Warhammer 40,000 Revisited Project homepage...

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

At the suggestion of some of the folks here, we have now set up a Yahoo! Group for The Revisited Project. It is located here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/revisited_project/

Please keep in mind that we created these rules to enhance our enjoyment of a game we felt has come off the rails. We are not saying 40K should be like this, we're simply saying that this is the game that we want to play. Additionally this is a work in progress. You will probably notice that the Codices were later version numbers are often more refined and mature. I would also suggest that once people have read these documents that they check out the version history to give a good example of the way we think.

One thing I must stress is that you can't please all the people all the time, and whilst we are definately open to criticisms and suggestions, if your comments are in no way constructive then we would ask if you could keep them to yourselves.

Cries of 'OMGWTFBBQ! That is so unbalanced' or 'Oh! Modifiers = the evilness!!!2' will be ignored.

We don't expect everyone to like some, any or even all of these changes, but please if you have something to say or a suggestion to make, make it constructive.

Otherwise I hope you enjoy them.

BYE

**milesteg**

I echo HBMC's comments. Please use and enjoy as you see fit, but note that some of the documents are quite nascent (the only things that are really tested in the Ork Codex are basic Boyz and Killa Kanz...but apart from that, it is terribly experimental and hasn't been looked at in a while). Tau Empire is in a similar state (we've made a number of changes to weapons ranges that we are due to playtest).

The Eldar and Marines Codexen are the furthest along, but they too aren't finalised yet. As you will also note, the main rulebook is still at v0.2.9 (in progress). Not a version 1.0 (by our standard anyway).

We welcome any and all contructive comments. Also, I recieved a message that only moderators could view the files; that has been fixed.

**stecal**

Ask and you shall receive.... Thanks guys.

**thehod**

Sounds very intresting and I will have to check it out.

**H.B.M.C.**

As obvious as this may sound, I'd suggest starting with the basic 40KRE Rulebook before diving into the various Codices. Certain things will only make sense once you read the rulebook.

It's not a small read, and a lot of it will be very familiar, but there are some significant changes in there (mostly to do with vehicles and walkers), so I suggest everyone look at it first.

BYE

**Schepp himself**

Thanks a lot H.B.M.C.
I felt a bit uncomfortable to constantly ask you about new changes and new version and so on.
I hope I can persuade some of my gaming buddies to try these rules out.

Greets
Schepp himself

Edit: Can a Monstrous Creature run like infantery or not. The table on page 13 is quite clear, but later is contradicted under the montrous creature & Walker rules on page 65. I hope they can also run (for my melee carnifex), but it seems like an oversight.

**milesteg**

Hmmm.....they should be able to run like standard infantry. I think that it is an oversight.

Let me check....and I quote:

"Otherwise all Monstrous Creatures Move as Infantry do, unless they have an ability/equipment that allows them to Move as Jump Infantry, a Bike, etc. "

So, what I intend by that is that they move like infantry (ie can move 6, run 3" in lieu of shooting).

The table is indeed wrong. Haven't checked that summary yet as the version is incomplete (but thanks for the pick up. Will be sure to fix that one).

**H.B.M.C.**

Umm... yeah. I'll go fix that.

BYE

**Schepp himself**

By the way, after a good read , I have to say: "Thumbs up people!"
The rules are pretty clearly written (as far as I can see, haven#t played a game) but importantly make sense.
I'm eager to find out how the screening works in game. I also like that your rules don't throw old army lists (say 4th edition) out of the window.

Greets
Schepp himself

P.S. thanks for clearing that up and yay!

**milesteg**

Thanks :-)

Nice to know that someone outside the gaming group can actually understand what we've raving on about..... (other people comprehend! Check!).

Would love to hear about the results of any playtesting. Of course, keep in mind that just using Revisited rules for 4th ed lists will sometimes cause a bit of strangeness (especially re: Sniper weapons. Batteries of Revisited Snipers are ridiculous, hence why they only come as a few models per FOC choice....I don't want to even think about 4th Rangers in Revisited....10 models with Sniper weapons...as a Troops choice......).

Please use the Revisited Sniper entries, for the sake of the universe generally :-)

**Makaleth**

Hmm,

It's good to see people actaully are as interested in the actual game of 40K and making it a sound system that may not be perfect but become increasingly balanced.

As for the rules being clearly written (we have an ironic amount of expertese being put into this project - props to HBMC and milesteg), the amount of argueing at knife point about defined terms and exceptions and special rules is amazing (and hilarious).

Schepp, I didn't play 40K until I met these guys (Fantasy in my opinion isn't broken in the same sense and way much easier to play without being stupidly unbalanced). These rules even though are nacent in some aspects are really the reason why I now own way too much Eldar and Chaos (and want more... no... new models....)

Any way, reading through the rule book is an impressive first start. Love to hear of more typos and errors (Milesteg is a perfectionist at the highest level, so small things can be funny)

Oh and as HBMC has said: With the OMGWTFBBQ responses, we want to at least know what the issue is. For example I think bikes have become more powerful than people think with the -2 to hit modifier when travelling fast (even though our guided missile rules can counter it) Now I'm planning to play test it with a Tzeentch army

General note: WE HAVE A GOOD THOUSAND SONS ARMY LIST!!!! (Yes it's only a draft and there are bugs to weed out but it feels fluffy and it actually can fight and win, an intruiging concpet I know)

A big question that I thought would be good to hear about would be the changes to the dreadnaught (No more armour value, now T8 with 3 wounds - I think it works well - IE Hard to insta kill in one shot, but not impossible: what are your thoughts)

Good luck guys (enjoy the rules, we are enjoying the feedback, which has all been positive so far, which is nice) Some people have put far more work than a full time job into this task (all for the love of the game)

**H.B.M.C.**

Well one of the group is a lawyer. It's not hard to realise that defined terms are a big deal to some of us.

BYE

**milesteg**

Defined terms....precious....my...precious..... :-)

Our conversations are always civilised. Clean blades, no inferior and rusty imitations.

**Phoenix**

Nit picky but...

Page 4, line 28
Twin–Linked Weapons will score 2 hits if initial dice roll is a 6 (only one hit is a reroll is a 6).

I think you mean
Twin–Linked Weapons will score 2 hits if initial dice roll is a 6 (only one hit if a reroll is a 6).

**Phoenix**

On page 24 section 4 "Remove Casualties" there is a section that talks about rolling for shooting for seperate weapons within a squad seperately when some weapons have different ranges. You may want to make some clarifications on this to avoid any odd fire orders being selected to force casualty removal in a particular way. I would sugest that when it is the case, the shortest ranged weapons be forced to fire first and then move up the various weapons to the longest ranged ones. In the case of things like rapid fire weapons that have more than one range (12 or 24 inchs), the fire mode they are useing at the time is considered to be their range.

**milesteg**

Phoenix, I never have objections to nit picking when it comes to the wording of rules :-) We are intent on ensuring that we don't just intend to write what we mean, but that we actually write what we mean....

Twin-Linked Weapons

Agreed; I reread my sentence and it didn't make as much sense as I would have hoped.....fixed. Summaries often seem to be the bane of rules writers...

Casualty Removal

I completely agree that this section is somewhat loose. I ran various scenarios and came to your conclusion, but hadn't yet worked out the best way of dealing with it. I very much like your suggestion. Predictable, logical, clear and consistent rule that ensures that fire is not wasted (as much as possible). Also groups things into easy categories for resolving the shooting.

Thanks for the comments; more than happy to hear any more that you may have.

**Phoenix**

Pages 31 and 32 contain rules for barrage weapons and ordinance. In both cases it is stated that a ?target? must be chosen in such a way to avoid covering friendly models with the blast templates and in the case of ordinance, the ?target? must be within line of sight. The part that is somewhat unclear is what constitutes a target. It would appear that the intent is to allow the placement of blast templates anywhere within a squad in order to maximize hits; however, there are currently no specifics detailing what can be considered a target. Would open ground be considered a viable target? If this is the case then it becomes possible to ?shoot around corners? by targeting the ground next to line of sight blocking terrain (with enemy models hidden just around the corner) in such a way that if there is no scatter, some models will be covered by the template. Or a shot may be fired between two different squads so that both will have models under the template. The template may also be positioned in such a way that the only model under it is a normally untargetable independent character.

I figure there are a couple of ways to tighten this up. If it is your intent to have these weapons pick a point on the battlefield (rather than shooting at a unit) then merely state that in the target selection portion of the requirements. If you intend for these weapons to be fired at specific units, then you may want to change the term ?target? to ?target unit? and add the additional condition to template placement that at least one model in the ?target unit? must be under the template. That should give plenty of wiggle room to hit secondary targets of opportunity and maximize models under the template while still ensuring that you still have to have an actual target. You could also do some sort of combination of the two where direct fire ordinance must target a unit while barrage weapons just pick a point on the board.

**Phoenix**

Page 33 "Gets Hot!"

Can a model suffer instant death from a weapon that gets hot if the weapon's strength is double the models toughness (a la IG commanders with plasma weapons)? This has been a subject of debate before and I would like to see it ironed out in a definitive fashion here.

**Phoenix**

Lance Weapons: Page 34, line 4

Penetrating Hits made with a Lance weapon are never converted to Glancing Hits for any reason (Hull Down, smoke launchers, skimmers moving fast, etc).

While you clear it up in the first example, you may want to change the wording on this sentence a bit for clarity to something like the following:

Penetrating Hits made with a Lance weapon that rolls a 5 of 6 on the armor penetration roll are never converted to Glancing Hits for any reason (Hull Down, smoke launchers, skimmers moving fast, etc).

**H.B.M.C.**

I'm surprised that Lance bit is still there. We've changed Lances so that Hull Down/Smoked/Skimemers Moving Fast does affect them now.

In the case of Gets Hot!, no, it's just a wound, not a wound at any particular strength value, but we can mention that.

BYE

**epidemicHEART**

Thanks for posting this HBMC, I've been wanting to get my hands on these modified rules since you revealed some of you IG fixes. (most of which i really liked)

**ColonelEllios**

Your rewrite of the main rules seems fairly balanced, although the subtleness of so many changes across the rule set makes it difficult to absorb them all, at first. I had particular trouble understanding exactly how your walker and vehicle (i.e. armor penetration) rules are to be applied--this could use some revision.

Also, the formatting on any/all of your tables is almost beyond comprehension--either they are rife with errors, or my software is outdated (just a friendly reminder to double-check them as formatting is always a pain).

Now, I realize your CD:R rewrites are still in development, and I'm not speaking from any playtest experience; as much as I sympathize that the Demonhunters codex was written by a pitiful intellect, your re-write goes much too far in my opinion. I enjoy the addition of things like "Storm Trooper Rapid Responce Craft", but changes such as allowing 4 special weapons per squad seems asking too much. Also, with some of your other changes to the army list the "melta-bomb equivalent" Grey Knight team seems redundant and uncharacterful. Your changes to Demonhosts are fantastic, if they are a bit underpriced given the "pick and choose" nature of their powers. Also, the psychic power list makes a joke out of the current power list for Eldar and Marines, not to mention Chaos, although I haven't had time to read your CD:Rs for these armies as of yet.

Additionally, you didn't fix one of my major personal beefs with the DH codex; the weapon prices for flamers and psycannons continue to discount the fact that their weilder loses his storm bolter and NFW. Grey Knights pay a boatload of points for these two weapons (and true grit), and losing them in replacement with a special weapon should justly lower that weapon's cost. Something like 5 points for an incinerator and 10-15 points for a psycannon would be fairer, even given the extra shot of the psycannon. Also, I don't understand how a psycannon is considered "guided ammo" and yet doesn't get around cover saves. I've personally always thought that the psycannons ignoring cover saves, whether it be typo or no, was characterful. I don't understand your rule change regarding this (it still won't make flamers redundant--template weapons are still vastly superior at close range).

I guess my overall reaction so far can be summed up as: I like the rule changes, but I personally expected some minor rebalancing of the codexes, and not wholesale rewrites as have been published. It's always good to start such an undertaking with a wealth of ideas, but one must be careful not to strain the creative liscence and must not flinch at the prospect of cutting or simplifying large chunks of material for the sake of comprehension and gameplay. Great ideas in need of a serious and critical trim, in summation.

**H.B.M.C.**

The changes to Storm Trooper squads are universal. Inquisitorial Storm Troopers, Grenadiers and standard Storm Troopers now all have access to 4 special weapons. This is to solidify their role as special forces, and removes Hardened Veterans as the Deep Striking unit of choice (something I always hated).

They can put out a decent amount of firepower, but at the end of the day they don't have heavy weapons. They'll do really well against AV11-12 vehicles, and even against Marines and Terminators - but they won't be blowing up any Land Raiders or Russes unless they get very close, and put themselves as risk, something I have no problems with.

The Purification Squad is something we've been testing for a while now. The GK player in our group brings a squad in almost every game, and they have proven quite useful. We like them quite a lot.

Daemonhosts haven't had their points tweaked, but I did make a point of removing random abilities. Units with random powers that change from turn to turn cannot be used. God knows how anyone is going to use the new Possessed when they come out later this year - roll a random ability after deployment? Forget them...

You really think the Psychic Powers are that powerful?

And as far as the prices for Incinerators and Psycannons, I had not considered the loss of the Stormbolter and, moreover, the loss of the Nemesis weapon. I'll have to bring that one up with the group. Good catch.

As far as Psycannons ignoring cover saves, I always considered that a mistake and as such did not include it in the rules. I will not either in the future, as I firmly believe that the writers of Codex: Daemonhunters did not intend it and I don't see Psycannon bolts as 'homing' into people.

BYE

**beyond.wudge**

ColonelEllios:
In Revisited there has been a general creep upwards of unit lethality across the board. From Rapid Fire weapons always being able to fire full distance on the move to Space Marine's getting true grit to Stormbolters becoming Twin-linked to a Leman Russ being able to move 8", fire its Battlecannon (with only 2D6 picking the highest scatter if an arrow is rolled), its Lascannon and two Heavy Bolters all at once at BS all at seperate targets. To be honest four BS3 Plasma guns isn't exactly scary in a Revisted game.

In General:
We've had a "Rules Council" recently where everybody got together and we worked thorugh a bunch of issues. Expect a fairly decent update to the main ruleset soon.

IIRC a two key issues included:
- Screening: Models and the coherency distances between models are now are treated like magic cylinders for the purposes of LOS blocking (i.e. screening).

We talked and talked for literally hours. We just found that we had to accept the possibility of arguments in-game over model eyes views and magic cylinders as well as the potential abuse of modelling taller and wider minatures. Any abstract system we created either wasn't powerful enough or would just break without adding rule after rule to take care of various situations.

- Casualty removal: We are going to use a "Magic killzone extender" system based on weapon type and fire mode (Lasgun 12" Rapid fire, Lasgun 24" Single shot, Melta Gun 6" 2D6 penetration, Meltagun 12", Volcano Cannon, etcetera).

If a Guard unit of 6 Lasguns and 4 Plasma guns shoot at a unit of Space Marines then all the Lasgun casualties may be taken on any enemy model that any of the Lasgunners in that unit firing the same fire mode can hit whilst the casualties inflicted by the Plasma guns may be taken on any enemy model any of the Plasma gunners can hit who are firing in the same fire mode.

This means that one Plasma gun might be at the front of the unit with another 6" behind it, both are in 12" rapid fire range but the front Plasma gunner can hit 3 guys whilst the behind Plasma gunner can hit only 1 guy who is not in LOS of the front Plasma gunner. Casualties caused by the front Plasma gun's shots may be removed from any model the behind Plasma gunner can hit (even if they are out of LOS) and visa versa the back Plasma gunner shots may remove any model the front Plasma gunner can hit.

This does mean that a situation can arise where a unit of ten space marines are standing behind some LOS blocking terrain with only one of their number exposed to the LOS of a unit of ten Plasma gunners and they can be totally destroyed if even just one of those ten Plasma gunners can hit the 9 Space Marines behind cover whilst the rest can only hit the one exposed Space Marine.

Of course, this is opposed to the situation where every time a unit fires we have to individually measure each models range, work out whether its specific shots cause any casualties and then remove only the models it can hit. I think the game play justification is quite obvious, nobody wants to spend an extra hour per game working out such nonsense nor create a situation where in a tournament someone could "insist" you must work out absolutely every models shooting individually all game.

Ironically, we also have a conceptual/fluff justification based on real warfare. The justification is that the range of any weapon in the game doesn't reflect its maximum lethal range but rather the range that the model will make use of it at. For instance a Lasgun may fire at 24" but that doesn't mean that the Lasgun can only kill something up to 24" away. In Rogue Trader each inch was considered 2 metres so a range 24" Assault rifle equivalent was thus 48 metres. 50 metres is a short engagement distance most likely to be encountered in Urban warfare than on an open battlefield. A modern Assault Rifle has an effective range of 400 metres in regards to accurate shooting and a potential lethal range of over 1000 metres. If a Lasgun is as effective at killing your average foe in the 41st Millenium as a Modern day assault rifle then an acceptable killzone could be 200"-500".

A further conceptual justification is that a single shot in 40k:RE does not equate with a single bullet being fired. In the case of many weapons its actually a number of shots that is abstracted into X number of shots with X amount of chance to kill an enemy. Even if only one Lasgun guy can see the 9 Space Marines, he may well get lucky and in 9 blasts kill all 9 of them.

BTW:
Me and Makaleth played a game at 1500 pts to test out Chaos Bikers. I played an all shooty (and I mean all shooty) Space Marine army. The entire army fired at his 2 units of Tzeench Chaos Bikers that were 18" away from my firing lines. They had moved fast so had the -2 to hit modifiers and 5+ dodge save. There were two units of Bikers. First was a screen of normal bikers with 2 (or was it 3?) wounds a piece. The second was I believe a 500 point HQ or the like totally tooled up. 1500 points of Space Marine firepower including something like 11 Lascannons (4 of them TL), 4 Krak missiles, 2 Autocannon shots plus a bunch of Bolters and 2 Plasma shots were fired at them. I do believe I instakilled two of the normal bikers and put two more wounds on the unit. That was it.

1500 points of Marine shooting there killed 2 bikers and would have killed 2 more normal Chaos Bikers. Maybe I just rolled badly or maybe -2 Hit modifiers with 5+ dodge saves on top of T5 3+ save models that move 24" a turn are really really tough. Now those were the normal bikers, imagine the HQ that also had 4+ invulnerable saves and some other durability increasing thing.

Yeh, we have made normal bikers moving fast only get -1 to hit. This does of course mean that I'm finally going to use my 6 Space Marine bikes and perhaps they won't lose me the game by being 175 points of pure terror unleashing 5 boltgun shots a turn!... and being killed by krak missiles as easily as any other marine... and being over twice the points of a Marine... yeh, 3rd Ed Bikes were pretty bad, even worse than 25 point 1 base attack Assault Marines and 42 point 1 wound Terminators. At least Terminators would kill something sometime before being lasgunned to death and Assault Marines could sort of kill something before being Battle Cannoned or counter-assaulted by just about anything decent in the game.

To those who know who they are:
It's "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11"

I consider is almost heresy to forget the LOL. Even more so when you say Oh and include no lol afterwards. Ohlols is the correct morphology of the word Oh when used in the same sentence as the it is a predictor of the the and is of the indicative mood and the active voice. The exclamation mark afterwards is no excuse for not following the correct morphology rules for 1337 declention verbs. There shall be much bolter drill for youse (the plural of the second person "you" quite obviously).

We have been shamed brothers. To save our honour and the respectability of this entire project ! thus 54'/:

beginquote0|-| 3|\/| 633 '/0|_| <|-|347!|\|6 |=67exclamationmark 1053|2exclamationmark 114|\/|4exclamationmark \/\/7|=exclamationmark 7|20_|4|\| 6!\/1|\|6 |35 \/\/411|-|4<|<3|2exclamationmarkendquote

7|-||_|5 54'/37|-| 73|-| |o|20fullstop

<3 Zerg Rush kekekekeke

**cmann000**

Just a note for the Revisited Project. I have set up a web forum for it, among other things. It can be found at:

z11.invisionfree.com/40K_Revisited/index.php

Note: prior forums that were posted here are no longer the official forum. The one above is the correct link as per 11 July 2007.

**Phoenix**

Assault:
A possible scenario: A unit declares a charge against an enemy. The closest friendly model is moved into base to base contact with the closest enemy. The next friendly model is moved into base to base contact with an enemy and within coherency of the first friendly model. Now a third friendly model is moved into base to base with another unengaged enemy and to within coherency of one of the first two models; however, the third model had to pass into (or though) difficult terrain to get there (where as the first 2 models did not). What happens?

1) Do you make a difficult terrain test and retroactively apply it the models that have already moved (possibly making it impossible to charge)?
2) Do you make a difficult terrain test and just apply it to the third (and any subsequent models)?
3) Do you make a difficult terrain test and apply it the third model and any subsequent models that actually pass though the difficult terrain?
4) Do you simply move all models their full assault distance and ignore the difficult terrain after the first model makes it into base to base contact?
5) Do you do something else?

Force Weapons:
In the 4th edition rules, force weapons ignore armor saves (like power weapons) however your rules do not give them this ability. Was that an oversight or intentional?

WS and To Hit Rolls:
I like your new revised chart. It makes higher WS values potentially mean something.

Rending:
I?m not sure how I feel about the new rules for rending against vehicles. It makes it easier for low strength creatures to do damage while removing the ability of high strength ones to get penetrating hits. How well have you guys found this works?

**Makaleth**

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/09/2007 3:50 AM

Also, the formatting on any/all of your tables is almost beyond comprehension--either they are rife with errors, or my software is outdated (just a friendly reminder to double-check them as formatting is always a pain).

I guess my overall reaction so far can be summed up as: I like the rule changes, but I personally expected some minor rebalancing of the codexes, and not wholesale rewrites as have been published. It's always good to start such an undertaking with a wealth of ideas, but one must be careful not to strain the creative liscence and must not flinch at the prospect of cutting or simplifying large chunks of material for the sake of comprehension and gameplay. Great ideas in need of a serious and critical trim, in summation.

Hi ColonelEllios,

As for the comment on the tables, agreed - We need to keep a very close eye on all of the tables as one change can result in hundreds of small changes through out codecies (some can be missed time to time)

I suppose the second comment really depends on perspective, when we approach a codex now we look back at many editions of the codecies that have been produced by GW, hence we can learn from their good and bad ideas. We also like the ideas of the fluff being a little more involved in the designs of armies, which hopefully can be seen in the codecies as we write them.

They are a little bit daunting at first, as you are right, in some circumstances they can be significantly different to the designs and rules put out by GW themselves.

In regards to the rules needing to be simplified, we (well I) feel that this was the direction of GW itself. As old skool (and some newer gamers) we have shied away from the simplification of rules just for slightly quicker games (yes some things need to be simplified like screening and movement) but slight variations and rulesets that are not the norm are what make this version of the game enjoyable for me.

Things like: Twin-linking hitting twice if the initial roll is a 6. Vehicles being able to move and still shoot effectively. Being able to assault when you roll a hit for deep strike. Having good psychic powers that are better than heavy weapons so your chaos lord would actually think about using them (rather than always assaulting), etc etc.

Just like any rule set, they are only as complicated as the amount of times you use them. I still struggle with the glancing and penetrating charts as I don't use then much, but the rest of the rules become second nature. I suppose we are aiming at a more advanced level of gamer (not suggesting you are not, the fact that you have put forward cohesive and logical points suggests that you think about gaming systems and the impications that arise from the levels of details written into the rules)

Just a thought, :-)

**cmann000**

The new official web forum of the 40k Revisited Project:

z11.invisionfree.com/40K_Revisited/index.php

In case anyone is wondering, I am the brother of milesteg and beyond.wudge (just in case anyone was thinking I was some callow upstart!). Better known as Slayed One because, quite frankly, in 3rd Ed my Tau army was continually being destroyed by Shooty Marines and Ulthwe!!! (And don't mention Seeding Swarm in my presence....just don't do it...

)

**Makaleth**

Hi Phoenix,

Difficult terrain: I don't think this has been fully address in our rules subset. As far as I'm aware we would just assume people could travel there full charge distance if one model can make it into assault. (Well that's what I would do) With the larger supporting attacks and larger kill zones in our rules, this isn't as big a problem (IE not getting into base to base contact)

Force Weapons: These are still powers weapons in our rules (see page 40 i think), so yes they do ignore armour saves, and yes they do keep killing my Chaos Lords constantly!!!!

WS and to Hit: Thanks, that's what we thought (Well the others, I joined this motley crew later)

Rending: For the high strength models, rending will only glance if it wouldn't have normally penetrated. As for the lower strength ones, they generally don't do as much damage as you would think.

**cmann000**

That is right! Makaleth is the upstart!