Difference between revisions of "Talk:Snarbolax Coat"
From SpiralKnights
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::When it was released doesn't change if something can or can't be in a set. Its aesthetics and source are enough to consider it part of the set. [[User:Magnus|Magnus]] 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | ::When it was released doesn't change if something can or can't be in a set. Its aesthetics and source are enough to consider it part of the set. [[User:Magnus|Magnus]] 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::This is still ignoring Vlad's point: both or neither the Barbarous sword and shield should be present. Also, the "set" page along with each individual Snarbolax/Barbarous piece should be likewise edited if this is the case. [[User:Volebamus|Volebamus]] 4 November 2011 | ||
Revision as of 15:35, 5 December 2011
I'm not sure whether the Barbarous Thorn Blade should be listed under the set. Either that or it should have the Barbarous Thorn shield listed as well. --Vlad 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- While aesthetically it does match, I do not believe they should actually be considered "a set", because it was released later on. --Kazamh 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- When it was released doesn't change if something can or can't be in a set. Its aesthetics and source are enough to consider it part of the set. Magnus 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is still ignoring Vlad's point: both or neither the Barbarous sword and shield should be present. Also, the "set" page along with each individual Snarbolax/Barbarous piece should be likewise edited if this is the case. Volebamus 4 November 2011
