment of any single-use offensive gambit - a 7 out of 10.

Resonant Ice gains a point of Might over the Flames, but at a cost of 10 Hit. If you're familiar with my grades thus far, you'll know I don't see this as a worthwhile trade. On top of that, it loses the flame effect, so it may actually deal less damage in certain situations. Still, a Diamond AoE with 1~2 range is always welcome, and 50 Hit isn't even that bad. It's a step down, but still deserving a 6 out of 10, I'd say.

Resonant Lightning offers the highest Might we've seen from magical gambits, at 8. In terms of doing raw damage with a magically-offensive unit, this may be your best bet. I say "bet" because this gambit, with 40 Hit, is something of a gamble. Still, enough Charm and linked attack supporters can make it as good as the others (and situationally better). Would I rather use this one, or Group Flames? It's a tough call, given the latter's reliability, but the Diamond AoE has to triumph over the Plus Sign. I'm grading this one to be a 5 out of 10.

Looking forward to hearing your own thoughts, as usual! Let's not lose the magic just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These three are the gold standard (lord gambits excepted)  for doing a lot of damage to massed enemy troops. This is their niche and they're pretty damn good at it. It just isn't a niche that I personally care about. I just don't use gambits for damaging troops. Maybe I should, but I don't. That said, they're still pretty good at doing the other things that offensive gambits do. At least, Flames and Ice are; Lightning is less good because of its bad accuracy. Resonant Flames, with it's 1-2 range and 60% accuracy is very reliable for getting a rattle even in cases where it can't get a kill, and the 50% accuracy on Resonant Ice means it's still decent in that role. Large areas of effect are also great for taking out monster armour. I generally prefer to have two-charge gambits, but Resonant Flames is definitely the best of all the one-charge gambits.

I feel I've graded myself into a bit of a corner here, so I'm going to do something here that I'd decided I didn't want to do and give half-point scores. I definitely think that Resonant Ice is better than Blaze (which I gave a 5) but that I also don't like it as much as Fusillade (which I gave a 6). As such, I'll give 5.5/10 to Resonant Ice. I've typically been scoring 60% accuracy gambits one point higher than their 50% accuracy counterparts, so I feel comfortable giving 6.5/10 to Resonant Flames. That puts it ahead of what I gave to Fusillade but behind what I gave to Poisoned Arrows, which seems right. And then there's Resonant Lightning. I've been especially harsh on gambits with 40% accuracy or lower; I don't think I've given any of them more than 2/10. Resonant Lightning isn't that bad, but I'm still not a fan of it. Overall, I'm going to give 4/10 to Resonant Lightning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resonant Flames is the best gambit rated so far, and honestly I think it's pretty clear-cut.

I gave Poison Arrows an 8/10 (now if only it actually existed). Resonant Flames only has one use, but that one use hits 13 panels instead of 5 (with the same effective range of up to 4 panels from the caster), so I don't think it's unfair to say that its one use is more effective than Poison Arrows' two most of the time. But on top of that it deals magic damage, which as per above is good. Hard to argue it's not better.

Comparing Resonant Ice to Blaze (6/10 from me) is just a stomp. Four extra panels, more range, magic damage. Comparing it to Fusillade, it's the same calculus as Resonant Flames to Poison Arrows (7/10 from me), again a win for the magical gambit.

These gambits are honestly just amazing in general. They win fights. The biggest challenges in 3H occur when a bunch of enemies come at you at once; this neutralizes a huge number of them, and usually kills one of them until lategame, and does enough damage that it's trivial to pick the rest off with some combination of counters and chippy damage from your archers and mages. They're ridiculous against boss monsters too; drop two of them on a giant dragon boss and please enjoy your instant break, leaving the entire rest of the round for you to beat safely on the boss. They're also great against massed giant monsters (think Sothis, Marianne paralogues); get two monsters side by side and again you can drop two of these gambits and instantly break all the armour of both, and if a third is nearby you probably do a bunch of barrier damage to it as well.

If Blaze had two uses it'd be very cool. If these guys had two uses then Resonant Flames would be the best gambit in the game full-stop. (The actual best gambit in the game is basically a two-use, physical Resonant Ice, admittedly with +1 range).

Resonant Flames: 9/10
Resonant Ice: 8/10
Resonant Lightning: 7/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2021 at 3:33 PM, lenticular said:

Having a magically attacking gambit with two charges would have been really nice. Even if it had just been "Disturbance but magical" that still would have been a welcome niche. Or maybe it could have been a long line gambit and the animation could have been a big group Thoron going straight through everyone.

I like these notions! Thematically speaking, one thing I found sorely missing was any sort of a "dark magic" gambit. Say, a magical Disturbance, that also afflicts the targets with Seal Resistance? This could fit perfectly in a battalion designed for Those Who Slither, or the Western Church. Or Vestra Sorcery Engineers, on the player's side.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I gave Poison Arrows an 8/10 (now if only it actually existed). Resonant Flames only has one use, but that one use hits 13 panels instead of 5 (with the same effective range of up to 4 panels from the caster), so I don't think it's unfair to say that its one use is more effective than Poison Arrows' two most of the time. But on top of that it deals magic damage, which as per above is good. Hard to argue it's not better.

While I didn't make the comparison to Poisoned Arrows explicit, I did hold it in my quiver when assessing Resonant Flames. PA does more damage against fliers and magic users, but RF wins on the damage front otherwise. PA has a slightly better side effect, but neither is particularly impactful. PA has a little more range in who it targets, but RF can be used if an adjacent gambit is your only option.

The crux, then, is this - 2 charges of a Plus Sign, or 1 charge of a Diamond? Mathematically speaking, 5 x 2 < 12 (accounting for the space necessarily lost by the casting unit's own placement). So, RF wins here, right? Not so fast. Suppose I have a few units I wish to target, and they're within a "Plus Sign" of one another. In that case, the wider AoE is redundant - the extra charge, however, is usually not redundant. And my general experience has been, it's more often I find 3 enemies within a Plus Sign of one another, than 6 enemies within a Diamond of one another. That said, when those crowded situations come up, a large AoE gambit (such as Blaze, or Resonant Flames) are awesome to have. But if it's only a small batch I need to freeze in their tracks, I'd rather have PA than RF on my side. In any case, I can see the case for grading either higher than the other, even within an agreed context of both being great gambits.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

(The actual best gambit in the game is basically a two-use, physical Resonant Ice, admittedly with +1 range)

Laying our cards down a but early, are we? I'm really looking forward to this next chapter, as we pit each Lord's personal attacks against each other. What is this, Third Gronder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

And my general experience has been, it's more often I find 3 enemies within a Plus Sign of one another, than 6 enemies within a Diamond of one another.

Hmm, I'm not really so convinced this is the case for me... or, rather, that the 3 enemies in a plus sign happens at least twice as often, as it would have to in order to get two uses per battle. And even if you rattle e.g. 6 enemies per battle with each gambit, that still ends up in favour of the Resonant spells, because on the turn you don't use a gambit entirely you do something else, presumably useful (and as the main users of these gambits are mages, they tend to never lack a useful action).

 

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Laying our cards down a but early, are we?

I haven't decided all my scores in advance but I have no issue with signalling my general feelings. And I feel pretty strongly about which of the "lord's gambits" is the best, although obviously you can't go wrong. But I'll speak more about that one when get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The crux, then, is this - 2 charges of a Plus Sign, or 1 charge of a Diamond? Mathematically speaking, 5 x 2 < 12 (accounting for the space necessarily lost by the casting unit's own placement). So, RF wins here, right? Not so fast. Suppose I have a few units I wish to target, and they're within a "Plus Sign" of one another. In that case, the wider AoE is redundant - the extra charge, however, is usually not redundant. And my general experience has been, it's more often I find 3 enemies within a Plus Sign of one another, than 6 enemies within a Diamond of one another. That said, when those crowded situations come up, a large AoE gambit (such as Blaze, or Resonant Flames) are awesome to have. But if it's only a small batch I need to freeze in their tracks, I'd rather have PA than RF on my side. In any case, I can see the case for grading either higher than the other, even within an agreed context of both being great gambits.

I'd go one step further than that and say that not only is it rare to find 6 enemies clumped in range for the diamond AoE but that it's even rarer to find 6 enemies so clumped who I wouldn't have been able to conveniently take out anyway. (By "conveniently", I mean "without having to expend scarce resources and without having to put any of my characters in danger".) If I hit 6 units with one of the Resonant gambits, immediately kill one, and weaken the other 5 so that each of them requires only a single to kill, but then I have 4 units left who have nothing to do for the turn then I'm not in any better a position than I would have been if I'd used all ten of my units to take them out with conventional attacks.

Now, this may well be a play-style thing. I definitely tend to be a cautious player and I can acknowledge that having these gambits available can allow for some riskier or more aggressive srategies. With that said, though, I am basically never in a situation where I have that many enemies around me who I can't take out by other means. If that does happen then things have already gone terribly terribly wrong. On the other hand, if I have two or three enemies that I can't otherwise deal with then that means that things have gone a little bit wrong. And in any given level I'm more likely to have things go a little bit wrong twice than terribly wrong once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'd go one step further than that and say that not only is it rare to find 6 enemies clumped in range for the diamond AoE but that it's even rarer to find 6 enemies so clumped who I wouldn't have been able to conveniently take out anyway. (By "conveniently", I mean "without having to expend scarce resources and without having to put any of my characters in danger".) If I hit 6 units with one of the Resonant gambits, immediately kill one, and weaken the other 5 so that each of them requires only a single to kill, but then I have 4 units left who have nothing to do for the turn then I'm not in any better a position than I would have been if I'd used all ten of my units to take them out with conventional attacks.

Your other four units can take out other enemies, or focus on healing that turn, or activate Alert Stance (/Staunch Shield) and bait the next formation, or just position themselves (and others, via positioning arts and Warp/Rescue/etc.) to accomplish objectives in the future.

I feel like a similar argument could downplay any effective strategy. It sounds very similar to "why do I care about killing an enemy in one attack? I have 10 units and it's very rare I face more than 5 enemies at once, so as long as I can defeat enemies within two attacks I'm golden and killing them faster just leaves me with leftover turns". Neither argument is even fully wrong (and illustrates how Fire Emblem, even Maddening, can be defeated by conditions far more arduous than what the game sets) but to me I'd say that generally speaking abliities which let you deal with threats in fewer actions are valuable because they allow more flexibility. (I'll also point out that it often takes even fewer actions to deal with enemies hit by a Resonant Gambit than what you said, because you can position one unit to counter multiple enemies, and such enemies are easily killed on enemy phase because of their lower stats, lack of gambit access, and lowered HP from the gambit.)

Or, to put another way, it would easy to defeat 3H without using gambits at all - you would still be able to defeat enemies conveniently, as you put it. I wouldn't even think of that as much of a challenge run tbh. But I can still respect the gambits which make my life easier, and I do think the large AoE ones are very near the top of the list for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Resonant Magic gambits struck the right frequency for a lot of people! To no great surprise, Resonant Flames burned brightest in most minds, with the Ice and Lightning variations hitting a slightly lower temperature.

Chapter 9: Raging Flames, Wave Attack, and Ashes and Dust

With our last chapter of offensive gambits, we now turn to three exceptionally rare ones, each favored by the the game's three respective Lord characters. Will they reign supreme, or disappoint?

Raging Flames

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 15

Hit: 50

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Large Box

Effect: Sets Terrain on Fire.

Wave Attack

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 13

Hit: 60

Range: 1

Uses: 2

AoE: Diamond

Effect: Deals bonus damage against armors.

Ashes and Dust

Spoiler

Type: Physical

Might: 12

Hit: 50

Range: 2~3

Uses: 2

AoE: Diamond

Effect: Deals bonus damage against fliers.

As usual, a quick grading recap:

On 6/3/2021 at 9:17 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Gambits will be graded on:

  • Damage and hit rate (offensive only)
  • Charges per map
  • Range and Area-of-Effect
  • Side and/or support effects

My thoughts below:

Spoiler

Raging Flames is a fairly unique gambit. No, it doesn't deal effective damage. No, despite the name, it doesn't do magical damage. However, it possesses an entirely unique Area-of-Effect: the Large Box. Take the Box gambit (as seen in Linked Horses, among others), and lengthen it on either side, for a result of 2 rows of 5 tiles each (10 total). This is slightly larger than the area covered by Blaze (although, it does not encompass the entire "Blaze" AoE) - and it comes with a second charge! It bears the same hit of 50 - not the best, but certainly workable. Meanwhile, it offers 15 Might, tying with Battleground Cleanup for the hardest-hitting gambit in the game. Admittedly, it does bear one other limitation - it can only be used at 1-range. Still, this would be a good gambit even at just one use, so getting a second raises it up to the top-tier. I believe a score of 8 out of 10 is entirely appropriate.

Wave Attack brings us back to the Diamond Area-of-Effect. But if you're thinking back to the Resonant Magics, think again - this gambit is entirely physical, and only usable at 1-range. Much like Absorption. That said, the similarities run out there. Where Absorption was known for missing, Wave Attack offers a very healthy 60 Hit. And it pairs this with 13 Might, for perhaps the best Might/Hit pairing of any gambit in the game. Against the right enemy, this Might jumps to an incredible 39 - that's right, it does effective damage against Armored foes! I don't find most Armored foes especially threatening, since they usually go down to effective weaponry and/or magical attacks fairly easily, but it is a unique trait this one brings to the table. Being able to stun as many as 11 foes, in a single hit, with 60 base accuracy... and then getting to do it again, is a serious power trip. This is the single-best gambit I've looked at thus far, and I'm proud to award it a 9 out of 10.

Ashes and Dust, at first, may look like a lesser Wave Attack. 50 Hit ain't bad, but it's just not as reliable as 60. 12 Might is still solid, but again, it's less than 13. The effectiveness, in this case, is a different one - while flier effectiveness applies to more foes, particularly threatening high-movement foes, it's also less unique (being shared by Fusillade, among others) than anti-Armor effectiveness). The key difference, however, also hearkens back to Fusillade, and what made it (and Poisoned Arrows) truly exceptional gambits. Which is to say, 2~3 range. In conjunction with the Diamond AoE, this means that this attack can paralyze a foe as far as 5 spaces away. And it's unique among Diamond gambits, in that the attacker can sit outside the Area-of-Effect - meaning, it's theoretically possible to hit as many as 13 enemies in a single strike! Not only that, but this gambit is uniquely (well, unique for anyone not named Hapi) able to take a flying monster from fully shielded to fully exposed in a single hit. It turns out, Wave Attack's reign was a short-lived one - Ashes and Dust get a 10 out of 10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much time for these right now, so I will be brief. I don't think it's controversial to say that these are the best three offensive gambits in the game. By quite a wide distance. Their damage is great, their AoE is great, their accuracies range from good to great, and they all have two charges. This basically means they can do everything you might want an offensive gambit to do just as well or better than any of the alternatives. The only real question is how they rate relative to each other.

Raging Flames is the worst of the bunch. Or rather, the slightly less great of the bunch. It's large box AoE is smaller and slightly more awkward than the diamond that the other two come with, and it's secondary effect (fire) is not as useful as the effective damage that the other two offer. I give 8/10 to Raging Falmes.

The other two are fairly close to each other. The difference in might is largely inconsequential. The extra range on Ashes and Dust is certainly nice to have, though I think I'm not quite as high on it as some others are. On the other hand, Wave Attack comes with an extra 10% accuracy, and by this point in the thread it's hardly news that I love my accuracy. The effectiveness against fliers on Ashes and dust is a little more useful than the effectiveness against armours on Wave Attack, since fliers generally tend to be more dangerous. That said, it's generally easier to get super-effective damage against fliers, both from other gambits and from bows, while armour effectiveness is rarer. And armours do often have high HP that can really benefit from the extra damage. (Also, not counting this as part of the grading, but I love that the gambit on Dimitri's personal battalion does extra damage against Edelgard's canon classes, even if it's actually not useful against her in game (except for NG+).)

Overall, I think I probably favour Ashes and Dust marginally, but not enough to make a difference to their scoring. I'm going to give 9/10 to Ashes and Dust and 9/10 to Wave Attack.

(And oops. I spent longer on that than I intended. I am apparently pathologically incapable of brevity.)

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...