Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: hsiale on March 12, 2013, 08:30:09 am
-
If I play BoM as Herbalist, should I get the possibility of topdecking one of my Treasures when I discard BoM from play?
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm guessing that Band of Misfits as Herbalist does let you top deck a Treasure as you discard it from play. The timing is similar to trashing it when it's a Fortress, and I believe it returns to your hand under such circumstances.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm guessing that Band of Misfits as Herbalist does let you top deck a Treasure as you discard it from play. The timing is similar to trashing it when it's a Fortress, and I believe it returns to your hand under such circumstances.
Correct. Scheme is indeed a bad comparison, because it only does something when you play it (though the thing that it does is to cause you to do something later). With BoM as Herbalist, I'm sure you're right. Herbalist is "when you discard this from play." I don't see any question that it was a Herbalist that was discarded from play. Fortress is a good comparison, and a trashed BoM as Fortress goes back into your hand.
-
Hmm, I thought Scheme mentioned it being discarded during Clean-up, but it only mentions the start of Clean-up.
-
If it's indeed so that you are allowed to top-deck a treasure with BoM as Herbalist (can someone confirm this?), Goko does it wrong (to my great annoyance, yesterday).
-
Yes, they do it wrong. I think it's already been reported. The same bug apparently affects BoM as hermit, I think.
-
Yeah, I reported it a week ago when it happened to me:
https://getsatisfaction.com/goko/topics/band_of_misfits_as_herbalist-1iqq1k (https://getsatisfaction.com/goko/topics/band_of_misfits_as_herbalist-1iqq1k)
And it was reported a "little" earlier as well:
https://getsatisfaction.com/goko/topics/band_of_misfits_as_hermit (https://getsatisfaction.com/goko/topics/band_of_misfits_as_hermit)
-
Oh man. I reported that five months ago, and didn't even remember now.
-
I've reported it too some time ago. Don't remember how long.
-
Oh man. I reported that five months ago, and didn't even remember now.
/sigh
-
Saw the Goko bug today, annoying. Strange that they handle trashing effects correctly for BoM but not discard from play effects. (Then again I guess it would have been a colossal screw-up to not handle trashing effects correctly considering how many there are in DA)
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
Failed Tactician.
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
-
That's the two I was thinking of, kudos for finding them both.
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
This is correct. Output stays out because it's still causing you to draw 3 instead of 5.
Another question... if tricky wording for Durations weren't needed, how much weaker would Scheme be? Aside from KC-SCheme going away, because that's just one particular combo... but if Scheme couldn't topdeck itself, I'd think that would make it a lot worse.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
This is correct. Output stays out because it's still causing you to draw 3 instead of 5.
Another question... if tricky wording for Durations weren't needed, how much weaker would Scheme be? Aside from KC-SCheme going away, because that's just one particular combo... but if Scheme couldn't topdeck itself, I'd think that would make it a lot worse.
It would be a less impressive Bane. Still a pretty good one though.
-
I came across an example the other day where the talisman buy/gain order in Goko was important. If you buy a herald with talisman in play, you should be able to resolve the on buy effects in chosen order to gain the copy of the herald first and then put that herald onto the draw deck using overpay. I doubt that is ever going to get a fix in Goko.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
I suppose so? Although I think that would make whether you can use Scheme on itself very confusing.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
But that would add further confusion to the order of cleanup mattering, which I think right now only matters if Alchemist, Potion, and Herbalist are all out. With the wording you propose, you would need to make sure you clean up your Schemes first, before your other actions.
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
This is correct. Output stays out because it's still causing you to draw 3 instead of 5.
But drawing 3 instead of 5 is part of this turn's cleanup phase, so this is the last turn it has any effect. Is it somehow too late to discard it since you've already discarded this cleanup phase? (ie, discard hand and cards in play, then Outpost makes you draw 3, now discard Outpost from play)
Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn).
...
Leave Outpost in front of you until the end of the extra turn.
...
If you play Outpost during an extra turn, it won't give you another turn.
I feel like Outpost should be discarded during the turn it was played if it was played during an extra turn due to another Outpost, but I also don't think the rules are 100% clear about it.
Somewhat related, it looks like the rulebook doesn't specify the discard Tactician this turn interaction; this sentence doesn't look like it's bound to actually having discarded anything with Tactician.
Tactician stays out in front of you until the Clean-up phase of your next turn.
-
If I play BoM as Herbalist, should I get the possibility of topdecking one of my Treasures when I discard BoM from play?
You should be wary, though, misfit herbalists are quite dangerous and may slip you some unsavory "medication".
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
But that would add further confusion to the order of cleanup mattering, which I think right now only matters if Alchemist, Potion, and Herbalist are all out. With the wording you propose, you would need to make sure you clean up your Schemes first, before your other actions.
Right, I didn't mean to imply that I thought scheme would be better that way. Just that I'm not convinced that the existence of duration cards is the only reason Scheme ended up working on itself.
-
I think "leaves play" triggers after the clean-up phase is complete, so I would think you could topdeck a Treasure.
Isn't there a BoM-Scheme ruling somewhere which is similar?
? Scheme's effect has nothing to do with Scheme being in play. You could Procession it and still return 2 cards to the top of your deck.
I'm curious, does anyone know if DXV has ever commented on why Herbalist and Scheme are worded differently? Since the intended effect is the same - put an action or treasure you played this turn on top of your deck - I would assume this is one of those cards he would go back and change the wording on to match scheme if he could.
Herbalist has the simpler, better wording. Scheme is worded like is due to Action–Duration cards. If there were Treasure–Duration cards, Herbalist would need a crazy wording, too.
Hmm. Actually I was thinking more of why scheme is something that happens when you play it, vs herbalist being something that happens when you discard it. And of course it's obvious to me now, it's so it can work on itself, as well as get multiplied by throne room and kings court.
No, I think LastFootnote's answer is real the answer to your question. "So it can work on itself [and] get multiplied by Throne Room" wasn't Donald X.'s priority. Making it work with Durations was the priority, and making it do its thing when you play it was the simplest way for that to happen.
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
I suppose so? Although I think that would make whether you can use Scheme on itself very confusing.
Yes, that was more or less my point - to me Scheme seems intentionally worded not just to handle durations, but to make it clear it can work on itself. Anyways when it comes down to it, I am just mad because the other day I KC'ed an Herbalist (!!) and I'm still bent out of shape about not getting to top deck 3 golds. :P
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
This is correct. Output stays out because it's still causing you to draw 3 instead of 5.
But drawing 3 instead of 5 is part of this turn's cleanup phase, so this is the last turn it has any effect. Is it somehow too late to discard it since you've already discarded this cleanup phase? (ie, discard hand and cards in play, then Outpost makes you draw 3, now discard Outpost from play)
Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn).
...
Leave Outpost in front of you until the end of the extra turn.
...
If you play Outpost during an extra turn, it won't give you another turn.
I feel like Outpost should be discarded during the turn it was played if it was played during an extra turn due to another Outpost, but I also don't think the rules are 100% clear about it.
Somewhat related, it looks like the rulebook doesn't specify the discard Tactician this turn interaction; this sentence doesn't look like it's bound to actually having discarded anything with Tactician.
Tactician stays out in front of you until the Clean-up phase of your next turn.
Simply put, Outpost doesn't follow actual Duration card rules as they are literally worded. Even if you just play it in a normal situation, it has no effect during the next turn. Its only effect is during the cleanup of this turn. However, like you say, once Outpost is done doing its thing, it is now too late to clean it up, because you've already finished that part of the cleanup step.
-
I thought the "make it work with durations" part of scheme is the "name a card ... if you discard it" wordiness. Couldn't scheme say "When you discard this from play, you may choose an action card you played this turn. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck." and still work just fine with durations?
I suppose so? Although I think that would make whether you can use Scheme on itself very confusing.
Yes, that was more or less my point - to me Scheme seems intentionally worded not just to handle durations, but to make it clear it can work on itself.
Sure, but I don't think Donald cared much whether Scheme works on itself, just that it be clear whether it works on itself.
-
This is really annoying. (http://www.twitch.tv/adamhorton/c/3557974)
-
Puzzle question:
Which Duration(s) you played this (not the previous) turn can get put on your deck with a Scheme you also played this turn?
an Outpost played during an outpost-turn.
I'm pretty sure that, for reasons which don't make sense to me, Outpost is not cleaned up till the next turn even if you do play it on an Outpost turn.
However, Haven played when you don't have any other cards in your deck, hand, or discard for some reason can also be Schemed this turn.
This is correct. Output stays out because it's still causing you to draw 3 instead of 5.
But drawing 3 instead of 5 is part of this turn's cleanup phase, so this is the last turn it has any effect. Is it somehow too late to discard it since you've already discarded this cleanup phase? (ie, discard hand and cards in play, then Outpost makes you draw 3, now discard Outpost from play)
Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn).
...
Leave Outpost in front of you until the end of the extra turn.
...
If you play Outpost during an extra turn, it won't give you another turn.
I feel like Outpost should be discarded during the turn it was played if it was played during an extra turn due to another Outpost, but I also don't think the rules are 100% clear about it.
Somewhat related, it looks like the rulebook doesn't specify the discard Tactician this turn interaction; this sentence doesn't look like it's bound to actually having discarded anything with Tactician.
Tactician stays out in front of you until the Clean-up phase of your next turn.
Simply put, Outpost doesn't follow actual Duration card rules as they are literally worded. Even if you just play it in a normal situation, it has no effect during the next turn. Its only effect is during the cleanup of this turn. However, like you say, once Outpost is done doing its thing, it is now too late to clean it up, because you've already finished that part of the cleanup step.
Outpost is sort of weird that way, since it creates a new turn which wouldn't have otherwise existed, although it creates that turn when played. Still, if you look back to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, the reason Donald has duration cards stay out is to serve as a reminder. From that perspective, Donald appears to have really meant for duration cards to stay out for as long they are still causing funny business. So that's why you don't discard Outpost if you are about to draw a reduced-size hand. Unfortunately, the rule he wrote down doesn't quite match what appears to be his intent. Also, that strict adherence to keeping durations in play as a reminder seems less principled in light of cards like Procession.
-
Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn).
...
Leave Outpost in front of you until the end of the extra turn.
...
If you play Outpost during an extra turn, it won't give you another turn.
I feel like Outpost should be discarded during the turn it was played if it was played during an extra turn due to another Outpost, but I also don't think the rules are 100% clear about it.
Somewhat related, it looks like the rulebook doesn't specify the discard Tactician this turn interaction; this sentence doesn't look like it's bound to actually having discarded anything with Tactician.
Tactician stays out in front of you until the Clean-up phase of your next turn.
I think Donald has stated that the reason Outpost stays out even if it doesn't give you another turn is that the card has no "knowledge" of things that are still to happen. As an example he gave a hypothetical kind-of Possession card that would give the player to your left another turn, but force this turn to happen before any of your extra turns. His reasoning was that with such a card, even if you had played Outpost during an Outpost turn, it would still be possible to avoid having two subsequent turns, and therefore Outpost could still possibly "do something" next turn. The strange part is that Haven and Tactician are discarded in this case, and i can only assume that it is because they "learn" whether they will do something next turn while they are still played (unlike Outpost would with such a card).
-
another way to look at it is just that all duration cards don't get cleaned up during the turn they were played.
-
Except Tactician is cleaned up during the turn it's played if it doesn't discard any cards.
-
Except Tactician is cleaned up during the turn it's played if it doesn't discard any cards.
And Haven, if there was no card set aside with it (draw deck was empty and it was the last card in hand).
-
This has probably been answered before, but what happens if you play two Outposts? Will they both stay out? (because Golem?)
-
Also, thanks Asper. That is by far the most satisfying explanation yet.
-
This has probably been answered before, but what happens if you play two Outposts? Will they both stay out? (because Golem?)
I guess yes. Assuming my previous interpretation, the Outposts both don't know which one will be resolved first at cleanup and so don't know which one will have an effect beyond the current turn.
-
This has probably been answered before, but what happens if you play two Outposts? Will they both stay out? (because Golem?)
I guess yes. Assuming my previous interpretation (which may or may not be correct), the Outposts both don't know which one will be resolved first at cleanup and so don't know which one will have an effect beyond the current turn.
Yes, Donald specifically said that Outpost doesn't know what is going to happen until the moment that it tries to take an extra turn. After Outpost turn #1, Outpost #2 tries to give an extra turn; only at that moment does it see that it can't do so. When you play it, it doesn't know if that will happen or not.
-
This thread has sentient outposts o.0
AdamHorton's rage needs to be bottled and sold at gas stations between regular and premium
-
AdamHorton's rage needs to be bottled and sold at gas stations between regular and premium
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day. :)
-
I reported that five months ago
And two years later, the bug is still there.
-
I reported that five months ago
And two years later, the bug is still there.
Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be fixed in version 2.0. Which will be done Soon. As in Blizzard Soon.
-
I reported that five months ago
And two years later, the bug is still there.
Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be fixed in version 2.0. Which will be done Soon. As in Blizzard Soon.
And then Blizzard quietly cancels half the games they plan. Quite honestly, I'm expecting Overwatch to be another one of those.
-
This thread has sentient outposts o.0
AdamHorton's rage needs to be bottled and sold at gas stations between regular and premium
the best part isnt even the rage itself. the best part is the anticipation, knowing the punchline already, as he slowly, excitedly explains why he is choosing herbalist as his band of misfits target.