These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

9th
Oct 2017
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 09 2017 08:01
yes yes, kill-stab the man things
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 09:41
@CrusherJoe the valkyries PL is, ahem, slightly off
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:09
"Slightly", eh?
That sounds suspiciously like more than slightly
HOLY MOLEY
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 09 2017 10:18
how high?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 10:18
its setting the cost of each model to what the cost of the whole unit should be (ish)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:23
Hmm
This shouldn't be rocket surgery
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 09 2017 10:24
iunderstoodthatreference.jpg
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:30
Weird
Okay so, who wants to place bets that the (+15 PL for 3 Valks is a big ol' typo?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 10:32
its increasing the cost of the models, rather than the cost of the unit
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:33
Well I got that part figured out (duh)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 10:34
oh, i see. the +8 is still applying in a unit of 3, so either stop that from happening or reduce the +15 by 8
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:53
Got it -- fix submitted
PR created
As it turns out, placement of the Modifier/Condition is sorta important
I can't roll my eyes at myself hard enough
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 10:59
Oh
Well I got that part figured out (duh)
@GenWilhelm that (duh) was directed at myself, in no way was it directed at you
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe catches up on the 40K internets
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe sees Thomas's latest article on BoLS
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:02
Oh man that's rich
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:23
goatboy says all kinds of rich shit all the time
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:24
Thomas is a good friend of mine
But man sometimes he's really full of crap LOL
And it's really fun calling him out on it
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:25
no I know
I was saying he's always full of crap lol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:27
His last article he was bitching about all the Malefic Lords at Iron Halo
And yet
He had more than one in his list LOL
I'm enjoying the analysis articles on this site about AM
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:28
oh, @CrusherJoe, @GenWilhelm; was the ocifer loosing his shotgun the only index-to-codex warmer loss?
wargear*
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 11:30
whats up with shotguns?
codex officers cant take them?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:31
that's what my one guard buddy was saying
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 11:31
yeah, looks like it
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:32
That's correct, Officers lost the shotgun (whee?)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:33
was that the only index to codex wargear option loss?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:33
Honestly I'm not that intimately familiar with IG wargear
I'm more on a macro level familiarity
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 11:34
cant take an axe or a maul anymore
only chainsword, power sword, or power fist
and a melee weapon isnt mandatory (but a chainsword is free, so i dont know why you wouldnt)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:36
So I had a (hopefully) good idea on how to address some of these issues (which probably won't work, now that I think about it)
I was thinking we could keep the "Index" cats and remove units/models/etc. from them when they were updated by a Codex
I would also really, REALLY like to see some differentiation in lists when someone is using an Index unit for an army that has a Codex
Because gamers are sneaky, underhanded, dirty rotten filthy cheaters and trying to sneak in some bullshit under the "but it's in the Index" excuse is something I'd really rather avoid
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:39
no that's a pretty bad idea, tbh
besides there is a set method for index stuff, iirc
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:40
Yeah....but so is keeping legacy crap from Indexes in Codex catalog files IMHO
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:40
it's probably in the wiki, in guidelines
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:44
Once the codex is out, the final status of the CAT should be accurate of what you're allowed to choose... So there "shouldn't" be a problem with sneaky cheating... "shouldn't" being a big word of course!
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:45
Please define "accurate of what you're allowed to choose"
To me, "accurate" indicates what's in the Codex -- nothing more, nothing less
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:45
and GW has said you can use options from the index, even if they're left out of of the codex, because fuckit why not, amiright?
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe sighs
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:45
Can we please not have this argument again? :)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:46
that last bit was me being sarcastic, Joe ;)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:46
I'm of the "You've got to put your foot down, and put your foot in her ass -- she'll either get in line, or get on down the line" school
(that phrase came from a man that called himself "A Pimp Named Quasar"...I'm not making that up)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:47
I get what you're saying - but there's nothing we can do to police the filthy cheats if gw has said "well, if it's a thing in the index, it's a thing till we say otherwise".
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:48
But...but...last I checked we are certainly not beholden to GW
I'm certainly not getting a paycheck from them for what I've done here
Is anyone else?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:49
but we're not gamedevs ourselves.
we just type code into software so that people can play GW's game.
you're still in your TO mindset.
that doesn't work here.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:50
No, but that's what GW said, so that's what we do... It's not illegal to combine codex and index options, so we permit it
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:50
we only abide by 1 ruleset; GWs.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:50
I get that -- I do
And please don't think I'm being arbitrary
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:51
There is no way to police whether the user actually owns the codex or not...
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:51
I would just really, really like to see there be some differentiation between current, modern, Codex units and when someone is dragging out some ol' bullshit from 3rd edition
I'll make my case:
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:52
:popcorn:
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:52
Let's so you're playing in a tournament, or an escalation league -- and you've got two players: one new to the game, one crusty ol' neckbeard with a guard army that still has metal heavy weapons teams
(yes, extremes to show a point)
Step One in any (decent) tournament round is Both Players Compare Lists
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:53
IF we were still tagging all the FW stuff with {FW} tag, I'd say that maybe we can add a {INDEX} tag to it to differentiate - but then again we all hated the pedantry of tagging so we all decided to stop that shit.
sorry not trying to derail story time - just type slow
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:54
(and tagging wouldn't work in the case where there were index only options)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:54
Let's assume both players are playing Guard
Neckbeard hands Baby Seal his list. Baby Seal reads it. He's only ever seen the Codex. He looks at the Company Commander and wonder WTF, this crusty ol' bastard is taking some bullshit that's not in the Codex! How is this legal?
A TO is called
Discussion ensues
Codexes are referenced
Indexes are referenced
Time passes
Everyone needlessly ages
Finally the poor, beleaguered TO finds the entry from the Index, and after blowing the dust off the page he determines that Neckbeard can indeed take his ancient 12 oz. metal company commander model with a shotgun
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:58
... This is what GW has decided is a good thing.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:58
Now
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 11:58
yeah unfortunately
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 11:59
Please note
That while I'm using a bit of hyperbole, I'm not against what Neckbeard is trying to do
It's perfectly legal
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 11:59
BUT neckband should be able to point out the reference instantly in the index he brought along with him.
If he cannot, he is not in compliance with the list building guidelines
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:00
What I'm begging for is some kind of ALL CAPS BOLD TEXT (if we could make it flash that would be great) or any kind of indicator that shows "HEY THIS NECKBEARD DRAGGED THIS BULLSHIT OUT OF THE BOTTOM OF HIS MOM'S BASEMENT AND WANTS TO USE IT IN A GAME"
....and maybe a watermark that prints on every page of the list that reads, "USING OLD SHIT -- PROBABLY A CHEATING NECKBEARD"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 12:01
Hmmm... That's back to tagging.
Are rifleman dreads old shit?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:02
yup
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 12:02
What's wrong with old shit?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:02
and HF arm dreads
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:02
Yes, in fact, they are
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:02
Joe, reference this link please.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:03
What's wrong with old shit is that when you're trying to grow a community it gets really confusing for new players when old fuckers like me drag up some ol' bullshit that's not in the current Codex
specifically point 18.
we did away with tags.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:04
Tags were done away with in terms of FW
...and look, I know I'm asking to make a lot of extra work
it would be different if there was some kind of way to reference the book and page that a unit comes from
Oh wait
There is
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:05
yup.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:05
But that would require multiple unit entries for Index units...which should be appropriately named...which kinda goes back to tagging.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:05
no
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 12:05
Index/codex tags will not work, unless the option is ONLY in the index, otherwise units that have the option in a codex will be tagged with index erroneously... Then you're into bloat. And large amounts of it...
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:05
just tag the specific option in it's own entry
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:06
So let's take the company commander with a shotgun
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:06
yes.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:06
(why anyone would actually want to do that is beyond me, but whatever)
Strictly speaking, if you're wanting to take a Company Commander with a shotgun, you're no longer using a Codex unit
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 09 2017 12:07
You could do a modifier to change the name to include the tag or something similar, but then you're back to tagging and I don't know if it is possible..
Bother, lunch over, back to work... I'll catch up later
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:09
And @alphalas I know what you're saying about leaving my TO mindset out of BS coding
But here's a simple fact:
BattleScribe is now the de facto standard for list building -- at least in the US, possibly worldwide
We've (can I say we yet?) created a monster
And while tournament/league play is a subset of 40K players, it's a very vocal and high-profile subset of players, and the ones most likely to use what we do
And as a TO, one of the things I'm concerned with is growing the community
Making a complex ecosystem easier to understand and hopefully making it easy to avoid confusion is part of that
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:13
I get that Joe, I really do.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:14
Then again if it was up to me every time you tried to select an Index entry for a Codex unit I'd pop up a dialog box that says ARE YOU SURE? HAVE YOU CONSIDERING USING CURRENT MODELS YOU CRUSTY OLD BASTARD?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:14
and not to be an asshole at all, but 3 words are the answer to that - not our problem.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:14
I get that, too
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:15
UNTIL gw, to use your own argument,( ;) ) is paying us to do that, we're just doing it to create a tool
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:15
And I sincerely hope I'm not offending anyone or coming off as an asshole myself
Because that is definitely not my intent
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:16
im so triggered i need to go blog about it /s
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:16
and we have zero responsibilities to anyone beyond giving accurate representations of what GW has established that they want to have be a part of their game.
lololol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:16
triggered!
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:16
@GenWilhelm as long as the blog is on Tumblr lol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:17
Every time I hear that word I'm reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Eq5EKr9XY
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:19
but speaking of referencing things, have you updated the book/page references on things?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:19
If I touched a unit/entry, yes
Maybe the solution is already baked in -- make sure that all Index wargear properly references the Index page
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:22
^this.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:23
with the officer/shotgun example, both the unit and the weapon will reference the codex
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:23
....and that's the problem
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:23
just don't use a linked shotgun then
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:23
In the instance of the officer/shotgun, that particular piece of wargear is NOT "Codex legal" (to coin a phrase)
It's "Index legal" (which is just AS legal)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:24
yeah, perhaps the officer shotguns should reference the page the officer is on in the index
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:26
thats what I just said lol
create a different SG entry in the ocifer, referencing the index.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:26
However
If I'm doing it the Shotgun entry will be named Shotgun INDEX OPTION
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:27
no
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:27
Well, if I had my druthers, that is LOL
I will follow the standard
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:27
good boy lol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:27
(but I REALLY think we should)
Because not everyone includes page references when they print their lists
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:28
your opinion has been noted and catalogued ;)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:29
Yeah yeah LOL
And appropriately filed by the Adeptus Minutae somewhere in a very big room somewhere on Holy Terra
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 12:30
exactly :)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:31
Man now I got the Feels Bad Man that I just deleted the shotgun from the Officer entry LOL
Then again I'd also change the entry for the Malefic Lord to be "Malefic Lord -- I HAVE NO SELF RESPECT"
Well
Only if used in the Supreme Command detachment to spam like 14 of them
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:33
if at least 3 selections in roster
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:33
:+1:
@GenWilhelm gets it! LOL
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:34
1 - yeah sure
2 - fine, it makes up for R&H being so bad otherwise
14 deepstriking out of a valkyrie - gtfo
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:34
I swear for WGCX I'm going to require people submit the .ros files for list approval
YES @GenWilhelm EXACTLY THAT lolololol
But we used the carrot method for fully painted armies
By having a painting rubric that awarded points and pretty much made it impossible to win Best Overall if you didn't follow it
Out of 75+ players
We had exactly 2 that weren't fully painted and based
It was glorious.
Man I'm all stream-of-consciousness this morning. My apologies y'all.
But I won't play a unit/army in a tournament unless it's fully painted....because I like to practice what I preach
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:40
@GenWilhelm I'll go even further
14 deepstriking out of a valkyrie - gtfo
14 deepstriking out of a valkyrie along with 120 brimstone horrors - die in a fire
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:42
oh yeah, the brimstones come after they disembark, because 1200 of their 2000pts are reinforcement points
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:44
definitely-heresy.jpg
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:44
characters are absolutely broken in this edition if you just take loads of them and mash them into a small space
and malefic lords are the pinnacle of that
even if he wasnt summoning, i dont know if my entire 2k army would be able to clear 12 malefics given the full 5 turns
(if you cant tell, i played in a tournament against that)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:49
There are a couple of easy fixes
Abolish the Supreme Command detachment
and/or
Add Smite to the Rule of One
"But what about Thousand Sons and Gray Knights, Joe?"
Easy
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:50
what about change the character rule, so you can ignore other characters when determining the closest unit?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:50
Change the 1KSons power name back to Doombolt
And change the GK power name to Warp Dust
That's also not a bad idea @GenWilhelm
Assassins should also be Unique
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:52
because assassin spam is also a problem, for similar reasons to malefic lords
yeah, making them unique is not a bad shout
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 12:54
I really think Smite should be limited in some way
But then again I'm also not a fan of mortal wounds, period
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 12:55
yeah, mortal wounds are way too common imo
it just seems like a lazy way to deal extra damage without resolving it like an attack
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 09 2017 13:05
I took 11 eversor assasains the other day, i thought the other guy was bringing conscript spam, he did not (primaris helblasters mostly), i felt bad about how badly i destoyed him
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:05
Hellblasters are no joke
But yeah... 11 Eversors are going to really wank things up
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 13:07
wank things up
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:13
So @GenWilhelm there actually IS a benefit to not mixing regiments in a detachment
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 13:14
yeah, doctrines
i think doctrines are the only thing that require you to commit to a single regiment
everything else is available with mixed detachments
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:17
Right
But man, doctrines are so good I don't think you can outweigh them with order in a mixed-regiment detachment
OrderS, that is
Plus you'd have to include Officers from all the regiments you're mixing to be able to give orders
I mean...you could do it, but man that's a whole lotta squeeze for very little juice
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 13:23
oh yeah, i agree. but when i said it i was just pointing out that it was legal, and people may want to do it
and you still get the other benefits when you do so
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 13:36
But if you really want to have your cake and eat it too, just take multiple detachments with the different regiment traits
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:36
Oh, I know. Sadly...I know.
One of the conversations we're having in a TO group is just how strict to enforce WYSIWYG with regiments
I'm in favor of taking a hard line -- if you don't have Mordians, you can't play Mordians (for example)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 13:38
"They're not Cadian, they're Cabian. Totally different. Their fluff is the same as Catachans, but they come from a world like Cadia and have the same heraldry."
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:39
BZZZZZZT! GTFO
Since there are models that are specific to each Regiment, IMO if you're not using the correct Regiment-specific models you're not WYSIWYG
You wanna know what's really sad, though?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 13:40
what if you have cadian models, but paint them different colours like in the codex?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:40
I have a friend that has a full Praetorian army...like....tons of metal Praetorians
Colors don't matter
The models do
"So these Cadians are painted to look like Mordians...so they're Mordians." BZZZZT! "Nope, they're Cadians."
I'm taking this hard line to increase the difficulty for what I call cock-hoppers
Little gaming whores that hop from one army to the other, chasing the meta without actually doing the hobby work
You want to play Mordians in a competitive setting? GREAT! :+1: Now produce the models and show your work.
Now that's only in a competitive setting. List-testing, casual games, etc. is whatever
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 09 2017 13:46
what bout cadians with ushanka hats as valhallans for example, would that be enough?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Oct 09 2017 13:47
Head swaps indicate actual hobby effort, so I would say yes
Though technically that would be a proxy, and would require approval prior to the event
(but there's not a TO I'm aware of that wouldn't approve it)
The whole point of WYSIWYG is so your opponent can look at your army and know what's what
Well, I mean that and the fact that this hobby is (again, IMHO) at its best when playing with fully painted, WYSIWYG armies
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 14:05
is it just me, or are vultures, vendettas, and valkyries missing damage tables?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 09 2017 15:25
it's not you. Valks have nothing, Vendettas have an empty table and Vultures have an empty table with only a single line. They also appear to have Abilities which are duplicated in the Rules?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 15:27
oh yeah, the valkyrie uses rules whereas the other two use abilities
and the vendetta is missing its transport profile?
how has this not been reported, does nobody use these units?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 09 2017 15:36
guess not?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 15:54
Probably not since the boots on the ground
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 09 2017 16:06
there you go, its up in an issue so it doesnt get lost
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 09 2017 20:21
OK, BS data hivemind. See #1600. Should DG Lords and Sorcs be allowed Jump Packs?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 09 2017 20:44
Is it in Index? I’m assuming that’s where it comes from
tekton
@tekton
Oct 09 2017 23:22
Fire evacuations suck...