Posted under Tags
create implication jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker) -> jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate)
EDIT: The tag implication jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker) -> jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) (forum #149392) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.
Updated by DanbooruBot
It should be to jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) rather.
Unbreakable said:
It should be to jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) rather.
But jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker) is just jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate) in a different class. Same as the other swimsuits servants. Though I agree with the jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) implication.
Rollingplasma4 said:
But jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker) is just jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate) in a different class. Same as the other swimsuits servants. Though I agree with the jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) implication.
Compare to tags like Nero Claudius (swimsuit caster) (fate), Tamamo no Mae (swimsuit lancer) (fate) and Artoria Pendragon (swimsuit rider alter), they are (should be) kept seperate from the non-swimsuit version, that's the one of the bigger points of having the (all) tags.
Unbreakable said:
Compare to tags like Nero Claudius (swimsuit caster) (fate), Tamamo no Mae (swimsuit lancer) (fate) and Artoria Pendragon (swimsuit rider alter), they are (should be) kept seperate from the non-swimsuit version, that's the one of the bigger points of having the (all) tags.
Part of me still wants to argue however looking at past examples being used I see your point and must agree with you.
The tag implication jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker) -> jeanne_d'arc_(fate)_(all) (forum #149392) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.
