Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

  1. #1
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Does anyone else find a disliking of the fact indiscriminate burn ala Flame Rift can effectively target planeswalkers given the redirecting of damage to a specific walker?

    Clearly, Flame Rift wasn't designed to take into account planeswalkers, but it was designed to be indiscriminate towards players and thus affect all of them. I just feel that the indiscriminate nature of these burn spells should be consistent and thus be applied the same way towards walkers.

    So if you play Flame Rift, and both you and your opponent have two Jaces, the Flame Rift should not only hit both players, but they should hit EVERY walker, not just walkers you can choose to accept redirected damage.

    Am I the only one who feels that 'each player' burn should be able to affect all players and walkers?

  2. #2
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    Does anyone else find a disliking of the fact indiscriminate burn ala Flame Rift can effectively target planeswalkers given the redirecting of damage to a specific walker?

    Clearly, Flame Rift wasn't designed to take into account planeswalkers, but it was designed to be indiscriminate towards players and thus affect all of them. I just feel that the indiscriminate nature of these burn spells should be consistent and thus be applied the same way towards walkers.

    So if you play Flame Rift, and both you and your opponent have two Jaces, the Flame Rift should not only hit both players, but they should hit EVERY walker, not just walkers you can choose to accept redirected damage.

    Am I the only one who feels that 'each player' burn should be able to affect all players and walkers?
    Disagree. Planeswalkers are explicitly targeted on a handful of cards already. Adding to the current rules surrounding the ways damage is dealt to planeswalkers via burn spells is a bad idea.

    I cannot stand the rules kludges that surround planeswalkers at present. Given the recent trend (ehh 'recent' - last 6 years or so I guess) to make understanding this game into a simpler process, I would that we'll see the day where cards have to explicitly target planeswalkers to affect them. We'll then get a block or two full of things like...

    Quote Originally Posted by the future
    Sorcery Bolt
    Sorcery

    -this- deals 3 damage to target creature, planeswalker or player.
    ...to fill in the gap for all those 'lousy' burn spells that only target creatures or players.

    To this end I do not think Flame Rift or similar cards will ever see the kind of change in functionality that you're looking for. It would require a knowledge of the "each player" phrase that extends beyond the card and does not apply under all circumstances - each player AND planeswaker can't discard a card to Syphon Mind or sacrifice permanents to Balancing Act, for example - and previous rules modifications have shown that they don't like having corner-case rules for particular kinds of cards. This is why Walls are no longer bound by the rules of the game to be unable to attack and we got Defender in exchange.

    For my part I just prefer explicit wording. I would just as soon see a Flame Rift 2.0 which deals N damage to each player and planeswalker anyway; I like my cards to say what they actually do whenever possible. I know that's weird. I know it doesn't work with older cards. I also know that there's no reason to move forward maintaining shitty convoluted rules about targeting planeswalkers or redirecting damage to them. I can Lightning Bolt a player and redirect to a walker, and something like Healing Salve or, like, insta-speed Vialing a True Believer into play will fizzle the spell. But making myself untargetable doesn't work with, say, Dreadbore. So the nature of interacting with 'walkers is unnecessarily complicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  3. #3
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Disagree. Planeswalkers are explicitly targeted on a handful of cards already. Adding to the current rules surrounding the ways damage is dealt to planeswalkers via burn spells is a bad idea.
    By 'bad,' do you mean by implementing a rules change like I suggested would complicate play or reduce interaction? I think it would make it more inherently simpler to understand for a new player using 'each player' burn if they can use it to affect all players and walkers.

    I cannot stand the rules kludges that surround planeswalkers at present. Given the recent trend (ehh 'recent' - last 6 years or so I guess) to make understanding this game into a simpler process, I would that we'll see the day where cards have to explicitly target planeswalkers to affect them. We'll then get a block or two full of things like...

    ...to fill in the gap for all those 'lousy' burn spells that only target creatures or players.
    I actually don't have a problem with damage being redirected to walkers in general, say using a Bolt to redirect 3 damage to a walker. I just have a problem with the 'each player' burn that effectively can make you to choose which of your opponent's walkers to target. But I did think about the idea about changing the design of future Burn spells to include walkers as an explicit target. The problem with your suggestion is that WotC would have a harder time reprinting burn spells that exist now because of the reduced interaction they would have. Sure, they could print a Bolt that can target planeswalkers, but then they would be creating another problem of adding another useful Bolt to the card pool. I actually like the point of your idea, that you want your cards to say exactly what they are capable of doing.

    To this end I do not think Flame Rift or similar cards will ever see the kind of change in functionality that you're looking for. It would require a knowledge of the "each player" phrase that extends beyond the card and does not apply under all circumstances - each player AND planeswaker can't discard a card to Syphon Mind or sacrifice permanents to Balancing Act, for example - and previous rules modifications have shown that they don't like having corner-case rules for particular kinds of cards. This is why Walls are no longer bound by the rules of the game to be unable to attack and we got Defender in exchange.
    I think the line you're drawing between other 'each player' discard/sacrifice and 'each player' burn is inaccurate. I don't think you have to mess with the implicit understanding of 'each player' to affect planeswalker in ALL cases like you're describing with Syphon Mind. Specifying that 'each player' burn affects all walkers would just be an added provision to the burn-redirect damage rule. It wouldn't and shouldn't affect the cases with non-burn related 'each player' clauses.

  4. #4
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    By 'bad,' do you mean by implementing a rules change like I suggested would complicate play or reduce interaction? I think it would make it more inherently simpler to understand for a new player using 'each player' burn if they can use it to affect all players and walkers.
    I think I go on to explain it fairly well, but I tend to belabor a point sometimes or lose it in analogy. I'm primarily concerned with there being a hidden interaction with a particular subset of an "each" effect.

    I know it isn't a ton of rules baggage to just create a rule that essentially says "Whenever the effect of an object would affect each player, it affects each planeswalker too. If an effect would create an impossible or illegal action for a planeswalker, ignore it." It isn't a big deal to just tack that on.

    I think this is honestly the result of an oversight on behalf of R&D. There's data on the internets which suggest that originally, they had no intention of ever printing a card that used the phrase "target planeswalker". And really there are not very many right now -- there are two I can think of. The problem is that it establishes a precedent for being that explicit.

    So a (new) player has a hand with Dreadbore, Flame Rift and Benediction of Moons. Today, right now, they can target a walker directly with Dreadbore, deal 4 damage to each player OR choose to redirect that damage to a walker they control, and gain X life where X is the number of actual, real-life, non-card players in the game. Dreadbore is explicit in its interaction with planeswalkers, Flame Rift is optional (as long as you 'just know' the rules), and Benediction of Moons doesn't apply at all to planeswalkers. Is a rules modification necessary given the way all these cards approach planeswalkers in different ways? Maybe so. I do have to wonder which approach is cleaner though; creating implicit rules or relying on explicit card text. I'm sure it's obvious that I prefer the latter.

    This is one of those times where it's easy to just say "well there are good cards and bad cards, and good players and bad players. who cares about the bad cards and bad players". But really it makes the game more difficult to access from the outside.

    I actually don't have a problem with damage being redirected to walkers in general, say using a Bolt to redirect 3 damage to a walker. I just have a problem with the 'each player' burn that effectively can make you to choose which of your opponent's walkers to target. But I did think about the idea about changing the design of future Burn spells to include walkers as an explicit target. The problem with your suggestion is that WotC would have a harder time reprinting burn spells that exist now because of the reduced interaction they would have. Sure, they could print a Bolt that can target planeswalkers, but then they would be creating another problem of adding another useful Bolt to the card pool. I actually like the point of your idea, that you want your cards to say exactly what they are capable of doing.
    I think about that too, because reaching a critical mass of any given type of spell does sort of allow for one deck to be a little too redundant, right? And in a game of random chance, redundancy is a simple way to combat the "didn't draw the nuts" problem. My example card was just an example, but to be fair I did create a Sorcery Bolt, which does not have Chain Lightning's "non-drawback drawback" of being thrown back at the player - so it is functionally different from existing 3-for-R spells. It might maybe supplant Chain Lightning, or it might (god forbid!) just replace Flame Rift :) But this stuff happens all the time. Deathrite Shaman just took a giant shit on Birds of Paradise and Noble Hierarch and just about any other similar creature, because in those Jund-style decks it is just a house. Delver of Secrets needs no introduction. Tarmogoyf kicked Wild Mongrel in the breakfast like 7 years ago; when I started playing, people were going "Maaan, Wild Mongrel is a *mistake*. What a beating that card is." So Bolt 2.0 wrecks some existing 2-for-R spell, or some other 1R spell. Meh!

    I think the line you're drawing between other 'each player' discard/sacrifice and 'each player' burn is inaccurate. I don't think you have to mess with the implicit understanding of 'each player' to affect planeswalker in ALL cases like you're describing with Syphon Mind. Specifying that 'each player' burn affects all walkers would just be an added provision to the burn-redirect damage rule. It wouldn't and shouldn't affect the cases with non-burn related 'each player' clauses.
    Here's the thing, though, is you have to just know that. Which, like, it's fine to have to 'just know' something. We have to know how to play, and we have to know things about spell timing and SBEs and whatever else - and so yeah it is just one more rule, NBD right? But from my perspective, I think this game is past the point of 'premature optimization' - we already kind of know which parts of the game are less directly understood than others, and we know which parts are the most easily grokked, and we know what kind of rules are preferred and what kinds aren't.

    I'll point to the "Walls as a creature type with rules baggage" example again; it was excised from the game for a reason. Compare that to adding one rule which is IMO similarly corner case. Invariably, under a set of rules where Flame Rift, Hurricane and friends are able to damage planeswalkers without redirection because of the 'each player' wording, some player somewhere will wonder why a Cabal Therapy can't be redirected to a planeswalker via Deflection. It may not resonate that "each player" and "target player" are so different that things which affect players can't just be diverted to 'walkers.

    Old Bad Card Time! So, what about Lim-Dul's Hex? It deals damage to 'each player' during your upkeep - but it gives them an out in paying or to counter the effect. Planeswalker cards cannot pay mana costs. What about Mind Bomb? That's 3 damage to each planeswalker for one Blue mana; planeswalkers cannot discard cards. There are probably lots of examples of cards that say "-this- deals damage to each player unless that player Makes A Choice" that undergo a pretty major change if "each player" and burn spells change in the way you've suggested.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  5. #5
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    I still don't see how revising 'each player' burn would complicate cards like Lim-Dul's Hex. I think it would be rather easy (even for new players) to assume that opponents can make the choice to pay off the enchantment, since walkers are not sentient beings who can make cognitive choices. I just don't think that revising burn would signal the major rules complication you are predicting.

    FWIW, I definitely prefer your method of making text more explicit. However, I don't think it's worth it to drastically change future print runs for burn spells just over semantics. I like you nicely described the ambiguity over the planeswalker redirect-damage rule was an unintended consequence of WotC never imagining they would introduce walkers to the game and not being able to foresee how burn spells would interact with them. Anyway, I'm concerned about loophole that makes 'each player' burn spells effectively target walkers, and I want that loophole closed, whether by revise 'each player' burn to affect all players and walkers, or only players and no walkers at all.

    Can other people chime in?

  6. #6
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    I still don't see how revising 'each player' burn would complicate cards like Lim-Dul's Hex. I think it would be rather easy (even for new players) to assume that opponents can make the choice to pay off the enchantment, since walkers are not sentient beings who can make cognitive choices. I just don't think that revising burn would signal the major rules complication you are predicting.
    So a player that controls a planeswalker can make 'each player' choices twice - once for themselves, and once for their walker? So again, Mind Bomb is bloody amazing :) So is Patriarch's Bidding; the effect is cumulative. So if I control two planeswalkers and my opponent controls none, I can Bidding three creature types back into play because I have to choose a type for 'each player' or in this instance, my two planeswalkers that cannot make a choice. Would Liliana of the Veil force players that control a planeswalker to discard for each 'walker as well? (If so, she just took a hit, as her controller has to discard twice).

    I have to assume that "Target player" or "target opponent" would remain unchanged; otherwise spells like Intuition could be pointed at planeswalkers even if their controllers gain shroud/hexproof before resolution (which should counter it, as the target is illegal). But then it just turns into an issue of how the word 'player' actually means something different when the spell's wording is 'target' versus 'other' versus 'each'.

    I mean that's the problem, essentially - it is one instance of one kind of spell that applies to players AND planeswalkers, when any other card with any other effect that says "each" doesn't or can't apply. That's weird.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  7. #7
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    So a player that controls a planeswalker can make 'each player' choices twice - once for themselves, and once for their walker? So again, Mind Bomb is bloody amazing :) So is Patriarch's Bidding; the effect is cumulative. So if I control two planeswalkers and my opponent controls none, I can Bidding three creature types back into play because I have to choose a type for 'each player' or in this instance, my two planeswalkers that cannot make a choice. Would Liliana of the Veil force players that control a planeswalker to discard for each 'walker as well? (If so, she just took a hit, as her controller has to discard twice).
    Again, I'm only advocating 'each player' clauses to only be revised in the case of burn. Bidding and Liliana of the Veil wouldn't change at all. None of those non-burn related cards you mention would be affected by what I'm asking. I'm not asking for a change in the implicit definition of 'each player,' I'm asking that burn that affects each player should affect all players and walkers, OR should exclusively affects players. Yes, Mind Bomb would be better if burn affects all players/pw's, but I think more people would rather play Spell Pierce.

  8. #8
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    Again, I'm only advocating 'each player' clauses to only be revised in the case of burn. Bidding and Liliana of the Veil wouldn't change at all. None of those non-burn related cards you mention would be affected by what I'm asking. I'm not asking for a change in the implicit definition of 'each player,' I'm asking that burn that affects each player should affect all players and walkers, OR should exclusively affects players. Yes, Mind Bomb would be better if burn affects all players/pw's, but I think more people would rather play Spell Pierce.
    If it's an either/or situation, I'd just as soon see it be 'only players'.

    The point I'm having trouble understanding with your assertion that only burn spells would be affected may come from a lack of understanding your suggested rules fix. I'm coming at it from the perspective of trying to understanding which part of the effect is actually changing.

    I'm not positive that it is actually possible or elegant to infer that only burn spells that say "each player" affect each player and planeswalker. For example, the burn redirection as it exists now is a replacement effect. Does it copy the effect, then, if it deals damage to all players and planeswalkers? If I have a spell that prevents damage to a target, do I target myself? If I can't target the walker, can I still prevent the damage dealt to it?

    This is why I keep mentioning weird shit like Mind Bomb or Lim-Dul's Hex, because they are damage-based effects and spells which have implications beyond just dealing damage; there are additional effects which demand choices on behalf of every affected 'player'.

    Ask to whether or not players would favor Spell Pierce over Mind Bomb, it's difficult to say - we're all scrambling around looking for answers to Jace now that we can't just blow it up with our Jace, right? So why not play Mind Bomb and force the Jace player to discard 3 cards to not only counter their +0 Brainstorm but also kill Jace altogether, in addition to maybe taking 3 themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  9. #9

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    Does anyone else find a disliking of the fact indiscriminate burn ala Flame Rift can effectively target planeswalkers given the redirecting of damage to a specific walker?
    I have no issue with it.

    Clearly, Flame Rift wasn't designed to take into account planeswalkers, but it was designed to be indiscriminate towards players and thus affect all of them. I just feel that the indiscriminate nature of these burn spells should be consistent and thus be applied the same way towards walkers.
    How isn't it consistent already? I just don't see any logic to this. You just seem to jump to "it should affect Planeswalkers, too!" without any actual reason other than "I like it that way" and a vague appeal to some imagined consistency.

    Another big thing to consider is the way Planeswalkers actually function in the game. If your opponent has a Planeswalker, then you have to decide between going after the Planeswalker or them. If you go after them, the Planeswalker sticks around and can keep activating its abilities. If you go after the Planeswalker, you might get rid of it, but you also stunt your own offensive. This works both in terms of attacking (you can't attack a player and a planeswalker with the same creature!) and direct damage. The way something like Flame Rift works fits exactly in with this, in that you can't be hitting the opponent and their Planeswalker for damage, you have to pick one or the other.

  10. #10
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Seth View Post
    How isn't it consistent already? I just don't see any logic to this. You just seem to jump to "it should affect Planeswalkers, too!" without any actual reason other than "I like it that way" and a vague appeal to some imagined consistency.
    My quote you referenced details the logic of my reasoning. Flame Rift affects all players. If you cast Flame Rift, you not only have the liberty to deal 4 to yourself and choose between hitting your opponent or his/her walker, but you can choose which of the opponent's walkers to kill. That is clearly not consistent with the indiscriminate aspect of Flame Rift.

    ALSO... I just thought, none of us have brought up the instance where a player who's casting Flame Rift can forego the 4 damage to themselves but deal it to their own planeswalker. That is another problem I have with 'each player' burn, is that you can choose to Burn your opponent but not take any damage yourself, which illustrates the contradiction of Flame Rift being indiscriminate by nature but being the opposite when planeswalkers are involved.
    Last edited by Shawon; 06-16-2013 at 11:21 PM.

  11. #11
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    My quote you referenced details the logic of my reasoning. Flame Rift affects all players. If you cast Flame Rift, you not only have the liberty to deal 4 to yourself and not only choose between hitting your opponent or his/her walker, but you can choose which of the opponent's walkers to kill. That is clearly not consistent with the indiscriminate aspect of Flame Rift.

    ALSO... I just thought, none of us have brought up the instance where a player who's casting Flame Rift can forego the 4 damage to themselves but deal it to their own planeswalker. That is another problem I have with 'each player' burn, is that you can choose to Burn your opponent but not take any damage yourself, which illustrates the contradiction of Flame Rift being indiscriminate by nature but being the opposite when planeswalkers are involved.
    I think that this is good because it exposes one of several unfortunate flaws with the card type in general. There was no clear infrastructure for them to exist; compare to Equipment, which are Artifacts that simply follow Aura-like rules save the part about hitting the bin when the creature flops. They sort of occupy this goofy space where, they act like one-shot artifacts which don't tap (that you can't Shatter) which can be attacked like players (but not targeted by 'target player' spells or abilities) and can have damage redirected to them (but not prevention). Why Healing Salve will 'counter' a Lightning Bolt but not a Wild Nacatl attack is just another one of those silly interactions that is difficult to explain to a new-jack and never quits looking like a spot of mustard on Magic's sleeve. I can redirect damage, but not damage prevention? Fuck you, Comp Rules. I know the line has to be drawn somewhere -- you can't have a 1000-card Stroke of Genius just fizzle when it is Misdirected at Ajani -- but whoever decided that the current system would be the most fair was probably secretly just being cruel.

    It is also a case of flavor vs. function colliding with modern rules and interactions. One could say it was "never intended" to be redirected in this manner - like Lotus Vale's ETB ability was never intended to be responded to. In cases like this, I personally find that the current solution - functionality errata - is deplorable. Your discussed loophole of simply redirecting a Flame Rift you cast to your own planeswalker to prevent you from taking damage is, on its face, just an upshot of the card type's interaction with burn.

    I still believe that the best solution is to just get rid of the burn redirection rules surrounding planeswalkers and switch to explicit targeting. It does change a ton of cards and make more than a few of them less useful against planeswalkers; but then again, I'd rather pack Dreadbores or Vindicates anyway -- just outright kill a Planeswalker than throw a bunch of Bolt variants at it until it drops. Bad cards don't excuse sloppy rules though, and damage redirection rules surrounding walkers just suck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  12. #12
    Member

    Join Date

    Jul 2010
    Location

    Richmond, VA
    Posts

    35

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post

    ALSO... I just thought, none of us have brought up the instance where a player who's casting Flame Rift can forego the 4 damage to themselves but deal it to their own planeswalker. That is another problem I have with 'each player' burn, is that you can choose to Burn your opponent but not take any damage yourself, which illustrates the contradiction of Flame Rift being indiscriminate by nature but being the opposite when planeswalkers are involved.
    No one brought it up because it's not an actual thing that can happen. You cannot choose to redirect to your own planeswalker.

    306.7. If noncombat damage would be dealt to a player by a source controlled by an opponent, that opponent may have that source deal that damage to a planeswalker the first player controls instead. This is a redirection effect (see rule 614.9) and is subject to the normal rules for ordering replacement effects (see rule 616). The opponent chooses whether to redirect the damage as the redirection effect is applied.

  13. #13
    Legacy Vagabond
    Shawon's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Cheshire, CT
    Posts

    1,091

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    My apologizes, thanks for correcting me. I'm over the discussion bu I think we (at least me and TsumiBand) can agree that the current rules regarding burn vs. planeswalker is stupidly vague.

  14. #14
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,774

    Re: "Each player" burn should affect ALL players and walkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawon View Post
    My apologizes, thanks for correcting me. I'm over the discussion bu I think we (at least me and TsumiBand) can agree that the current rules regarding burn vs. planeswalker is stupidly vague.
    Yeah I hate them.

    I actually kind of dislike that the current rules wouldn't allow you - the controller of an effect - to redirect your own Flame Rift to stupid Tibault. But oh well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)