Reflections on Revisited

Almost five years on the Revisited Project (such as it is) is well and truly dead. Why? Failure to cross-pollinate.

In any project like this you've got to keep things fresh. You have to loosen the reigns and examine things from multiple perspectives. There has to be a lot of honesty and a lot of caring. Not everyone is going to play for the same reasons and not everyone is going to enjoy the same things. A lot of people are going to disagree at times and a lot of compromises are going to have to be made. It is how anything like this goes.

However, what happened to Revisited was that inside its walls there became space for only one kind of 'ideal' gamer, a single kind of super-gamer who enjoyed games in a certain way and played them unto a certain end.

Revisited started out with many types of players. Some collected huge armies, some developed super lists, others made terrible units work on the table despite their rules. However, as the super-gamer ideal was developed some players found themselves left behind, branded 'immature,' 'unfocused,' or basically 'inferior.'

At first it was certain non-competitive types who left. After all, the only thing we did was run tournaments and tool up ever more powerful lists. Then the truly competitive types left. This was a natural result of 'narrative-only' gaming coming in.

At first people believed that the group could continue on. This was especially because the less 'serious' gamers were the first ones to leave. It was believed that now that they were gone the gaming would become more focused.

Instead it became stale and unexciting.

Without them it became not only decreasingly fun but also increasingly hollow. After all, when all the lists are perfected cookie-cutter one trick ponies or the games are about telling a 'story' (i.e. your choices don't matter anymore) its all becomes pretty boring. The 'challenge' of gaming was forgotten in favour of who had the bigger win-streak and the narratives became linear and predictable as to not demand emotional control out of anybody.

All of this could have been fixed with better rules-writing right? I mean it was the fact the game wasn't good enough right? No. The problem was us. Gaming isn't about making you happy at the expense of everyone else. It isn't about 'your' collection, 'your' list and 'your' win-streak. When you forget the person at the other end of the table you kill the game. We forgot what gaming was all about and forgot what we had started all of this for.

If at the beginning we hadn't been so narrow-minded things could have been different. Maybe we would  have not driven the 'casuals' away, added more members to our group and not destroyed things for ourselves.

In the end GW wasn't the problem, we were.

Whilst the story of the people inside the group is not over yet, the story of Revisited most certainly is. With four members gone, three of which who have given away most of their collections and smashed the rest (with hammers mind you, plastic Ork titan heads are surprisingly resilient I will tell you), the story of good old-fashioned 40k for us as a group is over. Even if a new project was started by the survivors it would be Revisited in name only and nothing else.

The glory days of 'tabletop wargaming' are over for us. Now we have to each look hard in the mirror and  ask what kind of people do we want to be: boys just out for our own fun or men who look out for each other even if it costs us the game.

We're Back!

We're back in town. After an extended break over the Christmas holidays well into the New Year, the Revisited Project is back.

New codicies have been released at our website (see the links on the left) and more are on the way. The rulebook is now completely Apocalypse friendly - and suprisingly for us, we actually toned down some of the Apoc stuff!

Watch this space for more action soon.

Not dead yet!

I'm happy to announce that we have a Codex release today. And not just that, we're releasing TWO Codices at the same time.

Hope you enjoy Codex: Space Marines Revisited (V0.9) and Codex: Chaos Space Marines Revisited (V0.2). They're certainly better (but in no way challenge on a legal basis - purey works of fan-made love!!!) the drek that GW is putting out these days.

You can get them here:

http://revisitedproject.org/index.php?showtopic=232

And here:

http://revisitedproject.org/index.php?showtopic=231

Enjoy!

BYE

Units 101 Spot - Pariahs

Welcome to the next installment of Units 101 Spot!

We should have some battle reports soon, including a 20,000 + points a side game with Eldar and Imperial Guard vs. Chaos - including over 200 Daemons coming on from a Warp Rift, 3 Baneblades, 100 odd Storm Troopers in transports, 50+ plague zombies, a Balrog impersonating a special character, a Keeper of Secrets ripping into a Seer Council, and lots more. I'll wait for my slack colleagues to write something up and post pictures. Until then, I'm going to have a look today at a unit which is both undeniably cool and yet often rejected, much like my aforementioned slack friends - this unit being from the elites section of Codex: Necrons - Pariahs.

I know, I know. "Why Pariahs? How in all hell can you tell me a unit which almost nobody ever takes will be useful to me? Why shouldn't I just go and get a Nightbringer, 20 Warriors, 30 Immortals, 15 Destroyers and 3 Monoliths and be done with it?" Ok, ok, I understand... no really... you can stop now... really...

Why Pariahs...

Ok, firstly we will look at the unit itself - Pariahs have the same stats as a Necron Lord, but at Initiative 3 with 1 Wound. Remember that they are both Strength and Toughness 5, it is important, especially in combat. Pariahs get no upgrades, but then again, they don't really need it. The unit is 0-1 only, which means that you can't go around with 30 of these guys outside of Apocalypse. Nothing too fantastic so far, I know. Oh, and they cost 36 points each, twice that of your vanilla Necron Warrior (is there any other kind?), don't have We'll Be Back, and don't count as 'Necrons' for the purposes of Phase Out or teleportation. So why are we even bothering? Well, the models look awesome, but for those of you who need more reason than that...

We wonder why, and then we get to... the special rules. Firstly, their weaponry. They have Warscythes. Awesome right? Warscythes with Gauss Blasters, however, are even more awesome. Not only do they have 24" Assault 2 S5 AP4 Gauss weapons, the Warscythes are themselves fantastic. This weapon allows no saves against it in close combat, regular or invulnerable, and also causes the unit to do 2D6 x 5 damage against vehicles, enabling it to be one of the very few Necron units effective against vehicles and walkers in close combat.

Secondly, they are Fearless. Not always important, but useful against a variety of units and armies, as well as against tank shocks - Death or Glory is a viable option with a small unit of Pariahs, and could make opponents think twice about tank shocking through a Necron formation.

Thirdly Pariahs have the Soulless special rule. This causes them to project a 12" aura around the unit which reduces the leadership of all enemy units to Ld7. Very useful, especially in combinations, as we will see later.

So now that we understand the various abilities of Pariahs, we can look at the various tactics on how to use them. Now to save time, I am going to combine various tactics into one section, to save on time and brain cells for both myself and for you, the reader. Appreciate it. That wasn't a suggestion...

Tactics 1,2 and 3 - The Horror, The Horror

These sets of tactics can basically be used against any player who is assaulting you with non-Fearless troops. Take a small unit of Pariahs - the minimum cost is only 144 points for four models, and spread them out behind your front lines. Since the unit isn't worth much, and any models killed won't add any benefit for Phase Out purposes, the unit is usually left alone for at least a couple of turns of shooting.

Now if you have Flayed Ones, try and get them to hold the opponent, then move the Pariah's up to within 12" of the combat. A combination of the Pariahs Soulless special rule and the Terrifying Visage of the Flayed ones means that for half of the rounds of combat, enemies will be hitting your models only on a 6+. This is a fantastic way to block units with high initiative, high impact weaponry and high Weapon Skill - Incubi, Genestealers, Scorpions, Chosen, Nobs and other specialist combat infantry and so forth will all find their effectiveness in close combat severely weakened.

Pariahs also work well with abilities of the Necron Lord. Two pieces of wargear work especially well - Gaze of Flame and Nightmare Shroud. Pariahs' inherent Soulless ability combines perfectly with the leadership modifications of Gaze of Flame - it leaves units in combat with the Lord or any unit he has joined at Ld6 as long as the Pariahs are within 12". This is especially useful if you have surrounded the combat, blocking off fall back routes - Scarabs are one of the best units for blocking duties.

The Nightmare Shroud is another great piece of wargear to use - it causes all units with a model within 12" to take a Morale check. Again, combined with the Pariahs Soulless rule, this can create a chain effect of units running away, completely breaking the enemies plans. Best used sometimes on a Lord with a Veil of Darkness enabling him to teleport even further into enemy lines to get even units outside the Soulless range of the Pariahs.

Of course, the combination of the Deceiver and Pariahs can be extraordinarily potent. The Deceiver's Dread special rule is like a directional Terrifying Visage - if the unit fails a leadership test, it only hits on 6+ in that combat. The other of the Deceiver's power that is useful in combat is the appropriately but unoriginally named Deceive - this acts as a long ranged Gaze of Flame in causing a unit within 24" to take a Morale or Pinning check.
Of course, you can combine any of these units to create something truly dangerous - imagine Pariahs working with a Necron Lord with a Gaze of Flame or Nightmare Shroud that is attached to a unit of Flayed Ones, with the Deceiver hanging around for good luck. With some support elements in Scarabs, Wraiths, more Flayed Ones, etc, a truly potent hand to hand force could be forged from what most people see as a mid range shooting army. A bit of imagination and deviousness is required, and you truly have to think about where you are maneuvering your army to use it effectively, but it can be very competitive and dangerous. And the first time you do this to an opponent, they are going to get hammered - the Lord of all Dice permitting of course.

Tactic 4 - The Bigger They Are...

Necrons have fantastic firepower against vehicles and high toughness models. However, in close combat most standard models are unable to hurt vehicles at all - Wraiths and Necron Lords being the major exceptions.

However, since most sides don't take Wraiths because Fast Attack slots are so competitive and Necron Lords are often too valuable to throw into combat, a large hole is left against sides with large numbers of high toughness/AV combat troops such as Space Marine Dreadnoughts and their Chaos and Grey Knight brothers, Defilers, Wraithlords, Ork Dreadnoughts and Killa Kans, etc.

This is where a Pariah unit comes in handy - a unit of 4 will be most likely to kill a Killa Kan or Dreadnought, and have a decent go against a Wraithlord. A unit of 8-10 will chew straight through the first walker that comes its way without a sweat with 2D6 +5 for Armor Penetration and ask for seconds and thirds.

Also, the Pariahs are almost the only decent unit in the entire Necron army to take on Terminators and Nobs and other similar hard hitting power fist equivalent units. At S5 I3 with no saves, they should carve through any I1 troops. A small unit can often cause the enemy to hesitate as to committing their very expensive units, especially if they have support in form of a Lord, Flayed Ones, a C'Tan, and so on.

However, the complete opposite applies to Pariahs vs higher initiative assault troops with large numbers of power weapons such as Assault Terminators, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Veterans/Chosen, and so on. Why? Because your Pariahs won't get saves, and they don't have the durability to be combat effective. Normal troops backed up by a Res Orb Lord or a C'Tan are perfect substitutes in this instance.

Tactic 5 - Apocalypto time!!!

For Apocalypse, these guys get a new lease of life. Why? Well firstly, there are lots more units about to hassle, and even more chances to get close quickly when you can possibly start only 12.001 inches away from the enemy. Also, there is more chance the expensive hard hitting units such as Nobs and Terminators will be hanging about, as well as Seer Councils and the like - against whom even 3 or 4 surviving Pariahs will still have a field day. Plus, why not take a variety of different stuff, have fun, and still crush the enemy mercilessly? A perfect gameplan!

Also, Pariahs are great super heavy hunters! Sick of that Baneblade or Hellblade that keeps on obliterating your phalanx? Tired of Type D death from your rich friend and his massive Forgeworld collection? Get some Pariahs, and use either Sewers, Flank March or some other combination to get it up there as fast as you can. A single squad of Pariahs will rip straight through most super heavies with ease. And for once they will be cost effective even if they die the turn after! Also, they will be great if they group charge either large groups of firebase infantry or groups of tanks - you hate that Emperors First Tank Company? Three squads of Pariahs and a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth later, there won't be one.

How do I counter Pariahs?

Pariahs are undeniably nasty, especially when combined with other Necron units and their special rules. I suggest that the best option is to either shoot them to death early on if you are afraid of your assault troops running away, or assault them with high initiative MEQ killers. And whatever you do, don't let your walkers, Terminators and equivalents or vehicles hang around for too long, or you will lose them. Most importantly - be decisive about the action you are going to take. If you are going to shoot them, put enough shooting down to kill the squad, as the unit still effective at 1 model, and casualties don't even count for phase out purposes. And in combat, if you don't kill them up front, they will kill some of your models. That may be an expensive thing to happen. So make sure if you want them dead, you commit yourself to the task suffecient force to do it, or you may as well not bother.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed todays Units 101 Spot! Any suggestions for future articles, don't hesitiate to either leave a comment, or e-mail me at lords2001-AT-gmail-DOT-com. Enjoy, wargamers, and I hope to kill you soon!

Units 101 Spot - Chaos Dreadnoughts

Hey there and welcome to our next Units 101 Spot. Today's review is of a very nasty character, and one much maligned by many, many Chaos players - the Chaos Dreadnought.

My first impression is that Chaos Dreadnoughts are interesting models - heavy as all hell though. You know, it wouldn't have been hard to update the model from the Space Marine version and put it in plastic, but hey, I guess we have ForgeWorld. They can come with a variety of wonderful ranged weaponry as well as the usual close combat equipment.

And at last they are an Elites unit, which means they aren't competing with Havocs, Obliterators, Defilers, Land Raiders, Vindicators and Predators for space in Heavy Support.

So why take Chaos Dreadnoughts?

Now this is a question worth thinking about, for there is some strident (and somewhat fair) criticism of the Chaos Dreadnoughts for their new rule sets. The Fire Frenzy rule ensures that on average once a game, your Dreadnought will have a chance of shooting your own side. Not fun. And the unit options are rather, well, limited at extra armor. For 15 points. However, there are quite a few roles that the Dreadnought can play in your Chaos army that can get around this rule.

Firstly, to be worried about it shooting your own units, it needs to be able to see it. If you want a shooting Dreadnought, you can either put it in some area terrain that will stop it from seeing most of your own units, or use terrain to block line of sight directly to any of your units closer than the enemy. Or alternatively, take a weapons mix that won't harm the closest models - an autocannon/missile launcher or plasma cannon/missile launcher combinaton doesn't have much chance of doing anything to a Predator's front armor, especially if you get the missile launcher shooting frags. And if you are aggressive with your shooting Dreadnought, you can ensure that the enemy is the closest unengaged model, forcing them to chew down a double burst of fire. The rules don't benefit people using Dreadnought's as bunkers, but hey, they aren't meant to be.

So since they don't totally suck, lets look at...

How to use Chaos Dreadnoughts -

Firstly, lets look at options. Before you choose what weapons you take, you have to know what you want your Dreadnought to do. Do you want it to be a mobile Havoc squad? Or do you want it to be a 'fixer' unit that can shoot and counter assault? Or do you want it to be an area denial unit? Or a close combat specialist? Knowing what you want your Dreadnought to do, or be able to do, is vital to understanding what weapons are the best choices for you.

As a tank hunting combination, the Dreadnought Missile Launcher(DML)/Autocannon duo is great against medium tanks and walkers - it will be able to threaten AV 10-13 with ease, and convert across to shooting Monsterous Creatures as well. Just keep in mind that if you choose this option, it may be an idea to keep a tough tank nearby to take any Fire Frenzy damage. Of course, you can always take the Twin Linked Lascannon/DML option if you are brave enough.

The Plasma Cannon/DML is another great option, though slightly better suited to shooting heavily armored troops such as Space Marines or Necrons, or even Striking Scorpions and Warp Spiders.

If you want a unit able to both shoot and mix it up in combat, then find a complementary heavy weapon to go with your Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon (DCCW) depending on points cost, other heavy weapons you may have, and personal preference. An Autocannon or DML is usually the middle ground.

Another combination is that with 2 DCCW's. However, I would suggest that extra armor be a mandatory upgrade if you choose this option, as otherwise you can be left stuck in the open short of combat by a lucky shot.

Just remember to take weapons that suit your purpose for the unit, and make sure that purpose integrates itself properly within your army, and usually you won't go far wrong.

But enough about weapons, lets look at the tactics...

Tactic 1 - Support the Surge

This is easy to understand - you have a large assault element, and need some support, especially against those really tough opponents. Remember, your Dreadnoughts strike at initiative, which can be helpful, especially against high cost elite units such as Terminators, Pariahs, MC's, etc. And the Chaos Dreadnought will do an absolute number on units such as Howling Banshees and Incubi who don't have the base strength or power fist equivalents to be able to hurt it. Just remember, however, that a Dreadnought is not the best unit for entering combat by itself against high impact close combat units like Terminators or even a full 10 man Marine squad with the hidden power fist. Rather, The Chaos Dreadnought works best in combat in support of other units such as your own Terminators, Possessed, Raptors, Bezerkers, Plague Marines, and so on - able to do full damage but forcing the target to dilute its own damage across two or more units.

Tactic 2 - Hammer the weak!

Just as with Sentinals, Chaos Dreadnoughts are great units to take out those annoying units which float down your flanks to rip into your back line. These units can be anything from infiltrating close combat troops to skimmers and jetbikes, and to go after these units to shoot and/or assault them, the Dreadnought can be detached from the main body of troops, meaning that potential Fire Frenzy issues are reduced.

Tactic 3 - Psycological Warfare

Dreadnoughts are scary in the minds of most players - big, really tough, and the whole S10 with multiple attacks in combat also put people off. If you want an enemy to stay away from an objective, or from a particular section of your line, stick a Dreadnought there! It won't always work, but then again, if they do start to close in, they are just putting themselves in range for you to shoot/assault. And as a counter-assault/area denial unit it is cheaper than the majority of the options available to a Chaos player.

Tactic 4 - The unseen hammer strikes the hardest

This is more specifically for those playing Apocalypse. Do you know your opponent is going to have a tranche of super heavy tanks which you aren't sure how you are going to kill? Basically, you take the Flank March strategic asset, and use it to place multiple dreadnoughts near the enemy's super heavy tanks/artillary squadrons. Dreadnoughts and other MC's do massive damage to super heavies, especially from the side or rear, but even from the front 2D6x10 will hurt. Two Chaos Dreadnoughts equiped for combat should be able to completely wreck a Baneblade in a turn, or at least strip off enough guns and movement to be able to destroy it. It is difficult to counter this tactic - Ambush will have almost no chance of hurting the unit, and a Disruption Beacon can be destroyed. Of course if the board isn't big enough, the Dreadnoughts aren't always going to get into combat, but they can still shoot, or rip into tanks and artillary hiding in your opponents back line.

How do I counter Chaos Dreadnoughts?

Easy. Either shoot it down, as it is still AV12 after all, or if you have to deal with one in close combat, use a unit that can afford to lose the two or three models in combat before the Dreadnought dies.

So Marine squad with a power fist/Eldar/Dark Eldar unit with haywire grendaes/Tankbustas/ = good

Terminator squad w/power fists/Pariahs/Nobs = neutral (you'll definately kill it, but it will put paid to a couple of squad members first).

Howling Banshees/Incubi/IG/Tau/Necrons troops = bad (no way to hurt the damned thing unless the unit has haywire grenades or something.)

Final thought - Just remember, when using Chaos Dreadnoughts, play to their strenghts, which are large when you get to use them, and do your best to reduce their weaknesses. And don't throw it in the back of the model case the first time you get hammered trying something out - sometimes you need a few games to work out the dynamics of the unit and fit it into your game plan. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed Units 101 Spot, more to come soon! By the by, if you have any requests for Tactics 101 Spot or Units 101 Spot then leave a message in the comments, and I'll get on it!

What Is Revisited And Why Should You Care?

Greetings all; I'm milesteg, the fanatical Eldar player that HBMC referred to below, chief author of Codex Eldar Revisited (unsurprisingly) and one of the chief drafters of the Warhammer 40,000 Revisited Rule Book. I am a part of our gaming group which consists of (for example) a business analysis, an actuary, an accountant and a lawyer (me; yes, get your lawyer-jokes out your system now....I know what 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea is.....yes it may be true, but....). HBMC and I started this project back in 2003 as a rewrite of the (then) Codex Eldar under the 3rd edition Trial Assault Rules and Trial Vehicle Rules. With the advent of 4th edition, this project expanded into a rule rewriting exercise for the time system.

That of course begs the question; why bother? What possessed us to undertake such a considerable effort, which has already taken several hundred man-hours of discussions, analysis, rewriting and drafting, playtesting and the like? For that to make sense, a short history lesson is required.....

(cue dream-like vanishing sequence and music...)

3rd Edition, Codex Eldar And A Lawyer To-Be...
The gaming environment was a very different place back in 2003. 4th edition was a yet-unreleased thing that was on the horizon, the 3rd edition Trial Assault Rules had been generally accepted within the gaming community, and the second version of the Trial Vehicle Rules had been released and was gaining acceptance. Additionally, Codex Eldar was old. It had been one of the first fully-released army lists when the transition to 3rd edition was made and it showed.

To understand this, it is necessary to understand how Codex Eldar was meant to operate. The Eldar force does not rely on Armour Saves, exceptional toughness, strength or numbers; it relies on special rules that permit exceptions to the general rules; that is their strength. For example, the Bright Lance counted all AV's above 12 as 12; a special rule instead of simply adding additional Strength to the weapon, and so forth. While this system is a valid method of creating a Codex, it usually does not react well to changes in the general rules.

When Codex Eldar was first released, some of the units were excellent (Banshees, Fire Dragons, Wraithlords), some were reasonable, depending on how they were used (Vypers are a good example), and some were simply terrible, objectively and relative to the other choices (such as the Shining Spears.....). So, at the very beginning, some units dominated, some were used some of the time, and some were used virtually none of the time (3rd ed Vibro-Cannons also being a good example...).

The Trial Assault Rules changed a few things, but most of the army still coped with it. Assault was toned down, so the relative power of Banshees and Scorpions rushing up the table in Wave Serpents still worked, and things like Wraithlords were more balanced. However, the Trial Vehicle Rules truly put a stake through the army. Banshees and Scorpions could not really be used aggressively (no assaulting out of transports), and while the ability to fire all defensive weapons while moving was useful, for some of the stock-standard elements of Eldar armies (like Wave Serpents), there was little additional change and while Vypers did get something of a boost from the TVR, it wasn't sufficient to make up for the lack of fast assault elements (extra Shuriken Cannon shots at BS 3!....and I lose Banshees in Serpents for this? Hmmmm.....).

By the time 4th edition finally hit, it was essentially reduced to Codex Vypers and Fire Dragons. Very little else worked in a competitive sense (especially against some of the other builds out there). Defeating the Scorpion and Banshee rush was trivial, Guardians still had silly 12" guns, Falcons became utterly invincible, and Vypers and Fire Dragons picked up the slack. The previously good units like Banshees and Scorpions were nigh-invalidated under the general changes to the vehicle rules, slower things like Wraithlords got hammered by Escalation, and the changes to scoring units meant that Wave Serpents (being a transport) were no longer scoring (and this does not combine well with being an expensive skimmer tank...). Dark Reapers couldn't be protected being a screen anymore, and the list goes on. Yes, some of the changes of 4th edition were better (say Warp Spiders which went from being nigh-useless to somewhat reasonable), but the army was broken and devising a combined-arms strategy that could work under Escalation nearly had me pulling my hair out.....

It also wasn't just that things were competitive and/or useful; sometimes the units just didn't correspond with the fluff at all, Guardian meatshields being a good example. Often used as a screening unit (screening is discussed below), they were used as cannon fodder to protect the Dark Reapers or other fragile (yet expensive) units. This made little sense; using civilians as expendable casualties, yet, it was one of their best uses given their 12" Shuriken Catapults, only BS 3 on their heavy weaponry and being only 8pts per model. It was a good tactic in the game, but made little sense conceptually.

However, in our eyes, the problem was not just with Codex Eldar. Indeed, we acknowledged that it was old, that some things didn't perform as intended or foreseen (given that 3rd ed was young and relatively untested at the time it was released) and that some of the rules changes led to situations that were never intended. Yes, due to LOTR, it took longer than it should have for a new Eldar Codex to be released and since I wanted to actually use all of my models, we undertook the rewriting process but endeavoured to keep the changes within the existing set of rules.

However, as I mentioned, the advent of 4th ed convinced us that the problem was not limited to a single Codex. GW made some design choices that we simply did not agree with and while (in some cases) we could understand why they made a particular choice, in other instances, we were left scratching our heads. Additionally, some of the chief things that irritated us with 3rd edition were not altered and some things that did work were removed.

Rather than staying in the place of the general, let me use a few specific examples.....

Fourth Edition Vs Revisited
Screening And Target Priority
In 3rd edition, non-vehicle models blocked line of sight up to twice their height and across their base (essentially a cylinder as wide as the base with twice the height of the model). This was informally known as screening. In 3rd edition, this was a tried and true tactic to protect vulnerable units (as described earlier). However, it did have problems. Models would be placed in very unrealistic blocks (Guard being a good example) and it led to a "castling" form of play. Not only was it very difficult to counter (other than with Barrage weapons or the sheer expedient of blasting your way through), it could also be abused by modelling taller models, etc.

GW's response to this problem was to get rid of it completely; nada; zip; gone. Instead, models always shoot at the closest target unless they pass a Leadership Test (vehicles always assumed to pass such tests). Now, I agree, it is a faster and simpler system. Models are often placed in a more realistic formation (spread out, etc) rather than being all in massive, contiguous blocks, but it does lead to a few problems.

Firstly, right off the bat, higher Ld armies receive an immediate boost. Secondly, it becomes nigh-impossible to actually protect anything that is fragile; the durability of a unit must be inherent; it cannot use the durability of another unit as a substitute (like a screen). As such, this exacerbates the "first turn win" situation, and encourages multiple identical units (as more expensive elites simply become higher-priority targets).

The fourth issue is that it leads to situations that simply make little sense; how is it that with a simple Leadership Test that a Space Marine Devastator squad can see "through" 100+ Ork Boyz that are right in front of them, to shoot a unit of Boyz at the very back of them? Yes, models are deemed to move and are not considered to be statues, but how on earth can you draw LOS through a solid wall of models? Keep in mind, I'm not talking about shooting a larger unit or anything like that; models that are identically sized too the models that are in between them and the shooters.

It is simpler, but not best. Our system uses the magic cylinder system (essentially), but it is projected along coherency lines (allowing for more realistic formations) and only goes as high as the model. However, we have introduced means to counter it (such as Sniper weaponry, elevation, a sighting test, etc). The problem with screening in 3rd edition was that it was often uncounterable and unrealistic; we've solved both. You can protect you fragile units, but if your enemy has the right tools (or uses the right tactics), this can be overcome.

Movement And Firing Restrictions
3rd edition was terribly static (if a standard vehicle moved, it could fire one weapon! Woo-hoo!) and of course, firing Ordnance meant that every other weapon couldn't fire! This meant that vehicles became Main Battle Bunkers as if you moved, you wouldn't be able to fire with many of your weapons, and often you would lose your Hull Down protection, so again, why move? Infantry was often similar; why move out of cover and prevent the heavy weapon from firing and then only firing one shot at 12" with a rapid fire weapon? Again, why move?

4th edition addressed this somewhat, but very conservatively. Vehicles could fire more weapons on the move, but not enough. Ordnance still silenced other weapons. Moving one model in a unit meant that all models counted as moving, hence heavy weapons couldn't fire. Fleet was unreliable and standard infantry could only move 6" a turn, which truly hurt footsloggers, especially in light of the new rapid fire rules (etc).

We took the 4th edition changes further to create a truly fluid system:

• standard vehicles may move one speed bracket (8" in our rules; equivalent of 6" in 4th edition) and may fire all main and all defensive weaponry;
• firing an Ordnance weapon does not silence everything else;
• movement of models is determined on an individual basis (not for the whole unit);
• models may move and fire heavy weapons with a -1 BS modifier;
• all standard Infantry models (and things like Jump Infantry, etc) can choose not to shoot and may run an additional 3". In light of this, Fleet was made a flat 6" additional movement; and
• rapid fire weapons could shoot once at maximum range and twice at 12", irrespective of movement.

These simple changes meant that vehicles became tanks again (ie they moved!), using heavy weapons didn't ensure that a unit was simply stuck in one place for the whole game and footslogging infantry could actually move faster when needed (like Orks) and changing Fleet to a flat, consistent distance removed many dice rolls from the game (for the Eldar player at least...).

When models can only do one thing at a time, it is usually best to do things that hurt the enemy (ie shooting). This leads to a static game and single-purpose units. In Revisited, things can move AND hurt the enemy, which leads to a far more fluid, dynamic and enjoyable game (seriously; I'm not just using the corporate-speak!)

Firing At Multiple Targets
This is closely linked with relaxing the restrictions on moving and firing; the ability to fire at multiple targets. One of the biggest problems of 3rd and 4th edition is that units (as a rule) can only fire at one target. This immediately means that mixing weapons is a no-no as it leads to wasted fire. For example, if you equip a Space Marine Devastator squad with 2 Heavy Bolters and 2 Lascannons, you will always be wasting fire as you'll be shooting at a target type which is good for one weapon type and bad for the other (for example, vs AV 12+ vehicles or gribblies; either target is a good use of points for one type of weapon and inefficient (or useless) for the other). As such, these sorts of weapons teams always needed to have the same weapon, with few exceptions.

It also meant that small-arms were utterly relegated to the place of irrelevance. When a Lascannon in a Guard unit fires at a tank, the 8 other Guardsmen (or 7 + Sergeant) cannot use their Lasguns to any effect; those points and those weapons are wasted. Given the relative power of heavy weapons, this only emphasises that standard troopers are simply wounds for the heavy weapons rather than actually contributing to the fight in any effective manner.

The same is true of 3rd and 4th edition tanks. Mixing weapons on Leman Russes (for example) just doesn't work due to the wasting fire issue. Additionally, as HBMC says, defensive weapons aren't. Instead of blazing away at infantry that are closing in at close quarters (say Heavy Bolters on a Russ), they have to fire at what everything else shoots at. So, if the target is more than 36" away and the Russ is taking a Battlecannon shot; too bad. If they have (for some reason) a hull-mounted Lascannon, then either the Russ must take a single BS 3 Lascannon shot at the tank and waste its sponson Heavy Bolters (if taken), or must waste the Lascannon as it shoots infantry.

Our changes in their area are very straightforward. Non-Vehicle units (such as Infantry) can split fire at up to 2 targets via a Leadership Test. Nominate the primary and secondary targets, allocate the weapons against each and then roll the dice. If passed, fire at the primary and secondary; if failed, only against the primary. Yes, this does benefit higher Ld armies, but the power of this ability nowhere approaches the GW 4th edition "Magical Ignore The Models In Front Of You" Test. For Vehicles, they may always split their fire at any number of targets; one per weapon if the owning player desires.

This very simple change opens up a world of options; mixed weapons, more multi-purpose squads and vehicles that have truly main armaments and truly defensive weapons. Splitting fire is so simple yet so crucial to what differentiates Revisited from 3rd and 4th edition.

Other Issues
There are also other places where we diverge from the GW rule set. This includes majority Toughness (majority range!), certain changes they made to the Assault rules (such as no pursuit if no models in base-to-base contact at the end of the Assault, checking whether a model is Engaged at each Initiative step, etc) and their scrapping of Hull Down for the silly Obscured rule (which is simply insufficient protection).

A Different Flavour
As you can see from the examples above, much of our work has been taking a certain GW idea (like defensive weaponry) and taking it to the logical conclusion. GW has often taken a very, indeed overly-conservative approach in some areas, and then has used the "pendulum" design method in others. However, there is a reason for this divergence....

GW is simplifying things and streamlining it, often for a younger and/or more inexperienced audience who are more interested in transitory pick-up games and the like. They are not interested in the intricacies of the Assault sequence or the drafting of a particular Universal Special Rule. They just want to get stuck in, have some fun and the like.

Our group is different. In many respects, we represent the grizzled veterans of wargaming, not just in terms of the number of years that we've been involved, but in terms of the energy, time and not incidentally monetary investment that we have made. HBMC and I estimate that we must have spent at least AUD 10,000 each on our hobby and indeed, this is probably conservative. We have invested (indeed, the whole group) hundreds of man hours in terms of discussions, army list creation, game design, playtesting, drafting, rewriting, etc. We bring our professional skills to bear in this arena and we take it to a higher level.

We don't want an incredibly streamlined system where terrain, LOS and the like are all abstracted to a much higher level (ie many people play where all terrain is area terrain, etc). Simpler, but not better. Yes, it may make for a more straightforward game if you can only shoot at one target, but it limits the potential tactical options enormously. Yes, many may not care that their army list isn't all that competitive because it is "themed" or "has cool models in it", but for us, we want every single choice to be useful and worthy of a place in its Codex and in the game. We want depth, tactics, strategy and a fluid game. We want options, choices and dilemmas.

Really, the one of the chief elements of our drive to do this came from frustration. As time went on, GW's rulings and design choices became less and less sensical to us. Whether it was the now (infamous) FAQ answers like "Why would you put a Honorifica Imperialis on an Enginseer" or "Of course! They can smell the incense a mile off!", particular design choices for Codices which just made little sense to us (why on earth are Orks Strength 3 base??) or points values which simply made some choices inevitable better or worse than others or just didn't make any sense (why is a second identical heavy weapon on a Wraithlord counted as a twin-linked weapon, yet you still pay full the points cost for it? Same goes for Tyranid weapon symbiotes.....). Another good one is the change that prevented units from assaulting on the same turn as they disembark, hence neutering transport-borne assault forces (when being used in any aggressive sense).

I could go into further detail and examples, but you get the idea :-).

This is also a key point though; we are not GW haters. Despite HBMC's often cynical (and cutting) remarks, we want to like GW, but we have often found ourselves utterly dumbfounded by their choices. We love the background, we love the game, we love the models. However, the rules are important to us and GW's history of loose (and often simply poor) drafting, ambiguous rules, strange points values and desire to streamline and simplify forced us to strike out on our own.

GW, if you would simply write tight rules, well-drafted rules without having such obvious disparities of value and power in your rules and points values, this project would be unnecessary. We want to like you, but you make it a bit difficult for us.......

The other element of this is that we've spent thousands of dollars on models; we want to get utility out of them. I don't want to never be able to take certain units & models because game designers with no connection to me make choices that make little or no sense to me and directly impact on my enjoyment of the game. Yes; the 3rd edition Biel-tan rush was fun, but after a while, its gets old...much like 3 Falcons in 4th edition......

What Is Revisited?
Revisited is about gamer sovereignty. It is about gamer choice. It is about taking back ground (namely the fun) which seems to have been caught up in profit-seeking, poor design (a "near enough is good enough" attitude) and a confused direction. No, I don't regard the GW design staff as idiots in any sense of the word. They are obviously talented, gifted people who often have excellent ideas, but lacking in implementation.

We are lawyers, actuaries, accountants, analysts; we're thinkers. We're rigorous in our analysis and dedicated to the task. We only do this part time (and life has a way of getting in the way....), but we believe that we can improve upon GW's implementation. We don't want perfection (there is a balancing act involved with games at this size and level of abstraction) and we don't claim to be infallible (we've learnt along the way), but one of the key reasons why we have such strength in these areas is because of our priorities.

GW are ideas men, excellent in creating the background and inspiring people. We have our own ideas (obviously), but our priority is not just getting something that looks good, is reasonably tested and then relying on a "spirit of the game" approach to carry you through. We want a rule set that stands up to vigorous scrutiny, where RAW is RAI (Rules As Intended) and a system that can accomodate casual play and competitive tournaments. Our group wants tight, unambiguous, elegant rules to play with.

In Defence Of GW...
Before I sound too high and mighty, I do acknowledge that GW does have something of a harder time than us. They have to not only do all of the rules writing, but also need to sculpt models, deal with stores, sell the said models, turn a profit, invest in R&D, etc. We come from a position of relative freedom; that much is apparent.

However, despite that, we believe that GW can still improve its drafting and that it is not an impossible feat. The rules don't have to be in legalese to be clear, they don't have to be technical to be precise. It is a matter of priorities; in a competitive environement, RAI doesn't cut it. The RAW must be clear, precise, accurate and unambiguous. Finally, it must be elegant.

This Is A Summary!
Yes, in typical lawyer-style, my summary is longer than most people's full replies :-). This post is designed to give you an insight into why this blog (and project) exists and what we're trying to achieve. We seek to make our documents available to the public so that if people want to try them out, they too can enjoy something different and (hopefully) better than what they're used to.

Over the coming days, weeks and months, I'll be writing more about Revisited, certain rules changes we've made and will create some unit analyses for Eldar units (unsurprisingly, my speciality :-)). I hope that you've enjoyed reading this and that it serves as a useful summary and as a springboard for you to delve a bit deeper into what we are creating here!

Cover-2-Cover: Apocalypse...

Hello all,

Hopefully some time this weekend I will be able to post up my Cover-2-Cover review of GW's latest attempt to make money - the Apocalypse rulebook 40K expansion.

I intend for this review to be far more positive than my Chaos Codex review, mainly because I like the Apocalypse book (and the Chaos Codex is a stinking pile of human waste), so my usual rampant cyncism will be contained to the bits I find particularly funny.

Furthermore, whilst Disco Stu will continue to post up his tactics and strategies for 4th Edition rules, we shall all soon venture into the world of Warhammer 40,000 Revisited - the game system, based upon 3rd and 4th Ed 40K, that we wrote in direct responce to the endless crap rules coming out of Games Workshop.

This game has been in development and testing for as long as 4th Ed has been around, and we have a good stable of Codices to go with it. They're not a dramatic departure from the current ruleset, but they do iron out a number of the wrinkles in the rules as well as add a few fun things in to make games more interesting (vehicles and squads being able to fire at different targets is probably the main one).

One of our co-writers, and the owner of the largest Eldar army in living memory, shall elaborate on this soon. After we've introduced you all to that, we will then go into examples of gameplay to show the mechanics of how this system works within the game.

Until then, my review shall be out soon... I hope.

Units 101 Spot - Sentinals

And so we come to the second of our Units 101 Spot articles - this time on a lesser loved unit of the Imperial Guard - Sentinels

Sentinels stand wierdly situated as the only fast scouting unit in the entire Imperial armory - the next most lightly armored unit is the Chimera/Hellhound chassis, starting at twice the points cost. The unit can be armed with a variety of weapons includind the standard issue multi-laser, an autocannon, or a lascannon. The Sentinel otherwise has the stats of a regular guardsmen... well, a S5 AV10 guardsmen worth 35 points....



So why take Sentinels?

Sentinals are actually a great unit to take as an Imperial Guard player.

Firstly, it is a rather mobile heavy weapon able to strike most areas of the board - and mobile firepower is something often lacking in a static IG lineup.

Combine this mobility with the Scouts special rule, and the Sentinel is often able to be close touching the opponents deployment zone on the first turn if you want it to. The Scouts special rule is also good in escalation missions, for obvious reasons.

The other reason is the ability to customise squads - do you want one Sentinel in a unit all on its own to take a death or glory shot on a falcon or land raider? Perhaps 3 armed with gribbly killing multi-lasers, or tank hunting lascannon? You can even take close combat oriented Sentinels armed with S5 power weapons if you get the Forgeworld version.

How to use Sentinels -

Well, firstly lets look at the options. The Sentinel comes in squadrons of 1-3, and the units have to retain coherency (useful to remember, trust me). They can come with one of three standard weapons - a multilaser, autocannon or lascannon. A squadron of sentinals can have a mixed array of weapons, though I would suggest that you would think mighty hard before mixing and matching different types of weapons. In terms of the vehicle armory - Extra Armor is sometimes useful to get against those glancing stunned results, and an Armored Canopy can also help in increasing the units durability - though at 20 points, you have to be certain as to what the unit will be doing and that the extra cost is really worth it. Also a spotlight is often useful for those nightfight games as the squadron can get close and highlight several units quickly. And finally, smoke launchers may come in handy if you are planning to have them receive a fair bit of firepower in their mission. But enough about options, we should look at the tactics -

Tactic 1 - Kill Team

Set the squadron, or multiple squadrons as needed to killing one particular target as quickly as possible. It may be a gunboat, or a heavy weapons squad, or a transport full of combat troops. Make sure the unit has the weapons for the job - multilasers for anything T4 or less or AV10, autocannon for AV 10-12 or anything with a 4+ save (excellent against Eldar/Tau), and lascannon for AV 13-14, IC's, Monsterous Creatures. The mobility of the unit will allow it to usually get into range and LOS for a round of shooting, and the Sentinels are easy to ignore, possibly enabling them to survive even if they are the closest targets. Just make sure that you pick a target you are able to kill, and remember that the best units to attack are those that are hard/impossible for the rest of your army to get. Any IG army has lots of firepower - it is being able to use mobility to get that firepower where it needs to be which makes Sentinel's useful.

Tactic 2 - Operation Human Shield

Sentinals can often be in combat quickly, due to the fact that they get a free scout move. Now an AV10 walker doesn't sound like much, and against a Dreadnought or a unit with a powerfist, it isn't. However, against a typical las/plas marine squad, or indeed anything at all S3 or below, Sentinals are nigh invulnerable - a regular S-4 unit at WS 4 has a 1-72 chance of destroying a single Sentinel. This means that Sentinels can often hold up shooting units for an entire game - a great way of reducing the amount of firepower coming in against you from the enemy's fire base or getting rid of those pesky mobile firepower units such as Stealth Suits or Storm Troopers etc. And remember, combat blocks line of sight! However, stay away from power fist units and the like, as your Sentinels will die very, very quickly.

Tactic 3 - Hammer the Weak

Sentinels are great for dealing with that flanking unit that your enemy always takes that is never quite worth spending the time killing or deploying to counter, but still causes chaos in your lines. This could be fast IC's, Assassins, a small unit of jetbikes or something similar. Basically, you use your Sentinels to pummel that IC/small squad into the ground. Again, multilaser against T3 models with invulnerable saves (Assassins, Eldar, Tau), Autocannon against anything with a 4+ or worse save (most jetbikes, some Eldar Aspect Warriors, Tau Firewarriors, etc), Lascannons against tough MC's/IC's. It is a great way of dealing with issues without having to change your game strategy.

Tactic 4 - Damn the Torpedoes!

Imperial Guard often have a few tanks that receive a lot of firepower. If you want to survive that first turn, you may consider surging a squadron or two of Sentinels into general line of sight, though obscured enough to count as hull down. This will either force the enemy to turn some of the firepower he would normally spend upon your lavishly upgraded tanks onto the Sentinels, or leave your Sentinels in prime position to run amock the following turn. Works best against sides with limited or inaccurate anti tank weaponry (Tau, Necrons, some styles of Eldar/Marine/Nid lists, etc).


So how do I counter Sentinels?

Basically, the easiest way is to just shoot them and be done with it, no more thinking. If, however, you have more important targets, just don't forget about the Sentinels. But just remember, they are only a maximum of three heavy weapons at BS 3. So be wary, especially if they seem to be lining up a shot at something you don't want shot or if they are going to be within charge range of your firing line, but in any case make sure that your targeting priorities are on track.

Hope this was helpful, more Units 101 Spot soon.

Apocalypse Review

Now, because of my slack co-authors, nothing has been written for the past couple of weeks. Now, you probably haven't notices cause you are either putting together all your models for massive games, or we have no readers. Either way...

Apocalypse

So I thought I would put up my first impressions of Apocalypse -

Firstly - GW has made a very nice game system. My only two issues is with the deployment zones, as it can leave one side with almost nowhere to put anything on the board, and the strategic reserve rule - as it can give a player leave to put his entire army on in the third turn - sometimes right on top of the enemy.

However, the rest of the rules are fantastic. The barrage template is very fun (and indeed, very useful at targeting group formations). The new war machines are almost impossible to kill outside of hand to hand combat, but hey, I guess that is the idea. The various strategic assets are interesting - especially the careful planning and flank march assets, as well as disruption beacon and strategic redeployment - but they all have other strategic assets to counteract them. I think that the data sheets are great - though I think GW will win a lot of friends if it continues to release new ones online, especially for those sides with only a few (Necrons, Tau, Dark Eldar, Chaos etc).

Important thoughts are - make sure you put a turn time limit in, with allowances for hoard armies. Otherwise, people think too much.

Actually, I will make that its own point - play more, think a little bit less. Don't stop thinking, just don't micromanage where every single damned lascannon or tank will be. Otherwise you run out of time.

Also, I would suggest putting a % points limit as to what people place in strategic reserve - that way people don't leave entire armies in there, and the game can get underway. Now, I don't say that sides should set up just to be shot, but making sure both sides have models on at the beginning ensures a competative start up bidding time.

Final thing - I know Apocalypse is supposed to be a "bring anything you want" kind of game, but adding 2nd ed points percentage rules for force formations seems to me to be a great idea - somthing like a minimum of 25% Troops, no more than 50% in any of the following - HQ, Heavy Support, Elites, Fast Attack. It just puts a limit as to the cheese on the table. I know that shouldn't be an issue, but at some point it probably will be.

All in all, something fun for all, but just take care with the liberties the format permits. I'll post up our first Apoc game soon.