|
Played a 5 round tournament (so we got to try each scenario) over the weekend. I came in first by a pretty big margin and I still think the game is not as good as it used to be. - The bumping rules aren't the end of the world, but feel needless. They did not fix anything that was 'wrong' and along with that stupid random order makes bumping more 'complicated'. So new player friendly! - The random order is dumb as gently caress. Full stop. New player friendly! - I do like that obstacles are more punishing. Making gas clouds pillows in the past was annoying, making them actually punishing now i good. - List building is...whatever. Like said earlier, there feels like there is a more 'solved' build for each ship now. That's annoying. Their points now make no sense at times. You end up taking a huge stack of cards that take up a lot of space in both the table and your brain. New player friendly! - Scenarios as an idea are not bad. Scenarios as they are now are...scenarios. They kind of make the game anti-climatic overall, and tracking points throughout the game instead of at the end is needless accounting. I had a game end early because my opponent did the math and knew he had no way of getting to 20 before me, and since it's more or less "3 points for wins, 0 points for lose", he just decided to concede. This same opponent would normally have fought tooth and nail to scrape some points together. New player friendly...? - and we already had people colluding. They decided both grab 2 objectives a piece and not fight just so they would tie so both got a point and not hurt each other's standing. That kind of poo poo never happened at a tournament i was at before (or at least not as transparently), and it sucked poo poo. Of course they were out of town, try-hard guys. - and all scenarios favor taking 6-7 ships, with lower ship counts just not able to make up the slack, esp. in the scenarios where you need to tag objects or drag them around. I took a Rebel list of 5 named A-Wings and Blount, which is a fun list to fly, thankfully. People that took 4 or less ship lists just stood no chance in any scenarios. New player friendly! I mean, I still enjoyed it somewhat, but the game as it is now doesn't exactly strike me as something I look forward to, and I'll play if I guess I have no other plans.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
enigmahfc posted:Played a 5 round tournament (so we got to try each scenario) over the weekend. I came in first by a pretty big margin and I still think the game is not as good as it used to be. I'm not the biggest fan of some of the new rules, but you're making up problems that either don't exist OR have always existed, even in the old rules. Here's some examples: There have been "solved" builds for ships as long as there's been X-Wing. Tracking points throughout the game has been a...thing...since timed games existed. Sure, casual games that played to full destruction didn't do that. Everyone else kept track of the score to some degree (or should have been; knowing your win condition is key to actually winning). Collusion has been a shameful thing in competitive play forever. It should be reported to, and handled, by the judges. Both FFG and AMG have been bad about codifying what counts as collusion and what the penalties are. A 3-ship ace list went undefeated in Swiss at the Cherokee open under the new rules. Consensus seems to be that 3-ship lists are about as viable as 2-ship lists were in the previous meta (ie: strong when built right/flown well). Four-or-five ship lists seem to be solid as a general rulel. Also, second edition leaned HEAVILY towards a four-to-five ship list average after the first year or so. "Generic spam" was the meta for ages. ConfusedUs fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:but you're making up problems that either don't exist Actually I ain't 'making up' anything, this is just my opinion and read of things. I know it might be hard for you to believe, but sometimes people have a different opinion or experience than the one in your own head, and that doesn't mean they are making poo poo up. I have zero idea what was going on with whatever the Cherokee Open is/was, and i have no idea where the 'consensus' comes from, this is just my opinion on stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:There have been "solved" builds for ships as long as there's been X-Wing. There's always been best builds for ships or certain lists, but you can't pretend that the issue isn't grossly exacerbated by the new listbuilding changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:There's always been best builds for ships or certain lists, but you can't pretend that the issue isn't grossly exacerbated by the new listbuilding changes. I've yet to see any indication that the "solved" builds are worse now than it's been before. Everything is just different. But I can admit when I'm wrong. Give me some lists that are "solved". Tell me how they're the best at what they do. Show me how they dominate. I'm willing to bet that you cannot. The new game is currently too new. We have no idea what's going to be "best" and if that best is going to be narrow. All we have is people theorycrafting, and I've yet to see anyone put together anything definitive that listbuliding is now considerably more constrained than it was. This isn't to say the new points are balanced. They probably aren't. My personal take is that over the next few months, we will see the rise of at least one far-too-powerful list. Maybe more than one. However, we should keep in mind that this has happened throughout X-Wing history. We had the same in 1.0 (starting with double Falcons early, later Parattani, toss in some triple jumpmasters, god don't remind me about Ghost/Fenn, and ultimately ending with TLT Miranda plus assorted extras) and at various times throughout 2.0 (Whisper/Redline/Vader was stupid strong at launch, triple upsilons, rebel beef, quad juke phantoms, and a several scum builds centered around Boba Fett until they finally took away his crew slot). All of those builds existed with certain ships equipped with certain upgrades with only minor changes between them, at most. If 2.5 does the same, well, what else is new? Second (point five) verse, same as the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Like, for real guys. There's a lot to criticize about AMG's approach to this big change. They were absolute poo poo at communication. They still don't have a singular source of information for stuff. The drip of information only served to increase trepidation. Their insistence on "make it easier for new players" sets up a needless divide between existing players and new--not to mention that I don't think their changes actually make it easier. It's a sidegrade. Some things are more complex and others aren't. But regardless of that, the changes are here. If you've made your mind up that you don't want to consider the changes and want to stick with the old rules, that's fine. You're fundamentally making the same decision as people who stuck to 1.0. And that's okay. Stay with the old rules and old points for as long as you like. The game will move on without you. But if you have any remaining interest in playing the game going forward, I think it's appropriate to look at the changes with a neutral eye. Don't get mad simply because it's different, look at what's actually working and what isn't. There's no point in getting angry at things 2.5 does that were already problems in 2.0. My personal take: the change I hate the most is damage for self-bumping. It makes bumping even more complicated and doesn't really solve a problem. Fortressing is a losing strategy with the scenarios scoring so rapidly. The remaining changes I feel are mostly neutral-ish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:All we have is people theorycrafting, and I've yet to see anyone put together anything definitive that listbuliding is now considerably more constrained than it was. I mean the game literally tells you how many upgrade points to bring on each ship. It's also significantly more constrained just from the standpoint that a huge number of ships and pilots are simply obsolescent, with no reason to bring them over other options that have the exact same point cost but better loadout points or pilot abilities. And while one could argue certain ships/pilots being pointless or less optimal was always an issue (It's not like many people were bringing Porkins), you can't tell me with a straight face these changes do anything but make the problem even worse — because now it's not just certain pilots that are suboptimal, but everyone that doesn't have the best pilot ability/loadout points at their point cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
there's no way 2.0 -> 2.5 resembles 1.0 -> 2.0 in any way. these are all new devs, who seem to be bad at, well, everything, as you said, and the game is effectively dead from COVID. staying behind on 2.0 is obviously a choice to remain outside of organized play but people can try 2.5 without paying anything, unlike 1.0 -> 2.0. this is a thread to discuss the game, so discouraging discussion seems poor form to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean the game literally tells you how many upgrade points to bring on each ship. It's also significantly more constrained just from the standpoint that a huge number of ships and pilots are simply obsolescent, with no reason to bring them over other options that have the exact same point cost but better loadout points or pilot abilities. And while one could argue certain ships/pilots being pointless or less optimal was always an issue (It's not like many people were bringing Porkins), you can't tell me with a straight face these changes do anything but make the problem even worse — because now it's not just certain pilots that are suboptimal, but everyone that doesn't have the best pilot ability/loadout points at their point cost. For pilot variety: In first and second edition: Very few ships ever had more than a tiny fraction of their pilots used. Usually there was a single named pilot who was way better than the rest, who represented the vast majority of that ship's presence. Take the Rebel Falcon: why would you have ever used one that wasn't Han? Sometimes there was a cheap generic, especially for swarmy ships like droids, that would fit in a "filler" slot in your list. In 2.5 Very few ships will have more than a tiny fraction of their pilots used. Usually there will be a single named pilot who is way better than the rest, who will represent the vast majority of that ship's presence. Take the Rebel Falcon: why would you ever use one that isn't Han? Generics aren't worth it anymore--except for swarmy ships like droids--but cheaper named pilots with upgrade points are now used to fit in "filler" slots in your list. Conclusion: For variety's sake, the change in listbuilding is a sidegrade, not a downgrade, in terms of overall pilot variety. For upgrade variety: Yes, you get them for free with your ship/pilot purchase, and they can be used for anything. Ships have upgrade points that raise (or lower) their relative value compared to their second edition counterparts. Where before you might get a generic X-Wing without upgrades, now you get Porkins with seven points of upgrades. More Hull? R5 to repair? Whatever the case, he can hold it longer than before. That's something NEW over 2.0, and there's enough subjectivity as to what counts the "best" upgrades for a given pilot that some variety is inevitable. Conclusion: For variety's sake, the change in listbuilding variety is an upgrade. alg posted:there's no way 2.0 -> 2.5 resembles 1.0 -> 2.0 in any way. these are all new devs, who seem to be bad at, well, everything, as you said, and the game is effectively dead from COVID. staying behind on 2.0 is obviously a choice to remain outside of organized play but people can try 2.5 without paying anything, unlike 1.0 -> 2.0. I did not say they were bad at everything. I listed some things they were bad at. If saying "look at the changes with a neutral eye" is going to be taken as stifling discussion, then, well, I'm gonna just bail until that sentiment burns itself out. Maybe y'all like complaining at each other instead in an endless echo chamber of negativity, but frankly I'd rather spend my energy discussing things constructively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
I'll be the rear end in a top hat to say it: you just come off as really condescending and have a very "well, aaacccttually..." presence when you write. Maybe you do not mean to, but (at least for me) it really kills any motivation to talk about poo poo. also: this thread is pretty much a dead wasteland, so it represents the game pretty appropriately right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Maybe it would be less of a dead wasteland if you posted more funny homebrews instead of complaining, my dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Part of me wonders if the difference in perspective comes from the local competitive environments. Back in 2015/2016 I used to play at Curio Cavern in Springfield, VA every week, and I saw what a hyper-competitive local meta looked like. But other than that the vast majority of my experience in X-Wing has been far more casual, where worrying about who's bringing a top-tier meta list has been much less of an issue. From what you've posted CU, you're playing much more frequently in highly competitive environments against guys who are more interested in winning as opposed to having a good time. You've grown tired of the existing game format, want to believe the new changes will shake things up in a positive way, and that's fine. The problem is that you're still wrong? (And it kinda feels like you're extrapolating your view of whatever's happening in your local meta on all X-Wing). Like, yeah, usually in the top meta lists you'd have certain ships/pilots that were over-represented as being the cream of the crop. Jumpmasters and Fang Fighters still haunt my nightmares. But for anything less than top-tier hyper-competitive play, you'd still see a pretty wide variety of lists and options. People like trying out new or different things, and sometimes certain combos can actually pan out pretty well! But the new listbuilding fundamentally eradicates what may previously have been fun or interesting choices. Example: I used to like taking Y-Wings loaded for bear. A couple cheap Y-Wings loaded with ordnance, lead by Dutch or Horton, was a really fun list that could pull off some devastating alpha strikes. Now you literally cannot build this kind of list, because only the top Y-Wing pilots can actually take proton torps, let alone any other kind of ordnance. And frankly it's now pointless to take Y-Wings in almost any circumstance, because B-Wings are mostly priced the same and are flat-out better. Why take Horton Salm when he can only take 14 points of upgrades (Barely enough to get Proton Torps), when Ten Numb costs the exact same but gets 20 points? I point this all out because I think it's worth pointing out. There's serious problems with the new approach to the game, and we should all be clear and honest about those issues — especially if the community ends up splitting between those who want to move to the new edition, and those (Like me) who prefer what came before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:I'll be the rear end in a top hat to say it: you just come off as really condescending and have a very "well, aaacccttually..." presence when you write. Maybe you do not mean to, but (at least for me) it really kills any motivation to talk about poo poo. I mean, it's true. I'm advocating for a high road approach that I feel is inherently superior. I'm pushing for you to elevate your discussion to that level. That's the literal definition of condescending. <insert shrug emoticon> However, I'm trying very hard to differentiate between suggesting that the arguments themselves are inferior and suggesting that the people making them are. You're cool. Everyone in here is cool. Even alg is cool, and he's been the grumpy old man of the thread for years. The world needs grumpy old men, too. I just don't think it's cool to spend time making specious arguments of dubious accuracy. It's fine to say "this thing is different and I hate it because it's different" and another to say "I hate this thing because it's objectively worse" when it isn't worse, it's just different. I'd love to hear what people think of the new rules from more neutral stance. I 'd love to hear talk about new lists and new strategies. I'd love to hear more battle reports. That's the type of discussion I hope for. It sure beats "omg this sucks" for the upteenth time. ConfusedUs fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I mean, it's true. I'm advocating for a high road approach that I feel is inherently superior. I'm pushing for you to elevate their discussion to that level. That's the literal definition of condescending. <insert shrug emoticon> Dude you literally accused someone who posted their experience of playing in (And winning!) a tournament of making up things to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
When 2.0 dropped, i could actually point to pretty much everything that got changed and understand how it improved the game- the changes to turrets, ordnance, points going up to 200 to allow more granularity, sliding scale point costs for upgrades, point cost changes. Pretty much everything there struck me as a positive change, or at least one coming from a place of considerable competitive experience of the game. The 2.5 changes come off as someone who had trouble counting and didn't like dogfights, and is just not that interested in x-wing in general, without much regard to curating a competitive environment, more wrenching things into their vision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
I do kinda feel that the biggest issue with the listbuilding is that casual, for fun lists are actually going to be more grossly affected from the restrictions than the highest competitive builds, which have always suffered "one true build" issues even since 1.0. It's restrictions like some of the Belbullab only having some specific pilots having access to the tactical relay slot, for example, and only one of them can take Kraken, so if I really want to have a Belbullab with Kraken, my choices are restricted right there (and yes, I did fly a tac-relay belbullab and mini-swarm when it came out). And there's much more. At least in the previous system you could try to pack in enough upgrade to make even a relatively bad pilot do something cool, but now you can't. AMG kind of opened pandora's box when they decided that similar-price pilots (even within the same ship type) weren't balanced for their effectiveness anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
I haven't had a chance to play with the new rules yet, but it sure seems like it's going to be an entirely different game than what we were used to even if the core gameplay loop is similar. I admit I am not the biggest fan of the direction AMG seems to want to go - I enjoy taking generic wingmen to go with my heroic pilots - but this is also very much a first pass at points. It might be indicative of the general intent behind AMG's vision, but it's pretty likely we'll see changes to adjust things as we get more data. It's actually crazy to sincerely suggest that AMG wants the game to fail. The new listbuilding rules definitely open up new possibilities, and I am glad they're trying to push people into actually taking upgrades instead of nearly always trimming things down to fit one more ship in the list. Being able to cram a B-Wing or HMP full of ordinance and cannons is fun and thematic. Some of the slot changes were pretty out of left field, but they open up interesting choices too! Vulture droids with cannons aren't something we could play with before, and I have a few lists I am excited to test that use the new Precise Hunters. Are the new rules perfect? Definitely not. They're also fresh, and there is more to discuss than how much you dislike them. Frankly, I kind of wish AMG bit the bullet and went full 3.0 officially, even if it meant buying new cardboard. Just the ship chits though, having to track cards for all your ships sucks. Rules should all be online and YASB-style list printouts should be the way to go 
Derlix fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Part of me wonders if the difference in perspective comes from the local competitive environments. Back in 2015/2016 I used to play at Curio Cavern in Springfield, VA every week, and I saw what a hyper-competitive local meta looked like. But other than that the vast majority of my experience in X-Wing has been far more casual, where worrying about who's bringing a top-tier meta list has been much less of an issue. From what you've posted CU, you're playing much more frequently in highly competitive environments against guys who are more interested in winning as opposed to having a good time. You've grown tired of the existing game format, want to believe the new changes will shake things up in a positive way, and that's fine. Okay I see what you're saying. If I can summarize, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you liked the freedom to literally spend as many points as you liked on any ship that you liked. In this case: Y-Wings. Now you find that no ship can take unlimited upgrades, and that some ships can't take many upgrades at all, and that some ships at the same price point can take more than others, and you find that frustrating. That sound right? The problem I have with the old way of doing things--the way you prefer--is that allowing unlimited upgrades on a ship resulted in a very different experience between experienced competitive players (who knew that was usually a trap) and casual players (who had no idea). Generally speaking, from a pure efficiency level, it was nearly always better to take another ship instead of excessive upgrades, and it was usually unpleasant to learn it. Now, I could be super reductionist and say that your argument boils down to "I should be able to make bad lists just because I want to." And while I believe that is too reductionist--after all, you can totally build a lovely list in 2.5--there's definitely an element of truth to it. I've taught scores of people how to play X-Wing, and I can say that the freedom to make lovely lists through unlimited upgrades really did hit new players hard. Nearly every person I taught to play has made exactly that mistake on their first list: they load up with too many upgrades. Three Y-Wings loaded for bear instead of five lightly loaded ones. The loadout points really do help curtail this. There's definitely room to argue how well AMG balanced their first attempt at loadout points, but I can definitely see how and why they made the change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Derlix posted:Frankly, I kind of wish AMG bit the bullet and went full 3.0 officially, even if it meant buying new cardboard. This I definitely agree with. I think a lot of the changes (Listbuilding especially) would be a lot more palatable if it was alongside a full reset, wherein they could pare down a huge number of pilots and upgrades and balance everything around what they want the game to be, as opposed to trying to awkwardly manhandle the existing game into... well, what they're doing now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
I mean, there are even more trap options now in terms of listbuilding, so that hasn't changed at all, and probably got worse in terms of viability of specific pilots. I guess if there is one thing going for the new system is that trap options within a single ship type are really, really obvious now, but I'm not sure the situation is the same when comparing different ship types within the same faction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I mean, it's true. I'm advocating for a high road approach that I feel is inherently superior. I'm pushing for you to elevate your discussion to that level. That's the literal definition of condescending. <insert shrug emoticon> I literally said what I think about some of the new rules and list building. You want a " neutral stance" but when the experience is not neutral, that is not really a thing that can happen. I am not going to 'beep boop erase emotion and experience' for some false sense of 'neutral'. I went into the tournament with an open mind and willing to test out the new rules and poo poo. If my mind was made up beforehand, I would not have gone in the first place. I came out with a not positive view overall. I am not a try-hard (I do aim to win but if I don't who gives a gently caress, these are toys we're talking about), so no, I did not take detailed notes to do some battle report. In fact, doing a battle report shouldn't have to be a bar that has to be passed for someone's opinion to matter. My experience is not less valid just because it does not pass the weird line you put forth. I am sorry my experience is not valid and not 'accurate' enough for you. I posted my opinion. It's not "this thing is different and I hate it because it's different". In fact, I did not hate it, which i even said. But it was not positive, and sure was not neutral, and that was not because it was different, it's because i found it to not be good overall. That was kinda of the overall feeling of the 16 people there. I did no take a poll or do the scientific method or something, so this is still just opinion and experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
I played a few more games tonight, and I think the Scramble the Transmissions scenario is absolutely awful now having tried it. This was the board when the game ended.  I killed RIvas that turn, my Backdraft had 1 health left and a couple of other ships had taken 1 damage. With everyone constantly losing actions to flip the satellites no one could reposition for shots or to mod their attack dice so nothing was happening all game until it just fizzled out because I lost on points. Which is the frustrating part - no one was winning the fight, it was still up in the air but the game was just over, not satisfying to anyone. The silencer only fired once all game because it was much better off tagging objectives rather than engaging, all the scenarios feel like they encourage having ships that don't actually fight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
Most games, board/video/card, have new player "traps" or whatever. Honestly who cares. You learn the ins and outs of a game and after a while youre not a new player anymore. I'd rather that than be funneled into a system with little wiggle room or the illusion of simplicity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
ro5s posted:I played a few more games tonight, and I think the Scramble the Transmissions scenario is absolutely awful now having tried it. Yeah I think the scoring of this scenario is too fast, too. My one game on it went much like yours. I need to play a bit more to be sure, but it was over well before it felt like it should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
My 2 scenario games so far seemed to end really fast. One on round 7, one on round 5. Claiming an objective of some type+ scoring kills + starting at a point deficit can really put the screws to someone pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:Maybe it would be less of a dead wasteland if you posted more funny homebrews instead of complaining, my dude. I mean when I posted them all the time no one cared
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
I cared.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:I cared. Me too. It was fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:I mean when I posted them all the time no one cared I did too  They horrified me but that's what they were for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 10:06
|
|
|
I think there was next to no playtesting by actual good theory crafters. Has anyone come across a complete bullshit list yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
Soooooo you can have a list with Dengar, Manaroo, Nom & Kanan........ Also, does Migs Mayfield work on let's say Dengar, I shoot a torp and get to fire on another ship with the turret, then if he is shot he gets to spend a charge for a 3rd shot? Naaaa that can't be. please let it be Raged fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Mar 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 13:26
|
|
|
Raged posted:Also, does Migs Mayfield work on let's say Dengar, I shoot a torp and get to fire on another ship with the turret, then if he is shot he gets to spend a charge for a 3rd shot? Naaaa that can't be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
I've been focusing on building standard lists because the feeling I got was that extended is basically "here's the rules for the old stuff but we're not concerned with the balance or playability of it" Kind of like how Warhammer has "legends" for out of production models. One final rules pass that won't get updated or looked at again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Well shucks guys. Guess I'll saddle up Like this one. DARK SABERS FOR EVERYONE (Seriously, that condition seems real OP and stupid)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
I was packing up and I found a few things:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
See I post terrible homebrew and the thread dies
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
My EU-poisoned mind couldn't get past the idea of giving all those characters access to a poorly-constructed super laser and the impact that would have on gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:See I post terrible homebrew and the thread dies Homebrew OP, pls nerf
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
i was waiting to see how long it took before someone next posted after the homebrew, just to make a point that talking about the new games rules (good or, lord forbid, bad) was the only way to keep any conversation going.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
You gotta keep it coming, bunny. You don't stop CPR at the first mouth to mouth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2022 18:17
|
|