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...).
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 RevisitedScreening 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.
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 TargetsThis 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!
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment