What makes a good spell lore?

[Acid_Nine]

I had a question kicking in my head for the last few days. What makes a good spell lore for a battle tome? Obviously some spell lores are better than others, but I want to know why, at least from other people. Another question is, what makes a spell lore bad? I love playing tidecaster, for example, but I know that they are really not the best, but I want to hear why from other people before I formulate my own conclusions.

[NauticalSoup]

I mean this answer is boring as hell but:

It's good if it has as many useful spells as you are likely to bring casters to carry them. Like an equilibrium point between 'spells I want' and 'casters I want'. Having more good spells than you need isn't points against a spell lore but really you're looking to just meet that minimum threshold of utility that would make it desirable to have in a list. What that utility gives you isn't relevant, all that matters is that it's desirable.

Obvious example for me is Orruk Warclans, since they have two lores (one for each side of the army) and one is great and the other is eh. The Ironjawz lore has one spell you'll probably always take, but you'll never take more than one caster in Ironjawz because the sole caster option isn't that great. So you have an eh lore and an eh caster which you'll take just for the one good spell, which is incidentally why you see lots of Ironjawz lists with zero magic.

On the other side you have the Bonesplitterz lore which is all bangers except probably for one, and Bonesplitterz can easily shove 3-4 casters in a list without them feeling redundant. Good spell lore, good guys to carry the spells. Bonezplitters naturally end up pretty magic-heavy in nearly every case.

Edit: I might even argue this further, that any attempt to measure the value of a spell lore by any criteria more specific than "the spells and wizards are good/useful" is doomed to failure. You can look at a criteria like 'damage' and you can see that even defining what constitutes sufficient damage to be good is extremely difficult to pin down. You have issues of range, reliability, targeting, scope, the volume of damage itself and, of course, the wizard options. Mobility, buffs, debuffs, damage - they're all 'good' only in the context of their environment (ie, the meta) making quantifiable criteria so wishy-washy as to be useless.

Edited February 12, 2020 by NauticalSoup

[Phasteon]

22 minutes ago, Acid_Nine said:

I had a question kicking in my head for the last few days. What makes a good spell lore for a battle tome? Obviously some spell lores are better than others, but I want to know why, at least from other people. Another question is, what makes a spell lore bad? I love playing tidecaster, for example, but I know that they are really not the best, but I want to hear why from other people before I formulate my own conclusions.

I‘m a duardin player so I usually don‘t bother with that kind of trickery nonsense. 

But jokes aside, I think what makes a good lore (doesnt matter if spells or prayers) is buffs / debuffs or utility (teleportation comes to mind). 

Those are the real gamechangers imo. 

Everything that makes your army hit harder or the enemy hit weaker can be a boon when fighting for objectives. 

Also getting an otherwise slow unit into the perfect position can be very strong as well. 

[Grimrock]

Personally I think the best lores are the ones that have a significant impact on how an army plays.  To do that the spells have to be generally strong and either assist the army in doing something it's already good at or open up new avenues of play. It also has to be readily usable by the Wizards in the army, so for example a lore full of spells that need 7s or 8s to cast would only be good for an army that can get casting bonuses. 

So take the S2D lore for example. Incredibly powerful spells that synergize well with existing units like marauders, or help the resilience of the army by locking down key units and keeping them out of the fight. The biggest weakness is all the spells are short range and high casting cost, making it difficult to use unless you're running the Cabalist sub faction. 

[Acid_Nine]

35 minutes ago, Grimrock said:

Personally I think the best lores are the ones that have a significant impact on how an army plays.  To do that the spells have to be generally strong and either assist the army in doing something it's already good at or open up new avenues of play. It also has to be readily usable by the Wizards in the army, so for example a lore full of spells that need 7s or 8s to cast would only be good for an army that can get casting bonuses. 

So take the S2D lore for example. Incredibly powerful spells that synergize well with existing units like marauders, or help the resilience of the army by locking down key units and keeping them out of the fight. The biggest weakness is all the spells are short range and high casting cost, making it difficult to use unless you're running the Cabalist sub faction. 

okay, I can see how that would work then. Aside from S2D, which other factions have the best spells? I ask because I am thinking of a magic heavy army for my next project and I dont want to just jump straight to tzeentch, but rather think on what makes stuff good.

[Grimrock]

34 minutes ago, Acid_Nine said:

okay, I can see how that would work then. Aside from S2D, which other factions have the best spells? I ask because I am thinking of a magic heavy army for my next project and I dont want to just jump straight to tzeentch, but rather think on what makes stuff good.

Hmm, unfortunately I'm mostly limited to the factions I play so khorne, nurgle, slaanesh, tzeentch and slaves. Of those I think khorne has one of the best 'lores' for their priests. It isn't technically magic, but effectively it's the same thing. The vast majority of the prayers are impactful and help the army do its job better, and combining with the terrain piece, warscroll prayers, and judgements, the priests are some of the most potent 'wizards' in the game. Nurgle is ok with one really good spell per lore, (mortals, daemons, rotbringers) but they all cast on a 7 and there arent many easy casting buffs making it unreliable. Slaanesh has some good spells as well but they don't usually help the army and again no casting buffs. Tzeentch rocks the damage of course, but I don't think the lore makes much of an impact on how they play. It's just really good at nuking things. 

Outside of my armies the primary one I can think of is skaven. Great buffs like death frenzy or plague priest prayers and utility like skitterleap along with easy casting buffs from the gnawholes. 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Grimrock

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

While I play plenty of matched play as someone who got into the game for the narrative aspects I would add in that I like a spell lore that really matches with the faction’s back story.

After that I would concur that the keys are buffs that either make something the faction already focuses on an even greater strength or helps offset a weakness and debuffs that make your opponent’s job harder.

As in the above if you include prayers I agree that Khorne meets both criteria.

Another one that I have been very happy with, particularly if you include the spells on the war scrolls, has been Flesh-eater Courts.  Being able to stack attacks on an Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist and thus increasing the odds of a Gaping Maw (6 MWs on an unmodified 6) can really ruin your opponent’s day.   If you’re running a lot of degrading war scrolls in Gristelgore than being able to use top of the table key.  On the same note adding extra movement can really help you get some of your non-monster units in position.

[El Syf]

I think any lore where the majority of spells after being successfully cast do not then require you to roll to see if the spell goes off or not. (Can't remember the names but there's a couple in LoN where it's 7+ to cast followed by the need to roll a 4+ or similar for the spell to actually go off). I just find it a bit irksome that you cast the spell the opponent fails to unbind it (which is great) but then the spell fails to go off due to the extra roll needed to get it to take effect.

[Kasper]

I think the spells need to be good but also balanced properly. I don't want to rely on a spell cast going through before I feel my unit is "playable" on the table, but at the same time it needs to be just good enough, so that I'll get excited when the buff goes off.

On the flipside, I think the spell lore needs to have multiple interesting spells. If there is only 1 or 2 spells that you ALWAYS pick, it would qualify as a bad spell lore IMO.

[Sleepa]

I'll pitch in my two cents and tell you how to recognize a horrible spell lore; redundancy and (as previously mentioned) unreliability. Case in point: The Stormcast Lore of the Storm.

This is probably the poorest designed spell lore in the game.

5 of the 6 spells are just various flavours of "deal between 1 to D3 mortal wounds to SOME number of targets".

The 6th spell is a defensive buff which causes the unit it is cast on to deal mortal wounds to any unit attacking them in combat phase, for each unmodified save roll of a 6. This is also the OVERWHELMINGLY most common spell chosen from the lore. It doesn't even grant an actual defensive bonus to the unit it's cast on, but at least has some synergy with some of the defensive abilities available to certain Stormcast units.

The rest of the spells.... You have an unlimited range Arcane Bolt that automatically targets the closest unit the caster can see (and always deals d3 MW), a "Choose a point within 12" of the caster, then all enemy units (NOT MODELS) are dealt ONE MW on a die roll of a 4+ " AoE spell, an even shorter range "Roll a die for every enemy unit (AGAIN, NOT MODEL) within 6" of the caster (and visible to them), then on a 4+ the unit suffers 1 MW and gets -1 to hit for attack until your next hero phase" (Would be a good spell, but requires your wizard to literally be in combat and STILL ALIVE in your hero phase. We also have a 24" range, "deal d3 MW to one unit visible to the caster, then roll a die for each unit (AGAIN, NOT MODEL) within 3" of the target, and on a 4+ those units suffer 1 MW", which again probably seems good (honestly only compared to the first two here), except for the fact that it needs a 7 to cast, in an army that literally needs to take a goddamned dragon, or a once-per-game artifact in order to get a +1 to casting rolls (which is the best bonus they can get), and finally another AoE spell, that AGAIN requires a 7 to cast, and gives you a chance to hit every enemy unit on the battlefield! Oh but wait; it only affects each unit if you then roll a 6 on a single die roll for each enemy unit, at which point they suffer D3 wounds.

 

TL:DR? Want to know how to evaluate your spell lore? Don't ask me. Every time I see a new spell lore, all I can think is "Sweet Jesus, I'd trade the Lore of the Storm for those spells without batting an eye."

 

[Frowny]

I would rate it on 4 levels. The weakest lores fail in the early steps, medium ones go the middle steps and the strongest ones pass all 4 checks. 

1) Reliability. Low casting values or easy + to cast, reasonable ranges, no finicky extra dice rolls to make something happen. This is the lowest level to pass, but if you can't cast them, it doesn't matter what they do. Stormcast fail at this level, as so much of it is weirdly situational or hides behind yet another 4+. Sylvaneth and Nurgle also fail here, as you have almost no ways to actually get your spells off against a competent opponent. Nighthaunt also struggle here, with most of their spells having short range, medium-high casting values and only very few ways to buff casting. If you aren't consistently casting on dice a roll of 5, its probably not a great lore in general, as you will fail to often in a game too count on it. 

2) Power. Some single spells are just amazing, notably all the teleport spells. Almost every lore could be improved by swapping their best spell for a teleport. Just having access to one is totally game changing and forces the other side to do things radically differently. The Slaves movement destroying spells are also game-changing when they go off. Nurgle players play very differently if blades of putrefaction goes off vs when it doesn't. The anvilguard no-save spell bubble is also game defining. Players with these lores will take at least 1 wizard almost every game just for a chance at these spells. My gloomspite opponent will regular take 3 wizards, all with the same teleport spell, just so he always has access to it. 

3) Price Point. Not really of the lore,  but of the army in general. Cheap casters make or break spell lores. For example, the Ogor Mawtribes spell lore for itself is quite good, but in most of the allegiences, you are paying 140 points for a single caster, and so wizards are mostly ignored. People just play a beatstick or more troops instead. Then in the suballegience where you get 2 casts and spells per wizard, suddenly you see 300 points of wizards/spells in almost every list. 60 points per cast feels about right for a support wizard. Stormcast fail here hard, as their cheapest wizard is 140 points for a single caster, without much extra value. Skaven do incredibly well, with several 120-140 pt double cast wizards. Gaunt summoners are incredible at functionally 20 points per cast after they've summoned their horrors. If Bloodwrack medusa were 3 cast wizards, you'd see a lot of use out of the Daughters of Khaine spell lore, even though the spells are mostly meh just because it is so cheap to cast. 

4) Versatility. This is what separates the true top from the bottom. Do I want to take enough wizards to access almost every spell? Are they mostly useful most of the time? Hallowheart I think is one of the strongest lores. Almost every spell is useful every turn, all have reasonable ranges and all are cast on a 6 or less.  The only area it kinda lacks is the 'power' department, as none are totally game changing, but it is so good in the other ways it doesn't matter too much. 

 

So by my standards,

Best- (4 /4 points on my scale above) 

Hallowheart, Tzeentch, Bonesplitterz, Legions of Nagash, Gloomspite Gits

Great- (3/4)

FEC,  living cities, tempests eye, Slaves to Darkness, Skaven

OK (2/4)

Ossiarch bonereapers, Mawtribes-Bloodgullet,Ironjawz

Bad (1/4)

Daughters of Khaine, Nighthaunt, anvilguard, Sylvaneth, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Hammerhal, Mawtribes (other),

Terrible (0/4)

Stormcast

I have no idea about some of them- beasts of chaos, idoneth as some examples. I think they are pretty low down though.

[whiskeytango]

One thing I can say for sure is that there are too many teleportation spells going around in spell lores these days. That should be a unique ability, not a fix all for an armies mobility issues. If you have to completely disregard phase of the game that takes the most maneuvering and thus strategy to make an army work, than its not a good army/spell lore design.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

On 2/13/2020 at 1:05 PM, Frowny said:

Price Point. Not really of the lore,  but of the army in general. Cheap casters make or break spell lores. For example, the Ogor Mawtribes spell lore for itself is quite good, but in most of the allegiences, you are paying 140 points for a single caster, and so wizards are mostly ignored. People just play a beatstick or more troops instead. Then in the suballegience where you get 2 casts and spells per wizard, suddenly you see 300 points of wizards/spells in almost every list. 60 points per cast feels about right for a support wizard. Stormcast fail here hard, as their cheapest wizard is 140 points for a single caster, without much extra value. Skaven do incredibly well, with several 120-140 pt double cast wizards. Gaunt summoners are incredible at functionally 20 points per cast after they've summoned their horrors. If Bloodwrack medusa were 3 cast wizards, you'd see a lot of use out of the Daughters of Khaine spell lore, even though the spells are mostly meh just because it is so cheap to cast. 

This is a great point.  We’ve seen this exact issue with Mawtribes where your cheapest casting option is an ally (and thus doesn’t have access to lore).  Love the Voracious Maw spell though from a lore perspective (fits the Gutbuster’s perfectly) and from how much opponents have come to hate having it really go off on them.  We’re often playing two tables simultaneously but after someone has had a unit chewed through (on admittedly some lucky rolls) they’ll often stop their game when someone on the other table gets the spell off to see how much damage it does.  The sense of relief opponents have when it is satiated after first gulp is palpable.  That said if I understand correctly Arkhan has an even better version of it?  (One of the Death characters at least...)

I guess though the other factor is are you getting anything else with the caster?  I’ve been amazed at the variation, even at similar price points between Heroes that are only good for casting and ones that offer you so much more bang for your buck.  Some to the point where the cast can almost feel like a bonus.

[whiskeytango]

1 minute ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

I guess though the other factor is are you getting anything else with the caster?  I’ve been amazed at the variation, even at similar price points between Heroes that are only good for casting and ones that offer you so much more bang for your buck.  Some to the point where the cast can almost feel like a bonus.

Indeed. A Guardian of Souls, for example, is also only casting one spell for 140pts, but he's also bringing that aura of +1 to wound. Feels like it's worth it despite the spells/point ratio.  A lot of the time I guess it must be looked at as an internal balance thing (if balance is looked at at all). Because you've got your aforementioned stormcast wizard who isn't doing much for you besides casting, and then you've got like a Fungoid Cave Shaman, who for 50 points less is casting (once per game casting twice), generating CP, and has a save after the save so is surprisingly resilient for his cost and wounds characteristic, along with having a pretty awesome spell lore to boot.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 minute ago, whiskeytango said:

then you've got like a Fungoid Cave Shaman, who for 50 points less is casting (once per game casting twice), generating CP, and has a save after the save so is surprisingly resilient for his cost and wounds characteristic, along with having a pretty awesome spell lore to boot.

Before it got squatted have to say the Fungoid Cave Shaman was frequently a “Star” in my Braggoth’s Beasthammer list.  Won a friendly small tournament with that list and couldn’t believe how much I was getting out of those 90 pts (especially given how few low cost options there were in old BCR).  When I had the points to spare it was worth getting him up on a Balewind Vortex which made him even more resilient and effective. 

[whiskeytango]

5 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Before it got squatted have to say the Fungoid Cave Shaman was frequently a “Star” in my Braggoth’s Beasthammer list.  Won a friendly small tournament with that list and couldn’t believe how much I was getting out of those 90 pts (especially given how few low cost options there were in old BCR).  When I had the points to spare it was worth getting him up on a Balewind Vortex which made him even more resilient and effective. 

Yeah, no doubt the little guy is a superstar. I feel like you don't see many GG lists without at least one of them. Most of them you see 2. 

That probably speaks well to the point @Frowny was making. Gloomspites lore is good not just because the spells themselves are worthwhile, but their wizards are both good enough and cheap enough to make use of them.  

I'd say Slaves to Darkness has a similar line. Sorcerer Lords are excellent for their cost providing a free buff and a unique buff spell, and then a pretty good lore on top of it.

Flesh Eater Courts are similar, all of their wizards are bringing a lot to the table besides just casting, even if you give a Courtier Dark Wizardry, even though i kind of feel like their lore is more mediocre, their warscroll spells are great.

 

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

57 minutes ago, whiskeytango said:

Flesh Eater Courts are similar, all of their wizards are bringing a lot to the table besides just casting, even if you give a Courtier Dark Wizardry, even though i kind of feel like their lore is more mediocre, their warscroll spells are great.

Agree that @Frowny breaks it down well.

And yeah, the Abhorrant Archregent gets right to the point about bang for your buck casters.  At 240 pts and two spells you’re paying 120 pts per.  But that of course ignores the summoning (worth up to 200 pts on its own) and a great spell (d3 extra attacks for a Terrirgheist can be huge).  And oh yeah, he’s got a decent save (4+), potential to negate wounds on a 6+, and heals himself.  So he’ll probably stick around.  Not to mention I’ve done very well with him when he’s gotten stuck in combat.  

Would have to look deeper into it but that sounds like as good or better a deal than the Gaunt Summoner...

Regular Ghoul King no slouch either.

As far as the actual non-war scroll spell lore agree not great but never had a problem finding enough options to fill all my Heroes’ options.

 

[whiskeytango]

Don't get me wrong, i definitely don't feel like Lore of Madness is bad, I just feel like it's more middle of the road-to-good. Now, if you throw in the FEC Endless Spells, that changes things. Chalice is a game changer, and probably the benchmark for a perfect faction specific spell. It's perfect for the playstyle of the army.

 

The Arachnacauldron is another example of a great faction Endless spell.

[Acid_Nine]

So as I understand it, it really is more about the casters being worth their points or bringing helpful tactics than it is just spells. Kinda unsurprised the tide caster would be so low, but I still have questions. What makes tzeentch’s spell lore so good?

[Frowny]

I ultimately decided that the price for '1 unit of support' was worth about 50-60 points. As an example, a 'unit of support' (hereafter UoS) was 1 cast, 1 prayer, 1 buff to a unit, a bubble of something or other etc. etc. Units that did better than this going rate tended to be quite strong, units worse than this were not and were probably worth skipping. It also made it really easy for me to tell which battletomes would be strong- Other things mattered, but the number of cheap supporting heroes was a big factor. 

110 pt chaos sorcerer - 2 UoS  (1 cast and the rr saves) - good value, very strong

140 pt ogor butcher- 1 UoS  (1 cast)- terrible 

90 pt Fungoid Cave Shaman - 2 UoS (1 cast, 4+ extra CP)- very strong

90 pt DoK hag - 2 UoS (1 prayer, +witchbrew) - made DoK broken for a while at 60 pts, very strong at 90

80 pt Sylvaneth Branchwraith -1 UoS (1 spell) - Playable, but anther reason sylvaneth are lacking.

140 pts- Nighthuant Guardian of souls - 2 UoS (1 cast, +1 wound bubble) - borderline.

120 pt- Nighthaunt  Spirit Torment- 2 UoS (resurrect  d3, rr1's aura)- Borderline, and now we see why nighthaunt are weak!

100 pt- slaughter priest -2 UoS (prayers x2) -very strong.

120 pt Orruk Warchanter- 2 units (prayer, +1damage ability) - very strong. 

160 pt Lord Arcanum - ~2 units (1 cast, spirit flasks)- quite weak- and look, stormcast are on the bottom!  

Obviously a gross simplification, and some buffs are way better than others (like +1 dmg on the warchanter vs rr1's on the spirit torment), but once I started thinking like this  it became very clear what made lists incredibly strong, and why some factions are just outrageously ahead of others. It also made me realize not to stress if my faction has bad wizards or whatnot. Just get something else and don't even try. The price point is too high. Also, probably don't count command abilities, as there the limiting resource is the CP's, which should themselves be valued at ~50 points. Finally, this also allows us to predict the value of many artifacts, which often provide 1 UoS. For example, the nighthaunt fell pendent, all those that turn a character into a wizard or priest, ossiarchs +1 hit aura etc. can all be valued at approximately 50 points each. 

This mostly applies to little supporty type characters, but also works OK for support type bigger monsters etc, especially ones you don't really want to be fighting too much with. For example:

260 Treelord Ancient - 3 UoS (1 cast, summon tree, stomp)- terrible (no wonder sylvaneth suck...)

360? Arkhan - ~7 UoS (3 casts, 4x3 heals)- quite strong.

360 Eidolan of Mathlaan- 2 UoS (2 casts)- Terrible. 

It also allows me to make some predictions about new factions and future units. Like the minstealer sphyrinx will likely be unplayble, as a support type unit offering only 1 UoS for 100 points- just too expensive. Tzeentch will be strong, with  ~ 4 characters exceeding this rate (3 UoS changling, tzaangor shaman, 2UoS chaos sorcerer lord, Gaunt summoner (who is functionally only ~ 80 points)) and kharadron will be relatively weak (all their foot characters provide 1UoS for ~100 points.) 

After this second analysis, I'm realizing maybe I should start a blog to explain these things...

 

 

5 hours ago, Acid_Nine said:

 What makes tzeentch’s spell lore so good?

Look above and think about it - you have the framework!

1) Reliability: Very good, lots of easy buffs to cast, rerolls for casting, fate dice etc.

2) Power: Tzeentch does great again. -1 to hit AND -1 to wound on a single spell is very very powerful. They also have several d6 damage spells, which are quite strong. 

3) Price: See above. Multiple High UoS casters to choose from

4) Versatility: Bolt of Tzeentch, Glimpse of Future, Arcane Suggestion, Treason of Tzeentch and fold reality are all quite useful, with varied uses. 5 spells is that you frequently want is way above most other factions with 2-3. Several other spells are useful too.

[Kirjava13]

2 hours ago, Frowny said:

the minstealer sphyrinx will likely be unplayble, as a support type unit offering only 1 UoS for 100 points

Are you counting Telepathic Dread and Dominate Mind as one "UoS" then? It seems like two according to your criteria.

[zilberfrid]

One thing I would like to note, is that the cheapest Stormcast wizard is the Lord Excorsist at 120 pts, then the Knight Incantor at 140, only then the Arcanum at 160. At save 3+ (which is omitted in the abstraction above), they'll generate more value than a sorceress or battlemage.

[Frowny]

1 hour ago, Kirjava13 said:

Are you counting Telepathic Dread and Dominate Mind as one "UoS" then? It seems like two according to your criteria.

No, I am counting dominate mind as one and telepathic dread as zero. I wish bravery mattered, but it doesn't usually seem to in my games. Too many bravery 10/battleshock immune/CP's floating around.

My UoS system is clearly a gross gross generalization, as not all abilities are at all equal. You have to use your own judgement to decide what counts as 1 for example. Maybe you don't think Arkhan will regularly have 4 targets, so you only count that part as 3. Or maybe you count a really really good buff as 2 UoS (like the orruk warchanter). I think a useful system, but requires some thought to implement. More an abstraction. You are encouraged to develop your own criteria.

@zilberfrid You could of course apply it to other wizards or whatever. I just picked some common examples. For example, one might rate the 'auto dispel' of the knight incantor as 1 UoS, so he maybe could be 3 UoS (1 cast, auto dispel, flasks). He is certainly the most played stormcast wizard, and maybe that explains why. 

[Maddpainting]

IMO 2 things, first one that supports different play styles. Second, being able to relay on them. I love some spell lores but not others, some armies has 7+ and 8+ to cast without any way to gain help for casting them, not only do they need to cast but also not be unbind. I really feel if an army has no bonus for casting then they should get a lot of smaller easier to cast spells that are less meaningful, like rr 1's to hit, or +2" movement, etc.. out of 4 armies i have played 2 of them my spells never mattered b.c i only had 1 or 2 casters with 1 cast and no buffs on spells that are so minor but yet i have only a 25% chance to get them to work.

For my IDK i only took a Tidecaster to reverse the tides, and if i could get Mystic shield it was bonus,
For my BoC i even stopped taking the Taurus b.c it only works once out of 3 games for me even with re-rolls from a T-shaman. I only take 2 Shamans now for the +3" movement buff, again if i get a spell of then its a bonus. I actually suicide my Shamans into my opponent on turn 2-3 99% of my games now b.c the Spawn combat body block is more useful than their spells.

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Maddpainting