IT IS FINISHED

[flybywire-E2C]

All,

The FINAL DRAFT of the 2010 Compendium has just been uploaded in all is glory! It is a total of 170 pages, ten more than was available for printing when we worked on Armada!

It will be available here until Friday, Feb. 25th so everyone can peruse it and look for obvious screw-ups. We are NOT debating rules, ship classes, etc. at this point.

The only changes that will be considered at this point are accidentally deleted rules, misprints, rule and point cost errors (such as discrepancies between profiles and fleet lists), spelling/grammar errors and formatting problems, such as misaligned graphics, etc.

Fluff and ship debates will not be entertained at this point.

There are a few people for whom I am awaiting replies. You know who you are. Those adjustments will be made as long as I get your replies in by Thursday, Feb. 24th.

On Friday morning these files will be handed over to Games Workshop. For obvious reasons, no changes will be made after that point, and this project will come to a close.

If you find something that needs to be corrected, please reply on THIS thread. This is the only thread I will be replying to queries concerning errors on these final drafts. Of course, I will still be perusing over and replying to the other threads as well as time presents itself, but this is the thread I will be paying the closest attention to.

Again, I would like to thank everyone for all your help in making this as good as it could be.

[Vaaish]

All documents:
I think your background layer may be on top of the text, text not inside the background graphic appears bold compared to the rest of the text. Does not affect Marines,

FAQ2010:
p. 20 - "using allies" needs to run up so that it is on the previous page. it's confusing and looks like a header as it is now.

Inquisition:
Ordo Hereticus- The Thread Within on p45. I think this should be a colon not a hyphen. The same goes for the other headers done this way

The grey knights bit on p50 is awkward. It would be good to at least get it somewhere it can use the standard ship header to make it
break out more. Perhaps by shortening the text and removing the admech cruiser image for the Inquisitorial Crusier to allow the BB to fit at the bottom of that page?

Ad Mech:
The background watermark image needs to be dropped in opacity a bit more it's distracting to read text on top of it.

The box on p63-64 is difficult to read. Can you use the bakka style box rather than the beveled stone one you have here? Please remove the drop shadow from the header too, it's inconsistent with the rest of the PDF's.

The Admech fleet on p68 could use the layers with the ships set to multiply to get rid of the halo from knocking them out on the star background.


That's all I have time for now. The rest later.

[lastspartacus]

*Stands up and applauds*

So what will it be after this goes out?

[Vaaish]

Part two:
Rogue Traders:
p73 Wolfpacks- should be Wolfpacks:

p78, 81 The chiseled background on "the cradle" box makes the text hard to read. Can you use the bakka version for it?

p80 The image cuts too close to the text, needs to have a bit of white to keep things from feeling cramped.

Chaos:
p108 Your background texture is repeating oddly in the grey box.

Doom of the Eldar
The watermark is too strong and interferes with the text.

p124 The fade on the image cuts to close to the text and looks odd overlapping the watermark on the page.

Ork Clanz:
p147-49 You have several paragraphs that have only one or two words breaking across columns and pages. If you can pull the one line on page 147 up it should fix all the others.

[flybywire-E2C]

Part two:
Rogue Traders:
p73 Wolfpacks- should be Wolfpacks:

p78, 81 The chiseled background on "the cradle" box makes the text hard to read. Can you use the bakka version for it?

p80 The image cuts too close to the text, needs to have a bit of white to keep things from feeling cramped.

Chaos:
p108 Your background texture is repeating oddly in the grey box.

Doom of the Eldar
The watermark is too strong and interferes with the text.

p124 The fade on the image cuts to close to the text and looks odd overlapping the watermark on the page.

Ork Clanz:
p147-49 You have several paragraphs that have only one or two words breaking across columns and pages. If you can pull the one line on page 147 up it should fix all the others.

Vaaish- great catches all! THANKS!

One note: the picture fade for Doom of the Eldar washing over the Eldar rune is intentional, but not how it interferes with the text. I wil adjust the image slightly and fade the rune a bit more; that should fix the worst of it.

[Don Gusto]

FAQ2010:
p3 Brace for impact:
"However, the special order previously in effect remains so, in that ships that reloaded ordnance are still reloaded, a ship or squadron moving All Ahead Full must continue to do so, etc."
This is still not very clear to me. If a ship was on Lock On does this mean it retains the turning restriction and the ability to re-roll misses?
Could this not be written into something like this:
"Restrictions and mandatory actions of the previous order are retained, benefits are lost." ?

p15 Asteroids:
"Shooting at enemies within 10cm range does not impart a right column shift when inside an asteroid field." should say left instead.

[Valhallan]

faq pg 29, middle column, first paragraph, it says "...If a spore is already rolling against ordnance that requires a 6+ to hit (such as against Eldar), being in contact with blast markers has no additional effect."

this makes no sense, i think something was deleted.


two paragraphs down, clarify the escort drones must be in base contact 'with the hiveship'.


pg29, third column, 1st paragraph.  "in the same manner other ships may effect a boarding action"... did you mean 'initiate a boarding action?


also, the tyranid fleet pdf has a cost listed for hiveship torpedoes, but does not have an entry for how many (...or the other way around). this should be clarified here.

[flybywire-E2C]

FAQ2010:
p3 Brace for impact:
"However, the special order previously in effect remains so, in that ships that reloaded ordnance are still reloaded, a ship or squadron moving All Ahead Full must continue to do so, etc."
This is still not very clear to me. If a ship was on Lock On does this mean it retains the turning restriction and the ability to re-roll misses?
Could this not be written into something like this:
"Restrictions and mandatory actions of the previous order are retained, benefits are lost." ?

p15 Asteroids:
"Shooting at enemies within 10cm range does not impart a right column shift when inside an asteroid field." should say left instead.

The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view. This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.

God catches- we can make this more clear. You too, Valhallan!   

Everyone, we're starting to get a lot of feedback here, which is AWESOME!!! Rather than reply each time, just know that I am reading them all and making fixes as noted. Again, THANKS!!

[Bast]

1.   Craftworld Eldar Fleets> pg 142 > paragraph 5 > First sentence:

"...leadership check and do not need to eb on special
orders to do so."


2.   FAQ> pg 24 > right column > second paragraph > second sentence:

"However, they still count as shooting as[at] defenses when doing so."

3.   Craftworld Eldar Fleets > pg 139 > Paragraph 2-4:

These paragraphs seem to describe the same thing with minor differences; redundant:

ex. Paragraph 2:

The fortresses also allow the craftworld to repel ships in low orbit. During the Eldar player‟s
Shooting phase, the two fortresses each unleash one 45cm pulsar lance against each vessel on
the Low Orbit table, for a total of two per enemy vessel....

ex. Paragraph 4:
The fortresses also allow the craftworld to repel ships in low orbit. During the Eldar player‟s
Shooting phase, the fortresses each unleash one pulsar lance against each vessel on the Low
Orbit table...

Craftworld Eldar Fleets> pg 140 > Special rules

Reference is made to a chart, but there is no actual chart:

"In addition, at the beginning of each defending player‟s turn after the first turn, the defending
player rolls 2D6 against the following table. Unless otherwise stated, special orders called for
by this table are assumed to have automatically passed and must be taken for that turn."

[horizon]

A bit odd. In the FAQ it makes changes to the old Craftworld Eldar document, then these changes are incorporated into the new Craftworld Eldar pdf.

But if GW only accepts the FAQ it is okay, otherwise a redundant text. Right?

[flybywire-E2C]

A bit odd. In the FAQ it makes changes to the old Craftworld Eldar document, then these changes are incorporated into the new Craftworld Eldar pdf.

But if GW only accepts the FAQ it is okay, otherwise a redundant text. Right?

Call me paranoid. The reason why I have the project split into separate documents is so that if GW decides for whatever reason they don't like one or the other, the entire project doesn't get round-filed into the bin. From the outset we were only supposed to work on what is not already on the website. As the Craftworld Eldar rules are already posted, they may very well not take these rules, in which case the FAQ fixes still remain in effect. Best-case, both the FAQ and the Craftworld Eldar rules are accepted, in which case the FAQ is redundant as far as the Craftworld Eldar are concerned, which in and of itself isn't much of a problem.

[flybywire-E2C]

<snip>
The Admech fleet on p68 could use the layers with the ships set to multiply to get rid of the halo from knocking them out on the star background.


That's all I have time for now. The rest later.

I already said I wouldn't be replying to every post so I coud actually focus on the corrections you all are pointing out, but Vaaish, your Photoshop-Fu is strong... THANKS!   

[Vaaish]

Np, glad I could help a little.

[Don Gusto]

The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view.

It could be argued to be beneficial or detrimental but it would be mandatory nonetheless ... oh well

This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.

In that case how about: "What's done is done, the rest is gone!" ?

FAQ2010:
p13 Catastrophic damage:
Fifth paragraph: "The turret value of a hulk is reduced to zero, and turrets have no effect."
Redundant to the first paragraph and also to itself. The following sentence regarding bomber attack runs is important however.

p14 Disengaging:
If a capital ship falls out of a squadron after failing to disengage, can it continue to act normally - as a single capital - in subsequent turns?

p25 Eldar Transports:
These are listed with a weapons battery range of 15cm but in the "Craftworld Eldar Fleets" pdf they have a range of 30cm.

[flybywire-E2C]

The problem with this is that AAF can be looked at as either a benefit or a mandatory requirement, depending on the situation or a player's point of view.

It could be argued to be beneficial or detrimental but it would be mandatory nonetheless ... oh well

This actually came up a long time ago, and Andy C's response to this was rather than put together a laundry list of what was affected by being BFI and what wasn't, simply state BFI completely replaced the previous special order in that if you already took advantage of it then you're good. if not, then it's lost. In any case it's covered in that you can't take special orders in your next turn.

In that case how about: "What's done is done, the rest is gone!" ?

<snip>

The problem with that is we once again run into problems like "Well, I didn’t know I would have to move so far when going AAF so BRACE! Whew! Now that I went BFI halfway through my AAF movement, now I don’t have to move all the way into that asteroid field up ahead.”

No matter how you thread it, some munchkin will rule-lawyer it for his benefit and everyone else’s detriment unless we either make a blanket “everything works now, nothing works next turn,” or we create a laundry list of every instance something works and something doesn’t. Really, while Andy's solution may skirt some of the intent in favor of munchkinism, it is by far the most elegant solution from a range of imperfect choices.

As for the rest of your catches, THANKS! I’m working them in now.