Subject: I note that...
Author:
Posted on: 2016-01-10 23:51:00 UTC

...nobody answered your question from the last time you brought that up. And, to me, the answer is no, it's not. Nobody even sporked it - that seems to me to indicate that it was exactly the sort of "flash-in-the-pan" that the new definition is trying to exclude.
I disagree with the idea that the current Legendaries should keep their status if they don't fit our new definition. If we keep any in defiance of the change, it should be on a case-by-case basis. Subjugation might make the cut. Cho Chang's Desires should go (I think. Others will disagree, I'm sure.)

Reply Return to messages