Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You know, I've seen a lot of really polarizing and extreme discussion of 6th edition recently. There have been people saying that all kinds of things are going to need to be in the game, need to be out of the game, or are otherwise balanced/unbalanced. I've been guilty of some of that discussion myself, and I think it's honestly pretty silly.
At this point, I'd like to take a moment and just do a quick reality check on 6th edition competitive play:
We don't know what's going to be like.
It's pretty clear by now that 6th edition isn't the disaster that some people had predicted, but the specifics of how a lot of things are going to work are still up in the air. Will random objectives/terrain be a boon or a problem? What scenarios will prove popular? Will secondary objectives be accepted? Will double FOCs? How will allies, fortifications, and flyers affect the metagame? Is this finally the edition where Forge World can go mainstream? All of these things aren't clear at this stage.
The only way for us to find out is to play games. I'm sure a lot of you guys have strong opinions about the above-- I do too! But I don't know whether I'm right, and the only way to find out is to see how these things work out in actual play. So, before we freak out over this change or that change, let's actually play some games. Let's run some events and see who and what makes it to the top tables. Right now, we don't know what is and isn't good-- so let's wait and see before we go nuts.
If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/18 03:30:29
Fetterkey wrote:You know, I've seen a lot of really polarizing and extreme discussion of 6th edition recently. There have been people saying that all kinds of things are going to need to be in the game, need to be out of the game, or are otherwise balanced/unbalanced. I've been guilty of some of that discussion myself, and I think it's honestly pretty silly.
At this point, I'd like to take a moment and just do a quick reality check on 6th edition competitive play:
We don't know what's going to be like.
It's pretty clear by now that 6th edition isn't the disaster that some people had predicted, but the specifics of how a lot of things are going to work are still up in the air. Will random objectives/terrain be a boon or a problem? What scenarios will prove popular? Will secondary objectives be accepted? Will double FOCs? How will allies, fortifications, and flyers affect the metagame? Is this finally the edition where Forge World can go mainstream? All of these things aren't clear at this stage.
The only way for us to find out is to play games. I'm sure a lot of you guys have strong opinions about the above-- I do too! But I don't know whether I'm right, and the only way to find out is to see how these things work out in actual play. So, before we freak out over this change or that change, let's actually play some games. Let's run some events and see who and what makes it to the top tables. Right now, we don't know what is and isn't good-- so let's wait and see before we go nuts.
If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.
I swear, 40k is the only goddamn game where, in the competitive aspects of it, every TO wants to houserule every Throne-damned thing instead of just following the fething rules. For games like D&D it makes sense because it's not competitive. For games like MTG there's a centralized authority for fixing designer <Language!>, but people still play and no actual competitive player complains that it's usually a subset of 5 viable decks for a given Standard season.
For 40k, though? I hope your TO hasn't decided he doesn't like your codex! Hope you like arbitrary additional restrictions on list composition imposed by armchair game designers! Hope you like untested, non-standard missions!
I'm exaggerating, obviously, but so, so many local games I see advertised have this problem. A lot of the major tournaments are okay, but comp in general (and sports, where people can manipulate it to gain standing) have no place in a competitive environment. Remove all restrictions not in the BRB, and the only thing separating players will be skill on the table, and insight in building the list for a given tournament.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/18 18:13:15
I'm exaggerating, obviously, but so, so many local games I see advertised have this problem. A lot of the major tournaments are okay, but comp in general (and sports, where people can manipulate it to gain standing) have no place in a competitive environment. Remove all restrictions not in the BRB, and the only thing separating players will be skill on the table, and insight in building the list for a given tournament.
Yeah, that makes sense, because all editions of 40k are balanced on a hair's edge and the smallest breeze sends the entire house of cards tumbling like an awkwardly constructed but unintentional masterpiece.
I don't blame you for your lack of faith in the impartiality of tournament organizers, but the claim that the unfettered rulebook allows for the perfect expression of player skill on the tabletop is so brazen it's ridiculous!
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
Mother earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, but I was not offended. For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own gak.
Lormax wrote:To the above, isn't this is a great example of what the INATFAQ was created for?
True, but it's not 100% enforced. It does go a long way to actually make sure TOs who subscribe to it actually run the damn game properly. But that doesn't stop the subset of TOs who feed into the HAAC circlejerk instead of just letting us play the damn game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TedNugent wrote:
Ostrakon wrote:
I'm exaggerating, obviously, but so, so many local games I see advertised have this problem. A lot of the major tournaments are okay, but comp in general (and sports, where people can manipulate it to gain standing) have no place in a competitive environment. Remove all restrictions not in the BRB, and the only thing separating players will be skill on the table, and insight in building the list for a given tournament.
Yeah, that makes sense, because all editions of 40k are balanced on a hair's edge and the smallest breeze sends the entire house of cards tumbling like an awkwardly constructed but unintentional masterpiece.
I don't blame you for your lack of faith in the impartiality of tournament organizers, but the claim that the unfettered rulebook allows for the perfect expression of player skill on the tabletop is so brazen it's ridiculous!
Codex vs. Codex there's a lot of imbalance, which sucks obviously. But players who care about winning are going to field the more powerful armies (or lists from less powerful codices tailored to take out a local metagame of powerful lists). TOs need not cater to people who don't want to do what it takes to field the best possible list for a given tournament, if we want to consider it truly competitive. If we're going to randomly hobble codices which we perceive to be less powerful, all we're doing is making a new most-powerful set of lists.
Instead, many TOs make changes to benefit people who didn't do everything they could to prepare for victory. This is anticompetitive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/18 04:38:30
If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.
Says the man who thinks allowing Forgeworld units in 40k tournaments is an insane and completely unbalanced idea based primarily on a couple of units that operate very differently under a new set of rules than they have previously
Ostrakon wrote:
I swear, 40k is the only goddamn game where, in the competitive aspects of it, every TO wants to houserule every Throne-damned thing instead of just following the fething rules. For games like D&D it makes sense because it's not competitive.
Neither is 40k supposed to be, the design team came right out and said so in their Open Day seminar.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ostrakon wrote:Remove all restrictions not in the BRB, and the only thing separating players will be skill on the table, and insight in building the list for a given tournament.
Except for the fact that codices vary wildly in power and that results are significantly affected by vagaries of dice rolling... So as long as TO's limit all players to a single codex and have the dice "rolls" come from an identical array of numbers that every player must use, only skill separates players!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/18 06:29:08
If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.
Says the man who thinks allowing Forgeworld units in 40k tournaments is an insane and completely unbalanced idea based primarily on a couple of units that operate very differently under a new set of rules than they have previously
As I said, we all have strong opinions on these issues. I'll freely admit that I think Forge World is broken. But if events that allow Forge World units don't experience any problems or additional balance issues, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong and they should be allowed. Allowing these units would be in my favor, after all-- I have multiple Forge World models and would love to pick up more-- but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...
To me, balance is something independant of the viability of the ruleset (though the MEQ love does irritate me). My main concern is the time consuming abusable nature of the wound allocation rules and the logistical issues with using fortifications.
If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.
Says the man who thinks allowing Forgeworld units in 40k tournaments is an insane and completely unbalanced idea based primarily on a couple of units that operate very differently under a new set of rules than they have previously
As I said, we all have strong opinions on these issues. I'll freely admit that I think Forge World is broken. But if events that allow Forge World units don't experience any problems or additional balance issues, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong and they should be allowed. Allowing these units would be in my favor, after all-- I have multiple Forge World models and would love to pick up more-- but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...
All larger events in Norway now allow forgeworld, a gradual movement having happened over the last few years. Result: No complaints either to TO's or on local forums about anything FW and less and less restrictions in the events.
Join the FW wave, it more fun
I agree about your initial statement too. The perfect tourney for me now uses all the rules (though I understand that terrain rules must be tweaked for tourney play), including mysterious terrain, allies, double FOC etc. (and FW - Let's face it, GW puts out much worse stuff in every codex)
GW genuinely dislikes and generally frowns upon tournament play. They intended this game to be a beer and pretzels, painting hobby and the exponential growth of tournament douchbagery is distasteful to them.
That's why there are no official GW sanctioned tournaments anymore... 'Ard Boys was the last thing to be axed. The rules are so open to house rule interpretation, and without the papa company answering the questions, we can't have a standard tournament setting that is truly balanced.
Look at double FOC! I could never ever play in a tournament like that. The concept of it is truly mind numbing on a competitive level.
The GW designers thought it would be a cool idea, fluffologically speaking, for me to be able to put Dante and Calgar in the same army with balanced forces behind them and march into battle against the forces of Chaos.... and indeed that is cool, and fluffy, and the double FOC would allow me to play that out with my friend while splitting a 12ver and a Pizza. But in reality, at a tournament, all a double FOC does is allow a space wolves player to take 6 packs of long fangs and enough cyclone termie grey hunters to put out 42 missiles per turn!! 42 missile shots!! are you kidding me!! And what about the IG players who are waiting for the first double FOC tourny where they can bring 6 Vendettas and drop 18 TLLC shots.
No my friends tournaments are going to be fundamentally unbalanced for the foreseeable future. No standardized mission types, no top down tournament format template, and TO's with the ability to cut and paste the settings they want... I fear much gnashing of teeth.
"Blood Angels aren't a competitive army in 6th Ed." - Idiots Everywhere
Tzeentch is the god of grand strategy, manipulation, deception, and knowledge. Clearly the patron god of Lawyers. UGA Law '15.
That is a link to an official GW tourny on their FRONT PAGE.
Next time, before making claims about GW, do a little research please. There are still GW tournies.
They definitely came out and said that 6th edition is a move away from competitive play, but stating there are no more sanctioned GW tournaments is flat out incorrect.
Also, as far your rant on double FOC goes, you could always do whatever you wanted in friendly games at home with pizza and beer. You don't need GW to tell you that you can use one toy soldier with another. I'm not sure why they decided to put it in the official rules that you can use 2 FOC at 2000+, but you never needed them to tell you that you can do it at home. In fact, including it in the rule book does nothing except allows that SW player to bring his 6 long fang packs to a tourny using unmodified 40k rules.
Sangfroid Marines 5000 pts
Wych Cult 2000
Tau 2000
Hahaha thank you for that Dracos, you are correct they still have one tournament in north America. maybe there are even more... but in terms of tournament support, no one in their right mind would say GW supports a competitive tournament scene. compared to companies like Wizards ot C or Wizkids or the people who make Warmachine, GW simply doesn't like competition play and they don't support it. But you are correct and your persnickety knit picking is duly noted.
Dracos wrote:
Also, as far your rant on double FOC goes, you could always do whatever you wanted in friendly games at home with pizza and beer. You don't need GW to tell you that you can use one toy soldier with another. I'm not sure why they decided to put it in the official rules that you can use 2 FOC at 2000+, but you never needed them to tell you that you can do it at home. In fact, including it in the rule book does nothing except allows that SW player to bring his 6 long fang packs to a tourny using unmodified 40k rules.
I believe you just confirmed my point.... The OP bemoaned our not knowing what to expect in 6th during competitive play and it has since then been pointed out that with double FOC, random missions, and terrain, there could consistently be serious issues with tournaments. my point was that what was intended to be done at home in a friendly match can now be used and abused at the tournament scene. opening the flood gates for even more min/maxing, net listing, cheese dickery. TO's are now in a bind... on the one hand they have the option to play by the book and allow random missions and double FOC and on the other hand they have the capacity to pick and choose what they want to play with. In either hopelessly unbalance tournaments will occur creating a turbulent and unattractive tournament scene at best.... just the way GW seems to want it.
"Blood Angels aren't a competitive army in 6th Ed." - Idiots Everywhere
Tzeentch is the god of grand strategy, manipulation, deception, and knowledge. Clearly the patron god of Lawyers. UGA Law '15.
Tournaments will be just fine because of TOs already making more balanced missions and considering whether allies, fortifications and double FOCs can be allowed in any way shape or form.
A lot of people seem to forget that many players don't play at any 'local stores' with kids, and only rarely play home games against their best friends, and instead go to a major tournament five or six times a year to enjoy the game, meet other players, see a ton of armies and play against a wide variety of opponents. Tournaments aren't just competition, they're the gaming scene interacting. It's only natural that the organisers will try to make the experience as enjoyable for everyone as possible by house ruling stuff they believe that people don't like. Sooner or later an established tournament rule set emerges out of necessity and regulars will know what house rules and comp restrictions to expect. I've been around for a long time and there's been a ton of composition restrictions especially on the Warhammer side for years and years and this discussion here just looks like a few people who are very used to everything being allowed being shocked that their game now has to be house ruled to be playable. This isn't the end of the world. Life will go on and maybe in four years when the next edition comes out there won't be need for as many restrictions. The goal of the house rules isn't balance, it's better balance, and as always the TOs will try to achieve this by making as few changes as necessary.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/07/18 20:38:01
Ostrakon wrote:For 40k, though? I hope your TO hasn't decided he doesn't like your codex! Hope you like arbitrary additional restrictions on list composition imposed by armchair game designers! Hope you like untested, non-standard missions!
I am more and more coming to conclusion that armchair game designers are as good as GW, especialy after what I've read there:
Vaktathi wrote:The designers came right out and said they intentionally move away from designing 40k as a competitive ruleset.
...for example about 2d6 charge being added for more drama and tension because "a swirling battle full of death, destruction and explosions isn’t really an environment where controlled and predictable actions are likely" Why fixed gun range then, why fixed movement, why fixed anything?
CT GAMER wrote:The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.
When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...
Or maybe the best thing would be GW following the people who want the game made into a sport and creating a good balanced tactical skill-based game for both casual and competitive players.
Every game in the world benefits from having a competitive environment as far as rules go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/07/18 21:10:19
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Every game in the world benefits from having a competitive environment as far as rules go.
This is an often overlooked argument. Many of the most competitive games in the world are mostly played on a completely recreational and casual basis by amateurs. It's bizarre how people believe that a balanced game system wouldn't be enjoyable, and that a potentially competitive game couldn't be played just for fun. These things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they support eachother. GW has always had plenty of excuses for creating imbalanced games: "Yeah we know it's imbalanced and uncompetitive but it's not intended to be competitive at all!" Seriously? You intentionally made the game imbalanced? What is the point of that? "We encourage you to house rule our game and change it more for your liking!" Gee, that's great, you're giving us permission to write your game for you.
GW just simply doesn't put a lot of time and resources in making a good game. If you look at how much testing and patching the succesful competitive games have done to get where they are now, it's not hard to see the difference. I just don't understand why the players of these imbalanced and uncompetitive games would have an objection if some of the player base want to fix the most glaring errors for the event that they are organising.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/07/18 21:26:58
Every game in the world benefits from having a competitive environment as far as rules go.
This is an often overlooked argument. Many of the most competitive games in the world are mostly played on a completely recreational and casual basis by amateurs. It's bizarre how people believe that a balanced game system wouldn't be enjoyable, and that a potentially competitive game couldn't be played just for fun. These things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they support eachother.
Quick example - the table football (not sure the English name, the one that you ussualy find in the pubs). It's ussualy played casualy so even if the strong ball bounces off two walls or defenders and goes into the hole, there's a point scored. It leads to a lot of games decided by luck and many players just using as much force as possible instead of carefuly applying the force needed. With the tourney rules (so the ball can't touch a defender, goalkeeper or a wall before finding its way to the hole) the game shifts weight to definately skill based affair. Now, thousands of people play casualy and have tons of fun and for people like me - who prefer more skill-based gameplay - there is a solid ruleset to grant it. That said, I enjoy drunken casual match as well, just the tourney edition is so much better.
In the pub close to me, after houndreds of games it ended with 90% of people prefering tourney rules even playing for fun.
Therion wrote:GW just simply doesn't put a lot of time and resources in making a good game. If you look at how much testing and patching the succesful competitive games have done to get where they are now, it's not hard to see the difference.
Yes, the whole fun, drama, tension is just cheap lazy writing on their side and lets them escape with things a solid boardgame would never slip by with.
Therion wrote:I just don't understand why the players of these imbalanced and uncompetitive games would have an objection if some of the player base want to fix the most glaring errors for the event that they are organising.
Yes, so obvious. I also don't understand why players do not demand that from original game designers.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/07/18 21:50:56
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Fetterkey wrote: but I'm not sure if it would be good for the game. The only way to find out is to do some tests...
The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.
When you try to force something to be something it isn't you are setting yourself up for dissapointment...
Really?
So the BEST thing for the game is for people whom you don't know to play the game the way you feel it should be played?
What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others. Especially when those people playing the game the way they find most enjoyable do so with other like minded people.
What do you care, at all, how people play the game that aren't playing you? Trying to control what other people do is setting yourself up for disappointment. Those who do enjoy competitive play have every right to do so, just as you have the right to play non-competitively.
@Monolythic
GW really dislikes tournaments? Really? So the company, or every person in it, or the majority of them?
Again, how in the blazes can you POSSIBLY make a statement like that. It is fundamentally flawed. You can't speak for an organization or the people in it.
GW employees play in tournaments, my friend played Gav Thorpe at a GW sanctioned GT. EVERY SINGLE GW store I know of RUNS regular tournaments and leagues. Jervis Johnson himself said tournaments were cool, he just disliked the attitude some players brought with them to a tournament (and guess what, NO ONE likes TFGs, not even other tournament players).
So this "douchebaggery" that you are imposing on an entire group of people shows only your prejudices and ignorance.
My advice to you, friend, is to not go on the offensive against a group of individuals who largely are normal, nice people who simply like the competitive aspect of this silly game. You should not speak for people whom you don't know, nor know their stance on anything as your facts are wrong (the individual who ran the GW tournaments left the company, and that is why they aren't running big events anymore) and you are posting your speculation as facts which causes people to get mad (like me) and causes more problems than it fixes.
So please stop. Express your opinions if you please, but don;t parade them as facts.
Jervis has long expressed a general dislike for competitive play. It probably has to do with the monthly ass kickings Chambers used to dole out to him in WD. He is the longest surviving relic from the early days, so his voice gets some play, but the general pull back of tournament support is a money decission on GWs part, not a philisophical shift.
I dont understand why people are making such a big thing about having 2 focs at over 2000 points. As a rule tournaments are not that big and it was like that years ago and no one cared on the grounds that hardly anyone played tournaments of that size and for normal games if you go over 2000 you might as well just play apoc in which case you can do whatever you want anyway.
I go to throne of skulls in the UK every 6 months at the main Nottingham base and I am wondering whats going to be played next time as their rules pack is very poor at the minute in terms of description of what you can and cant do. I dont think its been updated for 6th yet.
I would expect fortifications to be banned at most events just for the sake of keeping it simple I know when I run tournaments I will be telling people no fortifications.
I also think tournaments might suffer from less butt hurt players that go just to decimate who they play without thought for enjoyment of sportsmanship as the rules seem to be far more entertaining and random which with any luck will make such players just piss off or change their manner
unless we use a grid system with a universal random number generator program and everyone has the same army it will not be 'tight' enough to be compeditive.
MtG is compedtive as its treated like a computer program, you do X and can respond with Y which does Z. Logical and straight forward. You minimise randomness by having 4 of a card, fetches, tutors and the like. There's a metagame of 5 uber decks and 5 semi-uber decks wiht maybe 2 rogue decks at any one time.
40k has large element of randomness. There are no uber armies, some are over powered but there are ways to beat them none the less.
Truffle wrote:I also think tournaments might suffer from less butt hurt players that go just to decimate who they play without thought for enjoyment of sportsmanship as the rules seem to be far more entertaining and random which with any luck will make such players just piss off or change their manner
That's hardly an argument to make a game into a luckfest.
Phototoxin wrote:unless we use a grid system with a universal random number generator program and everyone has the same army it will not be 'tight' enough to be compeditive.
You can at least try to minimise luck and reward skill, and there seems to be at least one person in GW who tried (Alessio) but sadly the drama and tension guys had the last word this time. Interviewer about Phil Kelly:
"He also shared his personal opinion on 5th edition and said (with the greatest of respect) that Alessio Cavorte seemed to want to make the game more competitive and simplified. He thought that this made the game a little to flat and generic in its function (which I personally agreed with). His words were that it ‘lost its craziness’. 6th has therefore moved to address this and give more feel and character to the units and the game as a whole. It does seem to be a consensus amongst GW staff that 2nd was a great edition in many ways (although obviously broken in others). "
Long live craziness!
On a second thought, I could have asked my wife to throw little rocks at the board instead of buying a rulebook.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
I find it sadly funny that the thread about how we should stay calm and see what happens across events with multiple different sets of rules has turned into people arguing about what should and shouldn't be allowed.
What would be very good for the game is if people stopped trying to impose their opinions on how it should be played on to others.
Pot, meet kettle.
Reece is not, nor has he ever, tried to tell non-competitive players that the only way to play the game was the competitive way. Reece, myself, and competitive gamers like us can play pick up games, league games, narrative campaigns etc and enjoy them. We also play compeittively and enjoy it. I have never tried to insist that people who are not competitive should give up the way some posters on this thread are telling competitive players to give up. I would never presume to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, don't tell me how to enjoy mine. Thanks.
Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
And what about the 
5000 pts
2000
2000 
