Groundfighting

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I just got back from our prerelease. The set is excellent, I just wish
we could have gotten more use out of some of the "Independent Clan" cards.
Gee, I wish there was a Kindred Most Wanted/Final Nights draft coming up.. :)
(plug plug *ahem* come to TotalCon!)
(I hope my order for Final Nights starters actually comes through so I don't
look like a total ass after all this plugging 😉 )

Anyway..

The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
remember so far, was this:

=================
Groundfighting

Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.

Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
round as it is played.
=================

So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?

Obviously Immortal Grapple/Grasp of the Python..

But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
a weapon, indirectly.

What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.

And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?

I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
needed.

Thanks.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
wrote:

>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
>remember so far, was this:

>=================
>Groundfighting
>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>round as it is played.
>=================

>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?

Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.


>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
>a weapon, indirectly.

Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.


>What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.

Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.


>And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
>does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?

Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.


>I'm sure there are other examples, but I think a clarification might be
>needed.

Indeed.



Carpe noctem.

Lasombra

http://www.TheLasombra.com
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

maneuvers/seting range.
these do restrict which strike cards can be played (some strikes are
only usable at certain range).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

The Lasombra wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
>>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
>>remember so far, was this:
>
>>=================
>>Groundfighting
>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>round as it is played.
>>=================
>
>>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>
> Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
> Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
>
>>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
>>a weapon, indirectly.
>
> Will have to wait for Scott, but I would say it can be cancelled.

Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).

>>What about Scorpion Sting? It restricts my ability to dodge.
>
> Scorpion Sting does not in any way affect your ability to choose Dodge
> as a strike. Scorpion Sting cannot be cancelled by Groundfighting.

Correct.

>>And if cards like Scorpion Sting are cancelable with Groundfighting,
>>does the opposing minion get to choose a new strike?
>
> Nope. Card text does not support choosing a new strike.

Correct.

Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be restricting
the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
range" strike ability or weapon available.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>=================
>>>Groundfighting
>>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>>round as it is played.
>>>=================
>>
>>>But what about Drawing out the Beast? It restricts my ability to strike with
>>>a weapon, indirectly.

> Correct (assuming the anarch has a weapon -- planning to get one later
> with Concealed Weapon or Weighted Walking Stick won't cut it).

What about Rigor Mortis?
Going with what you said, I would guess that Rigor Mortis is cancelable by
any vampire who has a "built-in additional strike" ability (Jacko, Melisande,
Black Metamorphosis, Sword of Judgment...), but not just someone who might
generate additional strikes later (because they have celerity); correct?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:XLWdnYptFPXiTYTfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> >>>=================
> >>>Groundfighting
> >>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
> >>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by
the
> >>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes
this
> >>>round as it is played.
> >>>=================
> What about Rigor Mortis?
> Going with what you said, I would guess that Rigor Mortis is cancelable
by
> any vampire who has a "built-in additional strike" ability (Jacko,
Melisande,
> Black Metamorphosis, Sword of Judgment...), but not just someone who
might
> generate additional strikes later (because they have celerity); correct?

Additional strikes are not noticed by Groundfighting.
Restrict choice of strikes, not restrict ability to get more strikes.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
restricting
> the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
> range" strike ability or weapon available.

same for setting range?

I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
opponents choice of strikes...
well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway 🙂
shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.

(sorry about the double post earlier, the first one didn't appear on
google for a while and I though I probably forgot to post...)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

(parts snipped)

LSJ wrote:
> <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
> > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> > opponents choice of strikes...

> Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
> somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
> not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
>

Adding to what LSJ said:

Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
range as appropriate).

Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)


> --
> LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

-John Flournoy
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

<demon@hell.is> wrote in message
news:1109008920.751981.47710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:
> > Additionally, simple maneuvering won't be considered to be
> restricting
> > the vampire's choice of strikes, even if he or she has a "only at X
> > range" strike ability or weapon available.
>
> same for setting range?

Yes.

> I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> opponents choice of strikes...

Maneuvering clearly does not restrict it, as the minion
is could maneuver back.

Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.

Similarly, Weakness would remove some options, but
wouldn't directly restrict strikes.

> well, quite obvious what designers intent was anyway 🙂
> shame it wasn't cought during playtesting though.

It wasn't?

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109013268.222400.217510@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> (parts snipped)
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
> > > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
> > > opponents choice of strikes...
>
> > Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
> > somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
> > not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
> >
>
> Adding to what LSJ said:
>
> Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
> range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
> like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
> range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
> usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
> by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
> would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
> range as appropriate).

An apt description/rationale.

I was more thinking of already-in-play options, like Meat Hook's self
destructive special or Seren Sukardi's special, and examining those
in the light of the Drawing Out the Beast vs. Weapons angle.

> Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
> in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)

Looks good.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> > Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> > Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> > Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
text
> > in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Looks good.

ok. fair enough.
but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
catch).
anyway, happy with this clarification 🙂
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Morgan Vening wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
> >Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
> >Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card
text
> >in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers
to
> long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
> superior?

Yes.

> Or make a hand strike?

Yes.

>And then play Rotschrek (using Claws on the handstrike)?

No.

> I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
> ruling change?

There hasn't been a change. You cannot play Rotschreck in this
circumstance because the aggravated damage isn't going to be inflicted
on the opposing minion - to quote LSJ Rotschreck's "Card text says that
the minion must attempt to use aggravated damage
"against a vampire" - not merely against the air in front of him."

That does not mean that you cannot make the ineffective strike itself;
merely that Rotschreck can't be played on it.

You can always make legal strikes even if they will not affect your
target; you can play Undead Strength as your strike in a long-range
combat, for instance, even though it will inflict no damage on your
opponent, much like a blocker playing a strike card that he knows won't
resolve in response to the acting minion playing Majesty. People
occasionally do this to cycle strike cards out of their hand.

The rulebook even notes that: "Unless the strike is identified as
ranged or does "R" damage (or is a defensive strike such as dodge or
combat ends), it is only effective at close range" - if strikes that
aren't ranged could not be played at long range, the rules would say so
instead of describing how such strikes don't have an effect when
played.

> Morgan Vening

-John Flournoy
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
> write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
> considering the possible ramifications).

excellent point...

> The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
> "exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text
is
> clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is
that
> not exploring it to the full extent?

well... erm... look... point taken 🙂
IMHO it still does not 'feel' right. but as I have not managed to
figure out an alternative text that (IMO) looks better, I have to agree
that this is a sufficient solution.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:17:52 -0500, The Lasombra
<TheLasombra@hotmail.com> scrawled:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:07:34 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>The only real "Well, I am not sure..." question that came up, that I can
>>remember so far, was this:
>
>>=================
>>Groundfighting
>>Requires a ready anarch. Do not replace until after combat.
>>Maneuver or press, or burn 1 blood to cancel a combat card played by the
>>opposing minion that would restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this
>>round as it is played.
>>=================
>
>>So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>
>Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
>Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.

the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
Groundfighting.

What about superior Lapse?

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:17:23 +1100, salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>> So what exactly constitutes this kind of card?
>>
>> Grasp of the Serpent (later round), Immortal Grapple, Thought's
>> Betrayed, Drawing out the Beast, Skin Trap, Terror Frenzy.
>
> the 'restrict this anarch's choice of strikes this round' seems to
> strike Grasp of the Serpent off the list of cards effected by
> Groundfighting.

I'm curious, now that we've seen a hoser-hoser, when we'll be seeing
a hoser-hoser-hoser. Like this:

Immortaler Grapple
pot: Play at close range before strikes are chosen. etc. (as IG)
POT: Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would
restrict the opposing minion's choice of strikes.

....but then, there is always:

Underground Fighting
Cancel a combat card that would cancel a combat card that would cancel
a combat card that would restrict this minions choice of strikes.

....hmm...

--
Bye,

Daneel
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

demon@hell.is wrote:
> but on the other hand, that it needed such clarification indicates that
> all issues were not explored to full extent, which indicates that
> playtesting and review 'could' have dealt with it better (i.e. didn't
> catch).

So it is caught in playtesting (and in design, actually -- you can't
write a sentence like that after this many sets without at least
considering the possible ramifications).

The issue is then considered and this text is the result, since
"exhaustive" text will not fit in the box, and the decided-upon text is
clear enough (or as clear as it can be, YMMV) as to intent. How is that
not exploring it to the full extent?

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
>
> What about superior Lapse?
>
> salem
> http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
> (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Jozxyqk wrote:
> LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
> > "Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
> >> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
> >> >
> >> > What about superior Lapse?
> >> >
> >> > salem
> >> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
> >> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
> >>
> >> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say :
no,
> >> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).
>
> > Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
> > ability to strike, however.)
>
> But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a
choice?

And Thoughts Betrayed still allows other strike choices, like
already-equipped weapons, strikes inherent to a vampire's text (like
Marie Faucigny's dodge), or the [pre] outferior of Internal Recursion's
granted-before-combat ability to S:CE.

-John Flournoy
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
> >
> > What about superior Lapse?
> >
> > salem
> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
>
> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).

Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
ability to strike, however.)

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote:
> "Ankha" <v.ripoll@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6c33635f.0502220526.56725a01@posting.google.com...
>> salem <salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<2d2j111642d4qo05sgftg8r0jalcb70opa@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > What about superior Lapse?
>> >
>> > salem
>> > http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
>> > (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
>>
>> I think we didn't get the answer to that question (I would say : no,
>> Groundfighting doesn't cancel Lapse at superior).

> Correct. It doesn't restrict his choices. (It does remove his
> ability to strike, however.)

But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> <demon@hell.is> wrote in message
>> > I fail to see how changing/setting range is not restricting the
>> > opponents choice of strikes...
>
>> Setting range outright (or while the opposing minion is
>> somehow artificially restricted from maneuvering) is
>> not as clear, but doesn't directly restrict strikes.
>>
>
>Adding to what LSJ said:
>
>Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
>range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
>like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
>range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
>usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
>by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
>would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
>range as appropriate).
>
>Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
>Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
>Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
>in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)

Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers to
long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
superior? Or make a hand strike? And then play Rotschrek (using Claws
on the handstrike)?

I thought this was invalidated a long time ago. Has there been a
ruling change?

Morgan Vening
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Morgan Vening wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Setting the range doesn't restrict your strike. Regardless of whether
>>range is set to long or short, you can still make whatever strike you
>>like - the fact that your Undead Strength won't hit your opponent at
>>range doesn't mean that you can't play it. Strikes that say 'only
>>usable at close' (or long) are restricted by their _own_ card text, not
>>by the text of the card setting the range. Such a range-setting card
>>would also have to say 'only long-range strikes may be made' (or close
>>range as appropriate).
>>
>>Think of it this way: the difference between being able to play an
>>Undead Strength and a Blood Fury when range is set to long is that
>>Blood Fury has a restriction in its own text, not because of card text
>>in High Ground (or other set-range cards.)
>
> Is that right? So if I have a blocking minion, and I lose Maneuvers to
> long range, it's perfectly legitimate to play Song in the Dark at
> superior? Or make a hand strike? And then play Rotschrek (using Claws
> on the handstrike)?

Yes.
Yes. Song will have no effect, but can still be played.
Yes. Hand strike will have no effect, but can still be chosen (indeed,
must be chosen if you have no other strike to choose).
No. The strike must be "against a vampire" to allow Rotschreck.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:hbWdnV8Ul_5QxobfRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> But Thoughts Betrayed is cancelable, because a hand strike is a choice?

Thoughts Betrayed (at DOM) is cancelable, because it
limits your choices.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

salem wrote:
> Interesting. I would have thought being not allowed to choose any
> strike at all might somehow be considered somewhat of a restriction.

that's what I would have thougt as well.
but I can see the logic behind the justification as well (though I
would lean towards another interpretation myself, which is a completely
different matter anyway...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom