The Tavern

Sorry if this is out of place but: I just wanted to put my two euro in on the weapon reform taking place here
https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... pon_reform

Specifically:

'shortspear' could be 'assegai'
'picks' could be 'mattocks' (Tolkien's dwarves often used mattocks in combat)
'labrys' could be another axe type
'harpoon' could get a bonus against sea creatures
'ankus' could get a bonus against elephants, or allow resistance to elephant pushing

Eronarn's reform is taking place?

"taking place" in Grimmese means "is under discussion"

I don't think it's really even that.

Grimmese is sort of a pidgin - a very primitive, one might almost say earthy, means of communication.

See also https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:item:weapons

...wherein it seems that the developer inclination (weapon pruning) is actually contrary to what you're suggesting.

Many things on pruning made me sad. Especially katana removal.

Pruning is good.

I reckon that many equate "develoment" with "to add stuff". In my opinion, us actually also removing things is a great service, even if it naturally goes against players' inclinations to have more of everything. There were good reasons to remove katanas, and we'd probably bother to explain them if asked.
As a rule of thumb: if features are insufficiently differentiated, they are just fake variety, and the game is better off with removal. We have applied this to species quite well, I think. Applying this to weapons is a natural step.

dpeg wrote:As a rule of thumb: if features are insufficiently differentiated, they are just fake variety, and the game is better off with removal.

I don't think this is always true. To quote kilobyte from the wiki:

Unlike races and backgrounds, there is no cost in having redundant weapons. To the contrary – there are flavour gains from having a variety. Kind of like gloves/gauntlets, various helmet types or various randart descriptions.

There are limits of course. We don't want the whole D&D polearms database

Yes, kilobyte has a point in that odd weapons (like hammers or scythes) don't hurt nearly as much as odd species.
But among the standard weapons, there are still too many choices and we'd benefit from restricting the pool, in my opinion.

Hammers and scythes are differentiates by being bad, funny and/or flavorful. That's fine. Hence the peaceful coexistence of lemons and chokos.

They're essentially jokes, though. Bad weapons rare finds, though it's fine to start out with a bad weapon and have to upgrade. Give bed weapons a unique fun or situational brand, like reaping or something, if you actually want to see them used ever.

Curio wrote:Many things on pruning made me sad. Especially katana removal.

Finding a katana of anything was always the holy grail for any lucky sprig of mine who decided to eschew short blades. They were the uber rare base weapon combining low skill and delay with good damage and a kick ass tile- I would spend entire games in search of one. Double blades don't even compare for me. They shall be missed. *hangs head for moment of silence* u_u

Maybe we could add in a new fixedart using the katana tile? A commemorative blade, if you will.

dpeg wrote:Pruning is good.

I reckon that many equate "develoment" with "to add stuff". In my opinion, us actually also removing things is a great service, even if it naturally goes against players' inclinations to have more of everything. There were good reasons to remove katanas, and we'd probably bother to explain them if asked.
As a rule of thumb: if features are insufficiently differentiated, they are just fake variety, and the game is better off with removal. We have applied this to species quite well, I think. Applying this to weapons is a natural step.

Could you please explain the reason? For those who do not venture into IRC, it seemed unpremeditated (i.e. it did not seem to be linked to a feature request either in Mantis or the brainstorm wiki.)

Also, did the reason have anything to do with katanas (the actual or fantasy idealized weapon) or was it instead down to some in-game characteristic of the weapon entity labeled "katana" in Crawl? My concerns with pruning are not gameplay/balance related. Personally, I'd much rather that double-swords had been removed instead (if, as per the wiki page above, their similarity precipitated one's removal.) I do, however, recognize that double-swords are more of a "Crawl thing".

And finally, on adding the whole D&D panoply of polearms, I wouldn't mind using the odd bec-de-corbin from time to time, but I'm certainly not advocating for it :-)

I'm with mageykun. I had a happy every time I saw a katana.

Please, please, please replace double-swords with katanas? I would rather see doubleswords go than katanas. Keep the crazy tripleswords of ridiculosity, they are ridiculous enough not to need predecessors or consistency.

Note: written after JeffQyzt

Katana > double sword

JeffQyzt wrote:And finally, on adding the whole D&D panoply of polearms, I wouldn't mind using the odd bec-de-corbin from time to time, but I'm certainly not advocating for it

I'd be happy with a weapon panopoly, as long as all the weapons were interesting. Right now, the largest non-rare one-handed weapon of any given weapon type is better than the other one-handed weapons of that type, regardless of skill. Avoiding "sword" and "bigger sword" would be really nice. The 0.9 proposal here https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:item:weapon_reform has some nice ideas having more weapons and making sure that they are distinct. It think it's a bit more complex than needed (many weapon groups and I'm not entirely sure why).

Here's an idea for keeping more weapon relevant to the game (not entirely original since I remember seeing a version of it somewhere): make better weapon use two weapon skills. It would be more costly to train to use them effectively. You could have a "clubs" skill and then a "piercing" skill that is needed to use spiked flails and morningstars effectively. The the effective skill for spiked flails would be (clubs+piercing)/2 or min(clubs, piercing), while for clubs it would be the clubs skill. This would make clubs a better choice in the early game, as XP to invest in skills is scarce. Note that we already have this, to some extent, with short blades + stabbing.

The specifics are actually unimportant. Just making stronger weapons cost more in XP to use effectively would keep weaker weapons relevant. This sort of happens through weapon speed at the moment, but the penalties on high-damage weapons aren't enough to offset the speed penalties. As a result, you choose spiked flail over club no matter what the skill level is, even though the spiked flail is slower.

Katanas are a silly trope. Silly not because they're in Nethack but because so many Westerners assume those Japanese blades have incredible properties. They don't. Having to choose between katana (computer gaming staple) and double/triple sword (Crawl's own take at humour), I'll take the latter any day.
Gameplay-wise, katanas were perhaps too strong, as the reactions indicate

(Although I believe that too much emphasis is put on miniscule differences between weapon types.) When someone spontaneously suggested to remove katanas in the development channel, there was some support and no disagreement, so off they went.

A single katana will eventually survive (or rather reappear) as a randart, with the old tile.

smock wrote:Here's an idea for keeping more weapon relevant to the game

Here is another: reduce base to hit. It makes smaller (accurate) weapons more attractive when unskilled, makes weapon accuracy enchantment more important, makes accuracy penalty from heavy armour relevant. No more "use biggest stick" and "use heaviest armour" regardless of skill. And if it turns out to be "too big nerf to melee", then increase the effect of fighting on accuracy (and reduce the HP bonus).
I'll have to mess with danr spreadsheet and provide numbers to turn this idea into an actual proposal. It would be great if the spreadsheet could list damage at all skill levels instead of just one. Would be easier to implement this change if it used named ranges.

galehar wrote:Here is another: reduce base to hit.

I like it! Danr's spreadsheet of awesome has taught me that damage and speed matter but accuracy does not. Going from a +0 to +9 to-hit enchantment can mean, like, a 10 percentage point higher change of hit. Compare sabres (+4) and quarterstaves (+6). No difference at skill 0, at skill 12 the to-hit difference amounts to an additional 0.1 damage per turn.

Please do tweak -- or even substantially revise -- the base to-hit numbers! It'd be great if they mattered!

galehar wrote:Here is another: reduce base to hit. It makes smaller (accurate) weapons more attractive when unskilled, makes weapon accuracy enchantment more important, makes accuracy penalty from heavy armour relevant. No more "use biggest stick" and "use heaviest armour" regardless of skill. And if it turns out to be "too big nerf to melee", then increase the effect of fighting on accuracy (and reduce the HP bonus).

I feel like this idea is based on some false premises. Small weapons are already the most attractive in the game, and large weapons the most unattractive, at low skill levels. This is because of weapon delay.

So due to the very bad combination of low accuracy and low attack speed, even as focused a melee character as mdbe is likely to end up dead using a battleaxe on d:2. Even after completing lair, such a character has to consider weapon skill when choosing a weapon, and accuracy is a factor.

re Katanas - I'd suggest eliminating the _name_ triple sword, because it makes no sense. I'd keep the double and triple sword weapons, but rename double swords to katanas, and triple swords to double swords. Double sword is already a pretty good joke, and katanas have this aura of awesomeness, deserved or not. Triple sword is just one step too silly (I didn't know till now that it was supposed to be silly, actually, I thought it was someone's lame attempt at awesome, sorry, that's just my gut reaction.)

Re: base to hit: I agree, to-hit should be made a more significant factor. There may be better ways to do this though, not that I've thought of any though.

I'd always thought that double and triple swords were real but obscure weapons I'd never heard of before.

Presumably katanas were the main reason to choose long blades over other weapons - with them gone, is there any further reason to restrict long blades as a starting weapon choice? Fighters and gladiators can now get a falchion as a starting weapon; why not extend this to crusaders (and reavers if they ever make a comeback.)

Jeremiah wrote:Presumably katanas were the main reason to choose long blades over other weapons - with them gone, is there any further reason to restrict long blades as a starting weapon choice? Fighters and gladiators can now get a falchion as a starting weapon; why not extend this to crusaders (and reavers if they ever make a comeback.)

As far as I see it, this is way off the mark. Katanas are too rare to base your weapon choice on them.

danr wrote:re Katanas - I'd suggest eliminating the _name_ triple sword, because it makes no sense.

As I explained, this is exactly what won't happen. Double/triple swords may stay or go, but the word "katana" will not find its way back into the game (apart perhaps as a single fixed item for nostalgic reasons).

If the devs are decided, then I am very sorry to see katanas go. I could see why they would be an irritant if you disliked the silliness of the wonderfully-magical-and-awesomely-slicey-katana-that-wins-every-time, but I don't think I liked them because, "I have a katana. I win." While I realize that as a Westerner, I am be subconsciously inordinately fixated on katanas (Thanks, Leonardo), I also know that IMMD when I found one. I liked that it was rare and exotic (not simply another kind of straight sword [scimitars don't count for me, they always remind me of Disney Aladdin]). I liked that it had a great tile, curvy and graceful, both on the character and as an item. I felt rewarded when I found a katana in a way that I didn't for double or triples (which seemed to me to be the weapons equivalents of what pizzas are to food; not that it isn't amusing or whatever, but they are silly, not special).

@dpeg: there were katanas in nethack? Funny, I thought everything was a long blade, a sliver sabre, or magicbane. :p

Personally, I always thought the absurd rarity more than offset the slight overpoweredness of the weapon. It's kind of interesting to have a weapon type your aren't guaranteed to find every game.

I'm not ashamed to admit half my preference for the katana come from the tile, though. Like dolphin said, it's the only sword that's actually curved for the doll, and the tile has a tassel man, a tassel! Double swords though don't even really look like double swords- they look like a slightly wider sword with a line. We're kind of getting into subjective personal aesthetics here though.

As for katanas, i've only found this famous trope once(!) and never ever had a chance to actually use one. And looks like never will

BTW, my proposal - weapons can be grouped in 3 categoties: common, rare and unique.
Common are just that, in every game you should be able to find tons of this.
Rare are not as common

so you most likely find only 1-2-3 or even none at all. But this weapons must be a little (or not-so-little) better than previous category.
Unique - this is something new that I propose. Basically, it's one-of-a-kind weapon, most likely associated with certain unique (hence the name). Only way to get one of those is to kill whoever is carrying them.
For example weapons like triple sword, double sword and scythe (yeah, Sigmund should keep his signature weapon) make perfect candidates for this role. IMHO, they make little sense now as ordinary weapons (even rare). They don't nessesary has to be much better or stronger, but they difinitely will add some flavour to the game, and also will make uniques even more interesting when now. Also, this weapons will look cool in you YAVP log

So, here an example. "Remove" is mainly based on this page https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php? ... em:weapons

Code:: Long Blades ----------- Falchion common Long sword common Scimitar common Demon Blade rare Bastard sword rare -replacement for both katana and double sword as rare weapons Great sword common Double sword unique Triple sword unique -maybe weapon of Rupert the crusader? Claymore rare -replacement for triple sword as rare weapon Axes ---- Hand axe common War axe common Broad axe rare Battleaxe common Executioner's axe unique -this name just asks for unique category Maces & Flais ------------- Club common Whip common Hammer remove Mace common Flail remove Ankus unique -look at description of weapon, it's already has the idea of a new unique :) Morningstar common Spiked flail rare Demon Whip rare Dire flail remove Eveningstar rare Great mace rare Great club common Great spiked club common Polearms -------- Spear common Trident common Halberd common Scythe unique -Sigmund's weapon Demon trident rare Glaive common Bardiche rare Short Blades ------------ Knife remove Dagger common Quick blade rare Short sword common Sabre rare Staves ------ Quarterstaff common Lajatang unique -currently Agnes use it

Of course, unique weapons should not have fixed properties, instead brands and +/- must be different/random.

dolphin wrote:I felt rewarded when I found a katana in a way that I didn't for double or triples ...

In line with dolphin's comments here I wish to emphasize that tight game mechanics is only part of Crawl, The flavoury fun of finding weird and rare items, odd monsters, and funny vaults is a large component of the fun of Crawl, especially for those of us who don't ascend six times before breakfast every day. For me personally, finding and ID'ing strange kinds of treasure is enormously enjoyable.

I just wanted to put those two Australian cents in there.

mageykun wrote:Like dolphin said, it's the only sword that's actually curved for the doll, and the tile has a tassel man, a tassel! Double swords though don't even really look like double swords- they look like a slightly wider sword with a line.

After reading this comment, I downloaded the tiles version and rummaged through to see the tile for the double sword. I'd always pictured a hilt with one blade pointing up and the other pointing down for ridiculous spinning attacks. Triple swords were like propellers!

The tile is almost sane compared to what I was picturing. The blades should at least be at an angle to each other like opened scissors, but maybe that doesn't display well for some reason. I haven't played tiles, so I don't know how all that works.

This is probably a better fit for Yuif's Hammer-time forum, but I low how these look: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bat%27leth

jejorda2 wrote:After reading this comment, I downloaded the tiles version and rummaged through to see the tile for the double sword. I'd always pictured a hilt with one blade pointing up and the other pointing down for ridiculous spinning attacks.

The tile for the lajatang is what you are looking for, I believe.

I agree with a lot of others, katanas looked super cool and were sufficiently rare that they really felt like something special. Even if I found one on a character that was never going to use it I'd usually drag it to my stash just as a keepsake!

It is dumb that katana was eliminated due to thematic reasons and yet lajatang exists.

XuaXua wrote:
jejorda2 wrote:After reading this comment, I downloaded the tiles version and rummaged through to see the tile for the double sword. I'd always pictured a hilt with one blade pointing up and the other pointing down for ridiculous spinning attacks.

The tile for the lajatang is what you are looking for, I believe.

The lajatang tile looks like it's 60% handle and 40% blade. The double sword would be at least 80% blade.

And I pictured the lajatang with crescent blades perpendicular to the shaft, like this:

But anyway, with double swords and demon blades, we don't really need the katana to have a good one handed long blade.

I'd like to see a baton or some other speedy one-handed staff weapon. The quarterstaff seems too good to be the low-end staff.

mikee wrote:
galehar wrote:Here is another: reduce base to hit. It makes smaller (accurate) weapons more attractive when unskilled, makes weapon accuracy enchantment more important, makes accuracy penalty from heavy armour relevant. No more "use biggest stick" and "use heaviest armour" regardless of skill. And if it turns out to be "too big nerf to melee", then increase the effect of fighting on accuracy (and reduce the HP bonus).

I feel like this idea is based on some false premises. Small weapons are already the most attractive in the game, and large weapons the most unattractive, at low skill levels. This is because of weapon delay.

So due to the very bad combination of low accuracy and low attack speed, even as focused a melee character as mdbe is likely to end up dead using a battleaxe on d:2. Even after completing lair, such a character has to consider weapon skill when choosing a weapon, and accuracy is a factor.

Really? Not according to danr spreadsheet. Even at 0 fighting and 0 axes, a battleaxe has better avg damage / turn than a hand axe or a war axe (vs Sigmund). Only a broad axe is better. The higher base damage of the battleaxe compensate for both lower speed and lower accuracy.

Could there be an afternoonstar that is halfway between a morningstar and an eveningstar?

XuaXua wrote:It is dumb that katana was eliminated due to thematic reasons and yet lajatang exists.

Dumb?

Jeremiah wrote:Could there be an afternoonstar that is halfway between a morningstar and an eveningstar?

That's a fun idea, but the joke is already over with the addition of eveningstars. Now, if you came up with the specifics of an (un)randart Afternoonstar....

On katanas, I've never encountered the trope but I'm not sad to see them go.

On double/triple swords, these names are excellent.

On afternoonstars, I think noonstar would be better, for sake of brevity.

dpeg wrote:That's a fun idea, but the joke is already over with the addition of eveningstars. Now, if you came up with the specifics of an (un)randart Afternoonstar....

As long as we're just joking?

the +6/-6 club "Afternoon Star" {AC+5, +inv, +blink, +lev, -CAST, Stlth++, Dam-3}

When equipped, the player doll appears to be unarmed. When on the floor the Afternoon Star appears to be an empty tile. The joke being, of course, that a star in the afternoon is going to be impossible to see. The Afternoon Star, then, is completely useless except for helping you not be seen. You can't fight with it and you can't cast with it, but my goodness can you avoid being seen.

A midpoint between eveningstar and morningstar would be a midnightstar, not a noonstar. I see no particular reason to add a midnightstar to the list of weapons, though.

You can see afternoon stars just fine - during total solar eclipse.

galehar wrote:Really? Not according to danr spreadsheet. Even at 0 fighting and 0 axes, a battleaxe has better avg damage / turn than a hand axe or a war axe (vs Sigmund). Only a broad axe is better. The higher base damage of the battleaxe compensate for both lower speed and lower accuracy.

I wasn't familiar with this spreadsheet, so I downloaded it. It looks to me like at 0 skill hand axe will do 1.4 damage per turn to Sigmund and battleaxe will do 1.7, so you're right about that. But the most telling stat to me is that accuracy/speed drops from 56%/0.77 to 35%/0.56

If Crawl's early game consisted of swinging at Sigmund with different weapons while he does nothing, I would want to use the battleaxe. But it doesn't. In the time it takes me to swing at Sigmund, he will likely get two actions and can kill me before I can respond. Maybe while I'm using the hand axe, he'll get a particularly nasty hit and I can heal before he hits again. Maybe I'll decide to zerk or use might or any number of things.

Moreover, a well-played early game rarely involves fighting Sigmund at all. More likely, I might fight something like three jackals. In that case, killing one jackal in a hit from the battleaxe exposes me to four attacks from the other jackals. If I can get the same kill with the hand axe, I am likely exposed to only two attacks.

I simply find hard to believe what you assume so easily, that any wise player would choose to use a big weapon regardless of weapon skill.

I like the idea of weapons having special effects.

I could imagine this would could a player's starting weapon choice... which isn't a bad thing. For example say a player has a better aptitude and would do more damage with an axe... but they may chose to start with a spear and switch off to axes later on because a spear would give better survival rates on the first few floors due to its special effect. Also I don't see why a few effects can't be evokable. For example with the way stairs work an evokable knock back would greatly help early game survival for some melee players.

mikee wrote:
galehar wrote:Really? Not according to danr spreadsheet. Even at 0 fighting and 0 axes, a battleaxe has better avg damage / turn than a hand axe or a war axe (vs Sigmund). Only a broad axe is better. The higher base damage of the battleaxe compensate for both lower speed and lower accuracy.

I wasn't familiar with this spreadsheet, so I downloaded it. It looks to me like at 0 skill hand axe will do 1.4 damage per turn to Sigmund and battleaxe will do 1.7, so you're right about that. But the most telling stat to me is that accuracy/speed drops from 56%/0.77 to 35%/0.56

If Crawl's early game consisted of swinging at Sigmund with different weapons while he does nothing, I would want to use the battleaxe. But it doesn't. In the time it takes me to swing at Sigmund, he will likely get two actions and can kill me before I can respond. Maybe while I'm using the hand axe, he'll get a particularly nasty hit and I can heal before he hits again. Maybe I'll decide to zerk or use might or any number of things.

Moreover, a well-played early game rarely involves fighting Sigmund at all. More likely, I might fight something like three jackals. In that case, killing one jackal in a hit from the battleaxe exposes me to four attacks from the other jackals. If I can get the same kill with the hand axe, I am likely exposed to only two attacks.

I simply find hard to believe what you assume so easily, that any wise player would choose to use a big weapon regardless of weapon skill.

OK, we both over-simplified the issue. The speed difference isn't as big as you imply. Hand axe delay is 13, battleaxe is 18. It's still big enough to make wielding a battleaxe unskilled a bad idea, I agree with you on that. Comparing with a broad axe could be more interesting.
But anyway, my point was not just about weapon base accuracy. I still think reducing the base to hit could make the armour accuracy penalty and the accuracy enchantment of weapons more relevant. And those 2 are currently considered negligible.

As of current stats as far as I can tell Ankus > Mace.

I like variety, and color, and even aesthetics in a game. There is no need for a weapon system that is so blatantly complicated that no one can make a well informed decision about what kind of weapon to use... But narrowing things down to only "dagger", "short sword" or "long sword" opposed to Katana, wakizashi. Or Shamshir opposed to a scimitar, it really doesn't matter. And tweaking their abilities ever so slightly does not make things overly complicated but is not needed.

I would rather have a variety of weapons that are more technically different in design, opposed to carbon copy items with different images and names.

Example, a mace, club, flail, morning star. The design of the weapon is different, not just a slightly curvy blade and a neat hilt.

A knife, dagger, shortsword, long sword, bastard sword, and greatsword. All various lengths, weight, and purposes driven. Turns out back stabbing with a knife or dagger is trivial compared to a bastard sword. But lopping off a head with a short sword would be much harder than with a long sword.

I am not so sure an ankus needs to be extra effective against a elephant, it was used to drive them, not kill them. Opposed to a mace which isn't used to drive "anything" but rather to crush the shizzz out of anything in it's way. I am not so sure a whip and chair is going to be more effective against a lion than a flail. Etc.

This isn't DND, nethack, or Baldurs Gate, but please do not dumb and simplify and shorten the array of items and abilities down to the bland level that mainstream RPG and dungeon games resort to. That isn't fun, it isn't cool, and no matter how neat and flashy the graphics are... They will never out match the in depth design and game play that Stone Soup, Net hack, DND, and many other indie games.

There is no need for a bunch of superficial items, but it is possible to increase the real selection of weaponry and add depth without complicating the system so that it is a pain.

galehar wrote:
mikee wrote:Moreover, a well-played early game rarely involves fighting Sigmund at all. More likely, I might fight something like three jackals. In that case, killing one jackal in a hit from the battleaxe exposes me to four attacks from the other jackals. If I can get the same kill with the hand axe, I am likely exposed to only two attacks.

But anyway, my point was not just about weapon base accuracy. I still think reducing the base to hit could make the armour accuracy penalty and the accuracy enchantment of weapons more relevant. And those 2 are currently considered negligible.

Crawl makes open levels in the mid-dungeon and all later branches, but not so much in the early game. (In any case, in the early game you should not be fighting 3 jackals at once. Fighting jackals in corridors is much easier.) So I think that the multiple-opponents advantage of quick weapons would be more relevant in later on. Incidentally, later on you're much less likely to be able to one-shot an opponent in melee. Yaktaurs take a couple of hits for most melee builds! So I think that later on there will be fewer occasions where quick weapons matter in the way that you suggest. (I think it matters more for knowing when to escape in any case!)

sigfried von murdock wrote:I am not so sure an ankus needs to be extra effective against a elephant, it was used to drive them, not kill them.

An ankus should prevent elephants from driving you backwards. This is in keeping with their usage. In the hands of ogres ankuses should permit the ogre to push the elephant back.

dpeg wrote:There were good reasons to remove katanas, and we'd probably bother to explain them if asked.

I just summoned a katana with a deck of summoning. rc1-0-g73720ad. Should I put this on Mantis?

smock wrote:
dpeg wrote:There were good reasons to remove katanas, and we'd probably bother to explain them if asked.

I just summoned a katana with a deck of summoning. rc1-0-g73720ad. Should I put this on Mantis?

Yes, please.

The Tavern

the Weapon Reform

the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform

Re: the Weapon Reform