Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Indigo Weasel said: I just thought we weren’t coordinating lurches Axl started it! (Axl wanted recommendations, that kind of started the whole conversation.) Dude, you still think we look at Ocho, or where's your view of the Elims/starting point tomorrow?
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 14 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Axl started it! (Axl wanted recommendations, that kind of started the whole conversation.) Dude, you still think we look at Ocho, or where's your view of the Elims/starting point tomorrow? Yeah tomorrow that’s my plan, probably at Toucan as well, but definitely one of those two. Unless they like, hit Elims or something
Pearl Chameleon Posted January 13 Posted January 13 9 hours ago, Opal Lion said: To put it in simple terms: You're telling me the Saboteurs have zero firepower and that the Loyalists have likely >3 Seeker/Coinshot/Mistborn roles, along with at least 1 Kandra role to backup one of these? On top of that, the Loyalists have at least 3 Lurchers? Let's say we assume the Saboteurs have exactly a Smoker. That is not a very strong role by itself, and in that case, Loyalists have... extreme firepower, multiple roles that can save others, multiple roles that can be one of these for a cycle, and backups? And the Saboteurs have 2 Seekers, a Rioter, a Smoker, and a Kandra. If this is the case, there should absolutely be another Saboteur missing who has a stronger role, specifically a firepower role (Mistborn/Coinshot). I find it very difficult to believe the last 1-2 Saboteur roles does not include a Mistborn or Coinshot. If anything, I'm hesitant to believe there is a Smoker Saboteur. It's more likely that the potential Smoker is a Mistborn who rolled Smoker already, unless I have missed evidence that points against this. In cases where there are at least 4 Loyalist Lurchers, it would make sense for the Saboteurs to have a Coinshot or Mistborn who will roll Coinshot. Coinshot is technically a stronger role than Mistborn specifically for the Saboteurs, so I honestly am concerned we are missing a Saboteur Coinshot here. A point of evidence for this would be 2 Saboteur Seekers. What use is a Seeker to the Saboteurs if they cannot use it to identify strong Loyalist roles and then take those roles out? Remember that currently there has to be 3+ Loyalist Lurchers, according to claims and my inferences on Saboteur numbers (at most 2 Saboteurs in the pool of 5 Lurcher claims). If the Loyalists have that much potential to stop the Saboteurs from murdering anyone and the Saboteurs do not have an extra role that can kill, then something is extremely wrong with the distro. I would like to believe that will never be the case. The one thing I cannot take into account is if a Loyalist is lying about their role, which I honestly believe there is a pretty good possibility of, given that otherwise there are literally two vanilla Loyalists in a sea of fairly strong roles. I'm not going to dictate your choices here. If you are a Loyalist fakeclaiming a role, I hope you know what you're doing. CONCLUSION I cannot create a distro here that makes any sense because the Loyalist roles that would have to be true to an extent would imply strong roles that have yet to be found from the Saboteurs, because the current known deceased Saboteur roles are not very strong when compared to the minimum of what the Loyalists would have in the case where all Loyalists are being truthful about their roles. The Saboteurs should have a role with firepower here that we have yet to identify. A Saboteur Lurcher and Smoker combo as the last 2 Saboteurs would make no sense next to the Loyalist roles. That does not even take into account that there may only be a single Saboteur left. Please tell me someone has stopped to think about this more than I have. "Hot take incoming: callsign:Opal Lion has produced the most sensible and trustworthy human correspondence of the night," CRANK buzzed. "Inability to count Lurchers notwithstanding. Hot take dispensed. Please enjoy responsibly." "Claim: this unit is a Saboteur Vanilla."
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Indigo Weasel said: Yeah tomorrow that’s my plan, probably at Toucan as well, but definitely one of those two. Unless they like, hit Elims or something I feel like if they both hit Elims, the game ends man... I refuse to believe they started with a 7 man team, and given 4 Elims down now, if they both hit, we're just done with the game. 2 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said: The Saboteurs should have a role with firepower here that we have yet to identify. A Saboteur Lurcher and Smoker combo as the last 2 Saboteurs would make no sense next to the Loyalist roles. That does not even take into account that there may only be a single Saboteur left. Interesting catch from Cham. I saw this, wanted to say something about it, and forgot again, and kind of got there with Lion earlier in that strictly speaking by Lion's definition of firepower it just cannot be a Mistborn. But all E!Toucan worlds are also E!Flam worlds, and well, we've been through the Ocho problem already. I don't disagree with the logic, but I think there's almost no room for a Smoker here if so? Which creates extra weirdness with Dingo. It's less about whether I think Lion is suss and more that I think there is an inherent instability in this worldview that points to something being wrong with some of the anchoring priors. ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. Edited to add: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel Apologies if you've addressed this before - if the Elims had a Coinshot from the start, why does the immortal Lurcher rule need changing since doubletaps ensure the target dies anyway?
Pearl Chameleon Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. "And yet you do not advocate flipping those clusters proactively. Weak." "Claim: this unit is a Saboteur Smoker."
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Pearl Chameleon said: "And yet you do not advocate flipping those clusters proactively. Weak." Yeah. I don't like killing innocent Villagers even if we learn from it, so prefer to try to find the best possible solve to reduce unnecessary casualties. I also believe in flipping people who do less Villagery things over those who do more Villagery things. This puts me right in the "clear PoE" problem wrt you and Lion. Since both of you just came in/came back, if you're Village, you have less preconceptions than us because you've not been grinding through the game. How do you propose to solve the cluster? Kill Ocho, who shot Croc N1? Kill Toucan, who was supposedly scanned by Flam, meaning a Flam-Toucan solve? Kill Axl, who some people sus but was also the C1 CW to DF? Kill DF, who was the C1 Lurcher claim and the main train for a decent chunk of the cycle and also helped exe Elims from D1 to D3? Kill Weasel, who hardcased Kanga on D1 and was third Kanga voter but also has been hellbent on flipping Ocho? Kill Zebra, who Dingo and Meerkat claimed to have scanned as a Village Lurcher, meaning a Dingo-Zebra solve? Kill Rhino? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited to add: I agree it's clear there's some assumption that's wrong, or that we're just ramming repeatedly into this wall, I'm minded of what Araris said about the last Elims clearly doing something unexpected to slip past us ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Increasingly confident of 2 v!CS Gut says it is Dingo + Zebra. 13 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Kill Toucan, who was supposedly scanned by Flam, meaning a Flam-Toucan solve? e!Toucan also does not holster in N2 imo Agreed, the elims might have been scared that Croc's Riot might have failed due to presumed high number of v!Smoker as their team had 2 e!Seekers, which does give credence to v!Axo. Could argue that they always knew Croc's vote on Axo was going to self-cancel and they did not expect DF train to fall off, but need to re-look at D1 for that.
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 33 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I feel like if they both hit Elims, the game ends man... I refuse to believe they started with a 7 man team, and given 4 Elims down now, if they both hit, we're just done with the game. Interesting catch from Cham. I saw this, wanted to say something about it, and forgot again, and kind of got there with Lion earlier in that strictly speaking by Lion's definition of firepower it just cannot be a Mistborn. But all E!Toucan worlds are also E!Flam worlds, and well, we've been through the Ocho problem already. I don't disagree with the logic, but I think there's almost no room for a Smoker here if so? Which creates extra weirdness with Dingo. It's less about whether I think Lion is suss and more that I think there is an inherent instability in this worldview that points to something being wrong with some of the anchoring priors. ...And yes sorry Beagle I am staring at the same old problem we have not been able to solve which is why I pointed to what I was saying and referred to it as reasoning people will hate because technically a flip in either cluster is in fact informative. I just hope we'll find the correct cleavage point again to crack it wide open. Edited to add: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel Apologies if you've addressed this before - if the Elims had a Coinshot from the start, why does the immortal Lurcher rule need changing since doubletaps ensure the target dies anyway? I don’t believe I have. But I don’t see how having a coinshot is any different from the original kill they get. So I’m not sure it matters to much I’m not sure why the Lurcher rule changed, as the only reason I can think of for its existence is if the Elims outnumbered the Lurchers, so that after everyone else was dead they still had a way to win, and so that Lurchers weren’t pretty much immortal, which leads me to believe: #ofElims > #ofLurchers.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2026 at 12:06 PM, Salmon Meerkat said: Holy crap Octo I just looked at your profile picture and I'm horrified. At least mine is adorable. Lurcher is probably easiest, because you can just pretend that you Lurched the wrong person. Come to think of it, we do have a lot of Lurchers. I dunno. EDIT: THIS THREAD IS TOO CRAZY I CAN'T EVEN WRITE A POST WITHOUT 5 OTHERS SHOWING UO!!! 37 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Tbh I think there's some value to tracking who wants the Coinshots exed and who wants the Lurchers exed in that I strongly feel that the surviving Elims are probably shoving us towards the clean set. @Indigo Weasel At least from Meerkat's perspective, he did suggest that Lurcher is the easiest to fakeclaim
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Just now, Indigo Weasel said: I don’t believe I have. But I don’t see how having a coinshot is any different from the original kill they get. So I’m not sure it matters to much Coinshot + Elim kill = Lurcher dies. It's not the difference, it's that reliably having both gets rid of the Lurchers so they wouldn't be immortal. A setting where the Elims only have access to an Elim kill and would need to also acquire a Coinshot kill via kandra to deal with Lurchers would be one possible reason the Lurcher rule was decided to be too restrictive. Edited to add: 1 minute ago, Oxblood Beagle said: At least from Meerkat's perspective, he did suggest that Lurcher is the easiest to fakeclaim ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._.
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Name Role Action Violet Axolotl Lurcher ? Taupe Gecko Mistborn - Sunburst Toucan Coinshot Shoot Cham/Lion Scarlet Octopus Coinshot ? Sapphire Elephant Salmon Meerkat Sage Kangaroo Saffron Iguana Quartz Zebra Lurcher ? Plum Rhinoceros Mistborn - Pearl Chameleon ? ? Oxblood Beagle Mistborn Lurch Self Opal Lion Vanilla ? Onyx Flamingo Kandra-Seeker Seek Dingo? Mint Heron Kandra Eat Meerkat Melon Dingo Seeker ? Mauve Crocodile Magenta Albatross Vanilla - Ivory Dragonfly Lurcher Lurch Flamingo Indigo Weasel Lurcher Lurch Heron
Indigo Weasel Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Coinshot + Elim kill = Lurcher dies. It's not the difference, it's that reliably having both gets rid of the Lurchers so they wouldn't be immortal. A setting where the Elims only have access to an Elim kill and would need to also acquire a Coinshot kill via kandra to deal with Lurchers would be one possible reason the Lurcher rule was decided to be too restrictive. Edited to add: ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._. Ah, okay that makes sense, I did not know that. However, I doubt they made the Distro to push the Elim team into doing a specific thing. However, that’s all based on adjusting to the amount of Lurcher ms we have, and it doesn’t explain why we have so many in the first place, which is why I’m leaning E!coinshot. Edit: I have to go to sleep, I’ve lurched Heron, and I’ll see you after rollover Edited January 13 by Indigo Weasel
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Indigo Weasel said: However, that’s all based on adjusting to the amount of Lurcher ms we have, and it doesn’t explain why we have so many in the first place, which is why I’m leaning E!coinshot. My argument is that usually Coinshot hit rates are very low and we would need Lurchers to protect us from friendly fires.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 On 1/12/2026 at 12:09 PM, Melon Dingo said: Can also claim to have lurched someone hit. Either actual lurcher doesnt take credit or they do and claim that they were double protected But that hasnt seemed to happen unless it did this cycle 6 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: ........I'll do a viz chart at some point ._. And then Dingo quoted Meerkat's post and backed it up. I did find it a little odd that Dingo just willingly accepted that there can be 2 V!Seekers, like is that more common an occurrence than I am thinking of? At least in the other AG games I had looked at, a few of them didn't even have a single V!Seeker and usually, balance-wise, you never really put 2 alignment checkers on the village team (that's even with consideration of a Smoker, who can only cover so much)
Plum Rhinoceros Posted January 13 Posted January 13 Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets. Last time they posted was to self-pres to Octo back when it was still between Zebra/Octo/Toucan
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Also, has Zebra been on during this Night? If not, I find it weird that they would not pop in to at least discuss Lurch targets. Zebra fakeclaimed Lurcher against me before man. I remember 1 minute ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Last time they posted was to self-pres to Octo back when it was still between Zebra/Octo/Toucan I will say this. I don't want to rely on player knowledge, but that self-pres post from Zebra was odd. 3 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: And then Dingo quoted Meerkat's post and backed it up. I did find it a little odd that Dingo just willingly accepted that there can be 2 V!Seekers, like is that more common an occurrence than I am thinking of? At least in the other AG games I had looked at, a few of them didn't even have a single V!Seeker and usually, balance-wise, you never really put 2 alignment checkers on the village team (that's even with consideration of a Smoker, who can only cover so much) I haven't played very many AGs (and I'm not lying ) I would say Jo games are the one game I'd hesitate (more so than TUM ones) to try to make an inference about multiple Seekers. I do remember one or two and I have a Tyrian distro in the back pocket with a Satanic number of Seekers but it would be the one time I'd be like about it. The issue here is really compounded by the number of Coinshots and the Elim kill because with 2KP and another 2 scans on Village side, assuming no overlap, that's a lot of players being cleared or terminally cleared, 1/5 the game. Yeah sure there will definitely be overlap and Seekers/CS dropping dead, but even so. I will say there is something from Dingo that gave me a bit of pause: (On Dingo as a V!Seeker being willing to draw flak with the joke Lurcher claim) On 1/12/2026 at 3:14 PM, Melon Dingo said: Oh... well... my bad... I thought everyone knew who I was at this point lol. but regardless I didnt really think itd draw that much attention as it was a joke. And then after I thought it'd deter attacks as I was an advocate for self protects. I'm willing to chalk it down to player personality but definitely would expect a Seeker to be more low-key on D1. Edited to add: Well, these two. There's always a more casual FAFO energy to Zebra when Elim. (Don't want to crutch on this which is kind of why I haven't really bothered guessing too many identities and have been very vote-centric this game, also because tired and votes are easier to do off-the-cuff.) and: This...is a very unusual post from Zebra. I have almost never seen it from v!Zebra, and in fact, I don't recall seeing it from e!Zebra as often either, which is why it just...puzzles me.
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: I will say there is something from Dingo that gave me a bit of pause: (On Dingo as a V!Seeker being willing to draw flak with the joke Lurcher claim) I'm willing to chalk it down to player personality but definitely would expect a Seeker to be more low-key on D1. It's possible they are actually e!Lurcher, then saw that there's way too many Lurcher claims and chose to fakeclaim Seeker. Then again, in this world, it's either Zebra isn't elim or for some reason, they have 2 Lurchers
Opal Lion Posted January 13 Posted January 13 3 hours ago, Mint Heron said: Suppose Flam does turn out to be Village - what's your read of the situation then? Where do we go from there? (This assumes that v!Flam entails v!Toucan which I think is reasonable enough.) HANDWRITTEN RESPONSE TO "MINT HERON" [The writing is barely legible] 1. To answer your question, if "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan" are both Loyalists, then at minimum the distro contains 2 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 1 Coinshot, 2 vanilla (I am working on the assumption "Oxblood Beagle", and by extension "Magenta Albatross" are Loyalists) for the Loyalists vs 1-2 Kandra (noticed some talk of this earlier), 1-2 Seekers, and 1 Rioter for the Saboteurs. 2. Designation "Taupe Gecko" is presumably confirmed Mistborn for the role change off of Tineye...? 3. There has been no counterclaim for the shot on "Mauve Crocodile" claimed by "Scarlet Octopus", a Coinshot. I think you don't start considering "Scarlet Octopus" for another cycle here. 4. If we take both "Taupe Gecko" (weak social reasons) and figure "Scarlet Octopus" as Loyalists, that means at minimum there are 3 Mistborn, 1 Kandra, 2 Coinshots, and 2 vanilla for the Loyalist side. That is a potential of 5 firepower and 3 scans. 5. In this case, both claimed Coinshots and 2 out of the 3 claimed Mistborn are Loyalists. I'd look at figure "Plum Rhinoceros" next, then the pool of four Lurcher claims. 6. "Pearl Chameleon" is a wildcard. Some part of me wants to believe if they are a Loyalist they should be vanilla. 7. I think there should generally be one Saboteur in the firepower claims and one in the Lurcher claims. I am currently working on a basis of 2 Saboteurs left for my own sanity. If there is only one left, they should be either Mistborn or Coinshot. 8. The 4 Lurcher claims should generally have a Saboteur, especially in cases where both Coinshots are Loyalists. Specifically in this case where "Onyx Flamingo" is a Loyalist, it almost seems as easy as one Lurcher claim + "Plum Rhinoceros"? 9. Somewhat conclusing here that I would look at whoever you do not clear who can be a potential firepower role + likely one in the Lurcher pool. I find it difficult to imagine four Loyalist Lurchers in one game. [A collection of crossed out sentences form a convenient line break] 10. I also noticed that designation "Melon Dingo" would clear "Quartz Zebra" if Loyalist, similar to "Onyx Flamingo" and "Sunburst Toucan". 11. For figure "Melon Dingo", I am a little concerned at the claim of scanning "Mauve Crocodile" without having mentioned them at all. Potential consideration for "Melon Dingo" being a Saboteur and there being no Saboteur Smoker since their claim appears to be is the only evidence for a Smoker. 12. Keep in mind that deceased Saboteur Seeker "Salmon Meerkat" claimed a scan on "Quartz Zebra", the same target "Melon Dingo" did for night 2. "Melon Dingo" does not have a confirmed role at all and appears to be the most likely out of everyone to be a Saboteur lying about their role. This may get resolved tonight since "Melon Dingo" will be forced to either lie about a scan or genuinely scan someone. Perhaps be careful of the "scan" being lost to a target who dies in the night. 13. I am leaning towards the conclusion that "Melon Dingo" may be a Saboteur due to their claim appearing the most fake. 14. Very loosely, I believe "Melon Dingo", "Plum Rhinoceros", and "Onyx Flamingo" likely contain a Saboteur. Veeeeery loosely. PS. I will be unavailable for the remainder of the night. See you in the morning (if I'm alive). [A scrawled note fills the remaining space] If I'm being honest, this feels like it should already be mostly solved on a mechanical level. I struggle a lot with mechanics and mapping out all the possible situations so if it looks like I jump around a lot in my thoughts that is because I confuse myself more than I confuse you. Mechanics fry my last three brain cells. Seriously, I think you need to think about how all the claims work together a lot more than I am capable of. I am not sure if it was confirmed that Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role, since it says "One action per turn (two allowed per cycle)" and "each night one of them may use their action to kill a player" in the rules. In cases where Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role at night, you should be able to cross off certain pairs for simply having no one to have carried the night kill since they have proved night actions (mostly regarding Seeker claims). This possibly means "Onyx Flamingo" cannot be a Saboteur with "Salmon Meerkat" on night 2 and therefore is a Loyalist. I got stuck in a loop thinking about this. I know I'm doing a lot of mechanical solving but it is very challenging to focus on social aspects when the distro puzzle just seems Wrong no matter how I try to fit it together and it bothers me soooo much. [Tiny writing has been angrily crammed against the edge of the page. You can only make out a few words] never again wasting my time [???] losing sanity over [???] im going to [???] because they don't [You are unsure what the rest of the text says] SENT FROM TERMINAL A3801
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: It's possible they are actually e!Lurcher, then saw that there's way too many Lurcher claims and chose to fakeclaim Seeker. Then again, in this world, it's either Zebra isn't elim or for some reason, they have 2 Lurchers Us: "Let's not do this anymore nothing makes sense we just need the night to end." Also us: "HELL-O ROLLOVER EXE CREW, WHAT D'YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT TODAY?"
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Mint Heron said: Us: "Let's not do this anymore nothing makes sense we just need the night to end." Also us: "HELL-O ROLLOVER EXE CREW, WHAT D'YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT TODAY?" Lmaooo that's why you shouldn't be dying tonight need someone around who's just a tad little obsessed with this game and has a hard time putting it off
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: I am not sure if it was confirmed that Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role, since it says "One action per turn (two allowed per cycle)" and "each night one of them may use their action to kill a player" in the rules. In cases where Saboteurs cannot carry the night kill and use their role at night, you should be able to cross off certain pairs for simply having no one to have carried the night kill since they have proved night actions (mostly regarding Seeker claims). FWIW, confirmed, re-asked regardless, and also is a staple element of Tyrian rules and why I said I don't care if a Seeker claims to encounter a Smoke tonight because in a two-Elim world, a night Smoker also isn't killing. Agreed about the mech being an issue and causing a great amount of consternation, hence appreciating what you and Cham can bring to the table if you're fresh. Edited to add: 3 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: Lmaooo that's why you shouldn't be dying tonight need someone around who's just a tad little obsessed with this game and has a hard time putting it off Mfer you tell me then why you are poking at this puzzle as well! Spoiler Edited January 13 by Mint Heron
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 14 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Mfer you tell me then why you are poking at this puzzle as well! Hide contents It's just been that addictive anyways, I feel like I don't have any new ideas anymore for tonight, so I might just check the thread again after rollover (lie)
Mint Heron Posted January 13 Posted January 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Oxblood Beagle said: It's just been that addictive anyways, I feel like I don't have any new ideas anymore for tonight, so I might just check the thread again after rollover (lie) Spoiler Edited to add: 28 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: For figure "Melon Dingo", I am a little concerned at the claim of scanning "Mauve Crocodile" without having mentioned them at all. Tbh this is a good catch @Oxblood Beagle @Plum Rhinoceros (hi rollover crew!) The only issue is I am not so brave enough to ask for a random Coinshot smite without systematically going through, but yeah, Lion has a point here. Edited January 13 by Mint Heron
Oxblood Beagle Posted January 13 Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: Reveal hidden contents Edited to add: Tbh this is a good catch @Oxblood Beagle @Plum Rhinoceros (hi rollover crew!) The only issue is I am not so brave enough to ask for a random Coinshot smite without systematically going through, but yeah, Lion has a point here. https://imgflip.com/i/ah89qt I am also not so brave haha. By not mentioning them, do you mean during D2?
Recommended Posts