Return of the Legion of the Damned. Almost.

I have a confession. I love the Legion of the Damned.

Their half-page entry in the original 2nd edition Codex: Ultramarines was the coolest thing in a very cool book, and hooked me right from the outset of my foray into the hobby. The Damned's inexplicable, supernatural origins and qualities of mystery and quasi-horror heavily influenced the conceits central to my own DIY space marine chapter, the Void Phantoms (or as they are better known--not coincidentally--The Undying). As soon as I had finished the initial basics of my own marines, I picked out the ten coolest-looking old, out-of-production models in GW's catalog to form my squad of Damned, and placed my first order from the now-gone, greatly-missed Citadel UK Archives. The holy grail of my early, pre-eBay/Internet collecting was the Legion's Sgt Centurius named character (and I can still recount where and how I finally got him). When GW released dedicated Damned miniatures some years later, I was at my stockist for a box first day. I have always had Legion of the Damned in my armies--one need only look as far as the stats and background for the 'Outrider' special character mascot for my blog to understand the depth of my attachment to the Legion--and I am on record as being very pleased both to see the Legion of the Damned returned to the 40Kverse through their Elites entry in the V5 Codex: Space Marines, and with the rules and stats therein, which suit them well. Now GW has upped their appeal even further, with gorgeous new pewter sculpts and a White Dwarf entry slighty rewriting the codex line to make them even more fun to field. The Legion of the Damned are back. Well...almost.

The White Dwarf US 360 article is very good, not only updating the Codex entry to fit the way the new sculpts are kitted out (the sergeant particularly) but also showing several sample army builds incorporating Legion, and nicely re-covering the mysterious unit's over-two-decade history. Almost.

There is a great black hole of Damned background missing in both the V5 rules and the article's history...and the Damned are diminished for that.

It is no secret that there are design philosophy differences between the current GW Studio and those who preceded them, with the former out to redo much of what the latter created, in their own image; fine--that is the nature of work-for-hire, and the right of those left standing (so long as they don't screw up something good in the doing, the consumer/hobbyist loudly qualifies). But any continuity-driven creative work is stronger when it incorporates what has gone before, rather than invalidating it. By ignoring a significant era of Legion history--and even taking veiled shots at it, in the article--GW has undermined something of what it has otherwise accomplished so admirably, in executing their return.

The article recounts well the Legion's debut, in White Dwarf 99, and subsequent V2 Codex entry. It even pictures the limited edition Sgt Centurius model released in 1996 (still possibly my favorite Citadel miniature ever). But it ignores everything done with the Damned in the subsequent V3-V3.5 years...and those were some of the most active developments for the Legion, from a gameplay perspective, in their long history.

It bears expressing that *I* did not much care for this iteration of the Damned, covered mostly in White Dwarf Chapter Approved articles. I was happy, as a fan, to see the Damned return (they went unaddressed in the first third edition Codex: Space Marines), the new entries expanded a bit further on their background and lore, and as noted the gorgeous pewter Legion of the Damned Sergeants, Marines and special- and heavy-weaponsmen, released as both a squad box set and as blisters, were welcome additions. But these rules took the Damned far past the mysterious squad they had been, adding Damned characters, vehicles, even Terminators in successive lists...in short, making the Legion a viable alternative full Space Marine army, one which was even GT Tournament legal. That wasn't consistent with what the Legion had always been--a mysterious, small band of interventionist heroes, not an entire army-gone-to-war--and sat badly with at least as many hobbyists as embraced the idea.

But it *happened.* For a period of time--and a time recent enough to be familiar to a significant percentage of the hobby community--that *was* the official conceit GW offered for the Damned. For an article as otherwise comprehensive about the Legion to willfully ignore that entire continuity--to in fact attempt a kind of textual sleight-of-hand suggesting it never occurred (through improper crediting of the previous models' provenance and through a boxed text specifically saying such larger-than-squad size appearances by the Legion were unknown) does the game's background a disservice. Would it have been so monumental a writing task instead to respectfully nod to that era by saying appearances by the Legion of the Damned in strength greater than individual squads 'are the stuff of legend, reported in past millennia of Imperial history by scribes of questionable authority, unverified; consigned to records of dubious' or 'what if' histories--but neither ever unproven.

And I could have done without the shot by one of the new-model sculptors at the first set of Damned pewters from editions ago: yes, those were largely existing Space Marine models with 'bones and flames sculpted on,' but that is exactly what the task required, and what the Damned *were,* and there are a lot of hobbyists still 'in the game' who love those models.

Finally...I would dearly love to have Sgt Centurius back. Not the specific model--as beautifully-sculpted as it is, it was a limited edition release and I think it poor form to advertise something as limited then ever make it widely available. But it would be a very cool thing to have his special character rules updated for V5...

Make no mistake: It is good to have the Legion of the Damned back--and better than ever, in many ways: as good as the previous sculpts were, these *are* even better, and the V5 rules capture the traditional atmosphere of the Damned perfectly. It would be even better if GW had not shortchanged them their full history, in the doing.

ARMY OF THE DAMNED

If one's view of the Damned permits them to exist in a more-than-a-single-fleeting-squad kind of way, the current Codex: Space Marines provides options for simulating that.

The core of such an army would be the three ELITES Legion of the Damned squads, of course: at maximum size each exceeds 300 points even before any special, heavy or sergeant gear is added. That is two-thirds of a standard 1500-point army accounted for.

There are six options for adding the mandatory HQ choice. None of them are perfect--but a couple get very close. To 'feel' like the Legion, such HQ choices must have the required Invulnerable Save and be able to Deep Strike. The former is conferred to any Independent Character with an Iron Halo (Chapter Masters and Captains), a Rosarius (Chaplains) or who can equip a Storm Shield or can wear Tactical Dreadnought (Terminator) Armour; Terminator Armour also confers the latter (so do Jump Packs, which expands the options slightly but--with one exception explored following--do not get addressed further in this article because to me the Damned *must* materialize as if from nowhere, rather than ride in on a plume of smoke and fire, however admittedly cool that latter imagery may be). A Damned HQ IC can therefore be built either from the generic Space Marine Chapter Master, Captain or Chaplain entries in the Codex and equipping with Terminator Armour--choosing a Storm Shield for the Chapter Master or Captain even makes the Invulnerable Save 3+, to perfectly mirror the V5 Damned (though a skull-faced Chaplain leading the Damned just *feels* more right :). Players who prefer to template an HQ from one of the Codex's special characters cannot get as perfect a match: Marneus Calgar upgraded to the Armour of Antilochus has Deep Strike but only a 4+ Invulnerable Save (though his Eternal Warrior Universal Special Rule more than makes up for it and *feels* very consistent with the lore of the Damned); the omnipresent-on-V5-battlefields Vulkan He'stan has the 3+ Invulnerable Save through Kesare's Mantle but his Artificier Armour confers no Deep Strike; and the best statistical match, Lysander (Terminator Armour, a 3+ Invulnerable through his Storm Shield, Eternal Warrior *and* one awesome melée weapon in his warhammer, the Fist of Dorn--all reasons why he is my favorite V5 template) sees the other two special bonuses he confers--Stubbornness to his army and Bolter Drill to his squad--vastly diminished in impact in a Fearless, Assault Terminator-heavy army (see following). Depending on which option the player chooses, his Damned HQ raises the army's cost by as little as 130 points (a Terminator Chaplain) to as much as 265 points (Calgar).

The only additional units in the Codex which provide for all models an Invulnerable Save and the ability to Deep Strike are Terminator Squads and Vanguard Veterans. Assault Terminator Squads kitted with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields are perfect Damned--but like all Terminators, are ELITES choices, and all three of your Army of the Damned ELITE slots are likely to be filled with squads of authentic Legion. They remain options to consider for Planetstrike! and Apocalypse games--but you could take as many squads of the Legion as you wanted in Apocalypse anyway. We will come back to them before we are done...but let us consider the Vanguard, first.

The Vanguard Veterans are a V5 codex entry which has, in my experience, been underseen on 40K battlefields...but which make interesting additions to a Damned army. One reason they are taken less frequently than their (admittedly excellent) Sternguard Veteran brethren is that there are such other excellent, effective and economical choices for Space Marine commanders amongst the Fast Attack Org chart; for a Damned force, most of those aren't thematic. And while they do enter via Jump Pack Deep Strike rather than 'materializing from thin air,' as noted above, the Vanguard differ from standard Assault Marines in two critical, Legion-worthy ways: they can all equip with Storm Shields, conferring to them a simulacrum of the Damned's supernatural invulnerability, and they possess a unique ability, the 'Heroic Intervention,' which can allow them to appear at the critical time and place and launch a battle-turning assault from deep striking, in the very best tradition of the interventionist-themed Legion of the Damned. Of course, a full squad so equipped is going to cost in the 500 point vicinity--but nothing in a Damned army comes cheaply...

And there are still no TROOPS choices which fit. This is irremediable with the current codex; there are only the two options, Tactical and Scout Squads--which, great though they are, emphatically are not suited to represent the Damned. The only table-legal solution is to create a non-Damned 'mini army' within the larger Damned framework, a two-TROOP minimum codex marine force which represents, from a background perspective, the imperiled Loyalists whom the Legion materializes to rescue. If any of the previously-suggested supplements to a Damned roster ring inauthentic, a purist could expand this component to whatever degree (though the army obviously becomes less truly a Legion of the Damned force the more this is done), and it is an easy segue toward a Damned army for any player who already has some Space Marine force, however modest (which, face it, is almost all of us).

But it isn't a complete Legion of the Damned. There is no way to get there from here, under the published codex rules.

For fun, however, there are always 'house rules'--localized alterations to standard play created to achieve just such a desired, legally-impossible effect--and here is one for anyone interested in fielding an Army of the Damned:

No Aid But Their Own: A Codex: Space Marine player desiring to field an exclusively Legion of the Damned army--defined as one in which all characters and non-vehicle units Deep Strike and possess an Invulnerable Save, are all converted and painted to visually represent the Legion of the Damned, and of which at least one ELITE choice is an actual Legion of the Damned squad--may take •two• Terminator or Terminator Assault Squads as TROOPS choices.

As mentioned above, Terminator Assault Squads equipped with Storm Shields are particularly good Damned proxies--but contest for the same Force Org slots; this house rule allows an Army of the Damned builder to maximize his three authentic Legion choices, and add two of their nearest proxies, solving the otherwise insolvable issue of the mandatory TROOPS choices, as well.

And add an appropriately evocative character to lead them, and the points tally is hovering right around 1500.

The question of vehicles alone remains. At its 'army of its own' apex, the Damned had access to all manner of typical Space Marine tanks and transports; under current edition rules, none of those could materialize alongside the Legionnaires as they walk out of inexistence. A player interested in adding any will have to justify them as arriving 'just out of sight,' then rolling to the clarion call of rescue. Land Speeder variants (excepting the Storm, which would be carrying Scouts, something the Legion conceit cannot convincingly justify) can Deep Strike in, and although they lack the invincibility of a permanent Invulnerable Save do present some interesting possibilities for conversions. The thorniest question is presented by the Dreadnought in all it's variants--which of all the additions heaped upon the Damned concept as it expanded was always the coolest: while it cannot Deep Strike, a Dreadnought can arrive via Drop Pod...and nothing says that arriving Pod itself did not shimmer into existence out of nowhere, ghostlike, in the wartorn skies above a battlefield, moments before impact...heralding yet another unlooked-for rescue by the Army of the Damned...
+++

Chemical Warfare in 256 AD

Around 256 AD the Persian Sassanid (lately called Sasanian) Empire beseiged the Roman Fortress of Dura, in Syria. Though the Persians never breached the walls, the undersized and unreinforced Imperial contingent eventually fell; everyone within was executed or deported east to live the remainder of their lives as slaves. A recent reexamination of the original 1930s excavation has revealed how: Sassanid sappers digging tunnels under the fort were ready for Roman counterminers tunneling to thwart them from above--when the Romans broke into the Persian tunnels, readied braziers of pitch and sulfur were lit. The resultant rising cloud of sulfur dioxide gas overcame the Roman legionnaires trapped in the dark and congested space in seconds.

This earliest evidentiary use of chemical warfare was not without the consequence that has made it anathema to civilized soldiery throughout subsequent history, however: collateral damage. Along with the bodies of some twenty Roman soldiers excavated in the tunnels were remains of a single Persian soldier...probably the sapper who had set the braziers afire, but miscalculated his escape time and been overcome in the tunnel darkness by his own deadly chemical trap...

•Source: Samir S. Patel, 'Archeology' Jan/Feb 2010, page 26, Archeological Institute of America

Background, Beardiness, and The Way We Play...

A recent event I moderated touched off anew the conflicting approaches players take to the hobby of miniatures wargaming. Though there are gradations in every player, most fall to either the 'competitive' side or the 'simulation/storytelling' side. It is worth knowing which way you prefer to play--as very few organized events cater well to both.

This divide in approach is by no means limited to the hobby, of course. It may go by other names depending on the framing event, but virtually anything with a win/lose result sees it: in sports, there is the constant tension between 'winning at all costs' and 'playing with standards,' for example. Whatever the venue, it boils down to whether the participant •most• values 'experience'--the enjoyment gained from actual play--or 'outcome'--the satisfaction derived from triumphing.

Sportsmanship--how a participant comports themselves--is an element of this...but especially as it pertains to the hobby, is something apart, as well, so I will address it independently.

The local event was a tournament--which by it's definition is more attractive to 'outcome' oriented players, as opposed to story- or simulation-driven events like megabattles or campaigns--but which clearly and in advance advertised that it was going to break a few rules in the 'competitive balance' area usually so necessary to such outcome-oriented events. In this case, participants were offered the opportunity to bring units more powerful than standard army composition allowed--but with the caveat that such units might face in-scenario handicaps which would re-level the playing field. The motive was not hidden from participants: the sponsoring venue was new to the hobby, and wished their customers to be able to pick up starter games or starter army boxes and put together a playing force from whatever it's contents were, while also offering veteran players a reason to come familiarize themselves with the new store by picking up a needed unit and knowing they could immediately turn around and use it.

The whole thing was presented from the start as a variation on the familiar tourney scene, the attraction being the challenge of overcoming new threats under new mission conditions. The problem arose amongst players concerned that such powerful units would prevent them from winning. In other words--none of the event's particular appeals, which were 'experience' enhancing, offset the dismay felt by 'outcome' focused hobbyists that their desires would not be satisfied.

The back-and-forth became more heated than it should have, however, because some of the hobbyists either did not know or had not come to terms themselves with which kind of way they preferred to play.

There is not one approach necessarily better than the other, and certainly there is no 'right' or 'wrong.' That is one of the reasons the question of sportsmanship must be addressed separately: there is a tendency to categorize the theme/background/story players as better sports, as hobbyists who 'get it,' and the truth is that there can be 'background bullies' or 'history snobs' who are just as offensive presences in story-based events as 'win-at-any-cost' types can be competitively...and there can be masterfully-proficient tabletop tacticians who are as gracious and fun-to-play as they school you in a competitive tournament as any story-telling opponent can be in a campaign. The whole question of what kind of person you are as a gamer is independent of what way you play.

The danger for an 'outcome' emphasizing hobbyist, of course--as in any competitive pursuit--is that his satisfaction •must• come at the expense of his opponent. One who appreciates the 'experience' may well find moments of enjoyment and satisfaction in the hobby in loss--even in multiple losses--but the further toward the 'outcome' side of the scale a hobbyist veers, the more difficult it can be to be gracious in defeat (and the more difficult it can be to control one's exultance in victory). Asshatdom is only a step away for this gamer (yet another reason recognizing whether this is the way you play is valuable--because who wants to be an asshat if it can be helped, really).

Hobby leader Games Workshop struggled mightily with this issue as their self-run Grand Tournament circuit grew increasingly significant in the late 90s/early 00s. They had always emphasized that the 'non-tabletop result' aspects of their hobby (modeling and painting, composing to the established background, having fun playing) were as important as the outcome of any game...but hadn't worked out with complete satisfaction how to score these more experience-based aspects in a tournament setting. Worse, they kept whatever solutions they had come up with secret. Army Composition scores especially became controversial--pointedly, when a GW official would have a comment become public like the infamous 'perfect space marine army comp is 100 tactical marines on foot' remark--a composition the then-current V3 Codex would not even allow if it •had• been desirable, or thematic, or made sense. Very few hobbyists left GTs of that era happy; experience-based players weren't getting much and stayed away in droves and the outcome-based majority couldn't all win against each other. Fortunately, independent hobbyists recognized the system's failings and undertook to fix them by example, running their own, better events (the Astronomi-con circuit at http://www.astronomi-con.com being the pioneers and still the best)--and GW, to their credit, recognized and integrated many such fixes in their own GT and Rogue Trader Tournament packages first, then began integrating the independent events themselves under their official GT Circuit banner in North America (the current roster is viewable at GW's website and will climax in summer 2011 with winners from all the qualifiers meeting under GW's aegis in Las Vegas for a grand showdown).

But--again to GW's credit--while fine-tuning this tournament circuit to fairly and transparently reflect the breadth of the hobby in scoring, making the tourneys much friendlier to the 'experience' oriented hobbyist, they've further legitimized the 'outcome' element of the hobby community through the creation of the Ard Boyz Tournaments--which are exclusively settled on tabletop results, a 'generalship' equivalent to their Golden Daemon painting championships.

Of course GTs, company-run or independent, are still ultimately competitions, so the competitive player should always feel at home there; and there will continue to be story-emphasis events like campaigns, specific-battle recreations and multiplayer megabattles (including official events which incorporate all three, such as the Apocalypse 'Lucky 13s') for those sorts of hobbyists, as well. Historical miniatures wargamers will find their hobby equally provides broad-spectrum events, from pure recreations/simulations to cross-era competitive tournaments (think yourself a real general--try succeeding against the cannons of medieval Burgundians with your Egyptian charioteers!).

The trick these days isn't lack of events catering to the way a hobbyist plays--it is the hobbyist himself knowing his preference, so he can either gear his available hobby time to sympatico events...or, hopefully, broaden his hobby experience by occasionally tackling an event of a different kind. There is nothing wrong with sticking to what you prefer (though trying to prod event sponsors and/or moderators into turning a given event into something it is not is unwelcome--go make the considerable uncompensated commitment of time, effort and expertise to be the moderator yourself if you feel strongly enough about it to try hijacking someone else's work); it simply means fewer opportunities to play than if your hobby tastes were broader. A fair-minded, 'challenge-me' approach will go far toward insuring you find something to enjoy in any given game, even against a really hard army fielded by an extremely competitive player, or in a background-soaked campaign against someone who knows every fact from every edition of his army's codex (and probably yours).

And there •are• armies out there which are completely legal in composition which are totally geared to maximize tabletop effect. This is simply because some concession must always be given to background in miniatures wargaming--as opposed to abstract 'wargames' such as chess. It is a truth of the hobby that there are units worth more than their points cost (and units worth less) and the 'outcome' based player is going to identify the armies with the most of these and load his composition with them as heavily as possible. This is one of the two ways I have always found best for a player to estimate where he is on the sliding 'experience vs outcome' scale: evaluate every unit in the army you take to a tournament for whether their inclusion is motivated by the models' coolness/your happiness with their painting/how well they fit your force's historical composition/how integral they are to your theme--•or• for how effective they are. Some, fortuitously, will be both...but if you are honest with yourself about why they are there, you can learn quite a bit about the way you play (for the other easiest way, see 'Sportmanship scoring,' below).

I have always found it fairly easy to identify an army composed for as much tabletop effect as possible--and have gotten better at it as I've broadened my hobby experience. Certainly it began as an artifact of competing in over a decades' worth of tourneys and especially GTs: when the GW GT circuit was at it's height in the early 00s, there were a handful of players who traveled to every one (and there were then more than a half-dozen a year) with the hardest possible armies they could compose, their sole goal winning--and remember, in those days, the non-tabletop scores (sportsmanship, army composition and painting) were VERY ancillary and totally •non-transparent•. By sheer circumstance I wound up pitted, in round one of a Dallas GT, against one of the winningest, hardest, most competitive players on the circuit fielding what was then considered among the nastiest possible army builds--the Eldar 'jedi council'--and (largely through a scenario friendly to the numerous Terminators I had brought--and his inability to deal with them since 'no one brought Terminators to a GT'-- and very lucky dice) I defeated him soundly. This unfortunately thrust me up onto the very top tables for the ensuing rounds, where I had to endure the era's other nasty builds (the dark eldar 'all-skimmer/all-dark lance' pt boat army, the 'get first turn and eat you before you move' V3 Blood Angels army and the just-released multi-HQ Black Templars army)--and players who made no pretense about being there for any reason other than winning. One even casually admitted how much he had paid someone else to paint his army so he could max those points. This was the least-fun tournament experience I ever had: no amount of (temporary) excitement at being on the high tables was worth the complete disregard these players had for theme, background or storytelling. I honed my 'army-built-to-win' radar, already reasonably sharp from years of other cons, to a razor edge that weekend and have learned a great deal about the kind of hobbyist I do not want be since (as GW has learned a lot about the kind of events they do not want to sponsor in the intervening years as well, through the example of independent tourneys like Astro or the local Lone Wolf, at which such narrowly-focused gamers and armies would now be very challenged).

It is this ability to 'build to power' that most often accentuates the difference between playing approaches--and leads to one of the hobby's least-attractive habits: the accusation of 'cheesiness' or 'beardiness.' Whining or complaining about another power build isn't an attractive character trait, any more than the building of such armies is (even if you are fairly accurate at identifying such builds). Having events specifically focused on building and playing with such monster compositions, like the Ard Boyz, is a partial solution...but there should be a mechanism for addressing what they are within the broader GT circuit, as well, •if• such events are--as was the event I moderated which began this discussion--intended to appeal to hobbyists all across the broad 'experience-versus-outcome' scale.

One solution is a weighted Army Composition score--such as Astronomi-con's--which imposes minor but increasing scoring penalties as players load their force composition with over-effective choices. So long as these penalties are transparent in advance--again, as Astro's are--allowing a player to build a non-penalized army, they can be effective even though they •are• guilty of forcibly altering a legal army through external arbitration, and require the moderators to make advance decisions about just which units are offensive (something not every hobbyist always agrees upon). To return to the example of the local event, some such notification of which units would be penalized and how was a thing certain of the 'outcome' oriented players wanted from me in advance, if they were to participate.

I prefer to let the players themselves 'level' such matters. This is where Sportsmanship specifically enters this discussion as it relates to our hobby, because many of our events (including most in the GT Circuit) score for it. We differ in this way markedly from other competitive events: most athletic competitions have codes of conduct which players can be looked-down-upon (or even expelled from the sport) for regularly violating--but there are no points added to or subtracted from final scores for instances of either onfield chivalry or jackassery. Chess federations do not invalidate a player's win if he gloats over the swiftness of his successful gambit after. Sportsmanship scoring in GW events stems from the company's insistence from the start that having fun--including making efforts to insure that your opponent has fun--is an essential component of the hobby. I agree with it philosophically, always have--even when what exactly a player was scoring with his Sportsmanship ballot wasn't always clear. From my perspective, so long as an army was legal under a given rules set's composition restrictions, •any• scoring of it should be the province of those who actually faced it in-game--so considering it's adherence to established background or history or theme and relative imbalance toward over-the-top unit inclusion should be considered in the Sportsmanship score. More than simply rebellion at the incomprehensible (and never-revealed) standards imposed by GW from beyond in assessing Army Composition (I lost it with this system utterly one year when a GT awarded Best Comp to a Chaos Space Marine army consisting of three Heavy Support Havoc Squads, a Great Unclean One HQ...and six Troops choices of Cultists with banners giving them Leadership check rerolls, an army which literally sat in a square of hundreds of Cultists with the Havoc heavy weapons firing from within every game--and which, as a 'Chaos Space Marine' army consisted of fifteen actual CSMs; but I digress...), observing armies which are not fun to play against and considering such a build in Sportsmanship scores is something I view as legitimate, have always articulated in rules sets for events I moderate...and which GW adopted eventually adopted in their GT rules packs.

It can be the most telling external analysis to a hobbyist of how they really play, as well: when Sportsmanship scores include assessments by opponents of a player's army build, and a consistent pattern develops, the player may have to come to terms with how important 'winning' really is to him in a way he might not have without external motivation.

Of course, as a balance for the nastier builds which might appear in the aforementioned event, Sportsmanship score penalties were not accepted by some of the objecting players...and the reason why should by now be clear if I've done my job in this essay: Sportsmanship, while not restricted to either 'experience' or 'outcome'' players, is distinctly a part of the experience of participating in the event...and not going to appeal to victory-oriented hobbyists as a tangible equalizer to something they perceived as threatening to their chances of being satisfied by the event.

It bears repeating that we are discussing preferences here; a player whose hobby interest is purely focused on outcome (ie winning) is not 'wrong,' any more than a hobbyist who paints but never fields his minis is wrong, or a hobbyist who immerses himself in the game's background to shape his army composition and tabletop play is right...•but• one conclusion which is inescapable is that in the instance of this event, and those like it, the 'outcome'-oriented player missed out on participating in play.

If he knows what satisfies him in the hobby, knows where he is on that 'experience-versus-outcome' scale, knows how he plays--and decides this wouldn't 'do it' for him--he probably made the right decision...not just for himself but for those he might have faced. But that knowing is important, not just because he may have missed an event he would excel at and be an asset to if he is wrong--but also because without recognizing where one is, in one's approach to how one plays, one cannot change, broaden, expand.

28mm Ancient and Medieval Historicals: A Brief Overview

Since a recent question on the Adeptus North Texas mailing list, several hobbyists have written me privately inquiring further about the current state of Historical miniatures wargaming in our favorite 'GW' scale. I figured I would attempt a quick overview to try to address these questions, and any other unexpressed interest that may be out there. You may have a potential opponent--or interested retailer--convenient to you, awaiting only mutual discovery!

First, I should qualify that my comments will be limited to Ancient and Medieval Wargaming. There are thriving Historicals of every era out there, from ECW (English Civil War) to Napoleonics to the Vietnam War, and WWII and ACW (American Civil War) are probably the *most* currently popular Historical eras being wargamed...but AnM (Ancient and Medieval) most closely resembles GW's Fantasy skirmishes--and I am an Ancient and Medieval history major (albeit now some two decades removed); that's where my interest lies, so that is where I am best able to point you right.

Anyone interested in the state of the hobby should start with the Society of Ancients ( http://www.soa.org.uk ), whose quarterly magazine, the Slingshot, is a near-perfect alchemy of enthusiast history, wargaming figure/rules reviews, latest historical book reviews, and battle reenactments/scenarios/reports that combine both history and wargaming.

Beyond the SoA, rulesets are the next thing one should explore. Rather than recommend any, I encourage interested hobbyists to get games in with the various systems; there are a great many, and there is no better way to figure out which rules play the way you like than to actually game with them. Moreover, it would do me little good to write about the relative virtues and vices of Armati vs DBMM vs Tactica, et al, if no one local to you plays any of those. I will briefly mention three systems:

•Field of Glory is the most readily available current ruleset commercially, as it is supported by famed military publisher Osprey and available through any retailer which stocks their books. The rules and supplements for specific eras are gorgeously-presented graphically; the game mechanics feel (to me) very--perhaps *too*--traditional. Same-old/same-old syndrome. Your mileage may vary.

•Ancient and Medieval Wargaming is a book format ruleset by Neil Thomas; although it abstracts rather than simulates as a guiding principle, which runs contrary to my traditional preferences, the abstractions are placed, in his book, in the context of specific battles of historical consequence from the Ancient and Medieval world, which serves to thoroughly ground the entire work with satisfying substance.

•Warhammer Ancient Battles (and Warmaster Ancients) are, as the names suggest, adaptations of our familiar GW rulesets for historical armies. In many ways, these might seem the ideal AnM rules, because they are reasonably available commercially, professionally presented, and familiar--and in some cases they *are* nearly ideal (though be warned the basis of the system is 6th--versus 7th--edition WHFB). I am biased against WAB somewhat because (in my view) it critically botches the key army of the Ancient World in simulation, the Roman Legions (though Adrian Goldsworthy's alternative rules in the most recent Slingshot look to have corrected many of the particular issues I have)...but if you play Warhammer Fantasy Battles (and any army *other* than Rome), you probably ought to give WAB consideration.

That business addressed, comes the fun part--the toy soldiers.

There are other scales (Warmaster, in fact, is 10mm, like it's fantasy counterpart) with 15mm, 20mm and 25mm the most popular--but hobbyists having at Historicals from a GW orientation are likely to prefer 28mm--or 'heroic'--scale, as the perfect compromise between figures of sufficient size to capture detail and artistry and still be small enough to simulate battle with on a tabletop.

In 28mm, there are more than a few small manufacturers who cast in metals--Crusader, 1st Corps, Gorgon, Gripping Beast, et al--but the undisputed leader is Wargames Foundry, also known as Foundry Miniatures or simply The Foundry ( http://www.wargamesfoundry.com ): they have been at it long time, their lines are extensive (and their sculpts often gorgeous) and they are located, conveniently, right near Nottingham, UK, the toy soldier capital of the world. Their proximity to GW means many of that giant's SF and/or Fantasy figure sculptors will work for Foundry when they wish to indulge an historical whim.

Building an army completely from pewter is no small investment, even with Foundry's army bundles and occasional sales...but even if a hobbyist prefers to begin with a foundation of plastic models from manufacturers such as those listed following, rare is the era that will not see it's forces improved in quality and variety by inclusion of models from metal-casters such as Foundry.

And--as of just recently--modelers *can* do 28mm Ancient and Medievals in plastic. This is an enormous development toward potentially broadening the hobby. Just as GW has staked it's future on the reduced cost, increased flexibility and ease of work which comes with modeling in multipart hard plastic, at least two major companies have staked themselves to the same potential, with Historicals.

Wargames Factory ( http//www.wargamesfactory.com ) is the newest such company, and has generated considerable interest chiefly because of the extremely low retail prices their multipart plastic model sets boast. There have been, in turn, criticisms of the comparative softness of their molding plastics (and how same accepts adhesives) and especially of their sculpts, which appear to vary wildly not only in quality but in dimension (check out the veritable giant helming one of their Celtic chariots for a good example); more than one source has suggested these problems reflect the company's policy of casting directly from computer-modeled images, rather than traditional artists-master sculpts--which is a part of how they are able to offer such prices, to return to the original point. If Wargames Factory can trend further toward the scale model and away from the toy figure as they mature their processes, while keeping their retail prices attractive, their impact could be significant.

Meantime, the field leader, the company that brought the concept of 'mass market plastics' to Historicals wargaming, is Warlord Games ( http://www.warlordgames.co.uk ), also Nottingham-based, also with deep GW ties (White Dwarf's best editor ever, Paul Sawyer, is one of Warlord's founders). They have an extensive line of pewter sculpts of exceptional quality, some fine resin pieces, as well...but have made their name with multipart hard plastic Historical regiment boxes very like what a hobbyist would expect from a 40K, WHFB or LotR box. Like Foundry, they also offer discounted army bundles--in many cases keyed to building armies to specific rulesets--but because they can create the foundations for these armies from their multipart plastics, building an entire army isn't so daunting a fiscal investment: I've an Imperial Roman army from Warlord more than twice the size of my Post-Roman Briton (Arthurian) army from Foundry and Gripping Beast, PLUS a nice battery of Roman war machines...all at less cost.

Will Roman Legions and Germanic Barbarians clashing in the Teutoberg Forest replace Space Marines and Orks (or High Elves and Orcs) on many tabletops? Unlikely--but then, one needn't necessarily 'replace' the other, so much as complement it. Hobbies are for relaxing, for fun; if you think you might find Historicals fun, the sources listed should get you started.

+++

Despatch: Blastscapes

The online community has reacted with startling harshness to Games Workshop's new Planetstrike!-specific hobby terrain offering, the Blastscape--so I hustled out to grab a bag for myself after the online furor. The pieces in the Blastscape bag are designed to specifically replicate on-table several of the Planetstrike! 'special effects' Attacking armies can unleash upon Defenders in games of Planetstrike!. With it in hand (and having recently painted several sets of the similar Moonscape Craters for various retailers), I can make the following definitive assessments:

1) The Terrain pieces in the Blastscape bag ARE NOT comparable to those shown in the White Dwarf battle report introducing Planetstrike!, the advertising section of the same issue, on GW's website or, in fact, on the back of the Blastscape retail bag, either in substance or detail; those painted pieces appear to be resin, whereas the Blastscape pieces offered at retail are unpainted vacuformed plastic.

2) The vacuformed Blastscapes DO have a damage-inclined area--the high point of one piece strains the bag's ability to protect it in shipping because it is such a prominence, and if it gets crumpled it--like all vacuformed plastic--will deform, stress and break. This is the prominence in one of the earliest online reviews which reportedly punctured; I can confirm mine is broken, too...but should also note that it is only that peak of that one piece that has demonstrated damage in the bag I purchased, or any others I have examined.

3) Those criticisms being acknowledged as valid--I find the quality of the five vacuformed Blastscape pieces is quite good *given the medium*, easily on par with the Moonscape Craters bag (which have seen fine service in MegaBattles and tournaments at several local retailers, now, without any ill effect). If the pre-release pictures used on the website and in the Dwarf (and, probably worst, on the Blastscape packaging itself) did not exist and had not raised false expectations, I do not believe there would be many complaints about these pieces' tabletop utility at all; and

4) The set of five retails for less than twenty bucks US. That is what vacuforming allows. These pieces rendered in more detail in resin would cost at least that APIECE, I estimate. Done in vacuform, a player can easily cover even very large tables with these terrain effects.

The Blastscape bag provides: a terrain piece with multiple close craters, representing a crash or perhaps a multiround solid-shell barrage; a piece with multiple asteroids impacted; the much-talked- about orbital strike seared-lance- of-molten- earth piece (which *is* very cool and should be a great deal of fun to paint); a terrain piece with multiple bits of craft wreckage; and the problem piece, a huge piece of impacted wreckage (which has driven up a high wedge of earth, the topmost point of which is suffering the damage in packaging).

I understand the complaints; GW--intentionally or not, and since I suspect the painted pieces used in the battle report, online and on the packaging are the resin masters for the actual vacuformed Blastscape pieces, I am willing to give them benefit of the doubt on intent here--pulled a bait-and-switch with the Planetstrike! Blastscape terrain, advertising a level of precision and detail in the painted resin sculpts the actual vacuformed plastic retail offering could never match. Given I would not have spent a hundred bucks or more on resin Planetstrike! effect terrain pieces, however, regardless of quality--nor I suspect would many hobbyists--and given the inexpensive vacuformed pieces offer customizing/converting possibilities working with solid resin would not...from my position the Blastscape is a hobby product of outstanding value and utility. If GW would like to make it up to us by offering resin castings of those terrain piece masters at a significant discount--as a gesture of good faith--on the other hand....

+++

Imperial Bastion Planetstrike! Terrain Kit: This is a nifty little thirty-buck model: the floors are modular, so combining kits can render very tall towers (great for Titan-cover in Apocalypse) and nice low shielded bunkers and entrenchment strongpoints (especially when combined with the new Aegis Defensive Walls) as well as the standard Bastion (which, it must be said, is the most common way this kit is likely to be configured, and is perfect for standard games of 40K and Planetstrike!, and pretty applicable for Cityfight and Apocalypse games as well).

Each kit includes considerable parts for customization and personalization, as has become GWs norm: of particular interest are the complete quad gun and lascannon turrets and the communications array, useful little subassemblies which will find their way onto lots of other terrain pieces, I suspect.

GW offers a 'Chaos Bastion' which includes Chaos sprues, and 'orkified' versions using all the bitz from the recent Trukk, Battlewagon and especially Stompa kits will be easy to convert, so the kit has plenty of application.

With a number of floor modules added my Bastion is about to become the basis for a control tower overwatching my in-progress airfield table; I suspect the variations on the basic Bastion will be endless, for terrain-oriented hobbyists. I am looking forward to battling for control of some of them on local tables soon!

+++