Januar 17th? Hey it's my birhtday! Thanks in advance for your present
On a quick glance it looks very good
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=11927 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
Please take some time to review the documents we link to. These are NOT the final supplement downloads but they are pretty darn close. I understand that we are almost 5 months behind our original deadline but we're doing our best to get everything wrapped up. Almost everything is done - we're just formatting and it is a monster job. Latest Dark Eldar List (Official 1.5 version) is here. Warning! Big file. The list should be free of formatting, spelling, grammatical, and other errors. If it is not please nitpick and post here any problems that you see. (Ex. I already see the white box underneath the special rules - it will be fixed in Raiders). There are many changes to 1.5 from the draft posted earlier in December. This version is very close to how it will appear in Epic: Raiders, save for small things like the page numbers, reference numbers, etc. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
Januar 17th? Hey it's my birhtday! Thanks in advance for your present On a quick glance it looks very good
|
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
I should point out that Chroma was the man behind the new look. I literally couldn't have done it without him. He helped put the army list in a format that IMO is easier to understand and easier on the eyes. |
|
| Author: | ragnarok [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
Typos. Talos has a ssault weapon, missing the first A, and has an armour save of +. perditor stat line is off set by a taabs worth of indent or so. Vessel of pain discriptive text. Second paragraph second sentance. says pain vessel, should it be vessel of pain? barrage of pleasue, vessel of pain, tormentor titan and Kashnarak beast firefight ofset to the right by one indent kashnarak beast and raven fighter first weapons profile except name ofset to the right by one indent That is all I could find. I haven't read the fluff yet, but it looks like a very nice list. Weldone. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
My own catch: In army list transport section it should read "may choose from the following list." ------ Hena, The transport rule says you should have "no extra spaces if possible". There are situations when you can have an open transport spot, however. Ex. A Wych formation of 4 units with a Slavebringer Assault boat. You would have 4 extra slots with no way to fill them. Because of this it needs to read the way it does. Free Planetfall. Neal made mention that it will most likely be in the next set of rules and I'm going on faith that it will be there. I may kick myself in the butt for it later (along with Support Craft for that matter) but.... Everything else - great points. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Continue to nitpick away. I'd rather deal with it now than later. FYI I am re-doing many of the pics, including the Tormentor and the Executor. Most likely I'll be putting Charad's models in there and cleaning up all the images so they look like the Grotesque, Mandrake, and Incubi datafax pictures. Removing the background from the datafax images will put the focus squarely on the models themselves. |
|
| Author: | Charad [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
-Few stats are of line -scourges can have reavers but not scourges? - no slavebringer to talos? -were are special rules? -webway portal in text is shifted to wraithgate I'll check list more carefully tomorrow. |
|
| Author: | tarrisvaal [ Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
First thing that comes to mind is that the No garrison special rule should be with the rest of the special rules near the front (or the other way around possibly )As noted before the Talos entry has armour '+' and scourges have no small arms weapons and cant have extra scourges in the army list (only reavers) Pain Vessels managed to cut through stone and metal Alter to Vessels of Pain or simply Vessels? Sounds wrong somehow (sorry, nitpicking  )Unable to create it and with few opportunities to steal it, this psychic material became such a rare commodity to the Dark Eldar that they would do almost anything to obtain it... I really, Really, Love this idea. It gives them an excellent reason for war besides slaves, in fact I really like the entire background piece. The Army list includes a 'Raider' upgrade but this is both unnecessary (as all transportable units say they have them anyway) and isnt an option for any of the units on the list. I'm working on putting up a pic heavy Raider WIP on the blog now. Should be up soon. I really want to convert up an Asdrubael Vect Ravager now... |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
No apologies are needed. ?I WANT nitpicking. ?Anyone who doesn't like criticism shouldn't make an army list. Unable to create it and with few opportunities to steal it, this psychic material became such a rare commodity to the Dark Eldar that they would do almost anything to obtain it... I really, Really, Love this idea. It gives them an excellent reason for war besides slaves, in fact I really like the entire background piece. Wait till you read the story. ?Not to give anything away, but this is the catalyst for the fiction. |
|
| Author: | tarrisvaal [ Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
Looking forward to it Sent you some pics and theres a new Batrep up
|
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
(tarrisvaal @ Jan. 03 2008,21:45) QUOTE First thing that comes to mind is that the No garrison special rule should be with the rest of the special rules near the front (or the other way around possibly )Actually, since "garrisoning" is a Tournament Scenario special rule (that is also used in some other scenarios), the "No garrisons" special rule is supposed to go with the army list, the Biel-Tan Eldar list does the exact same thing. In non-Tournament scenarios, Dark Eldar *could* garrison, if the scenario allowed it. |
|
| Author: | el_concombre [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
hello Slavebringer have no CC nor FF value, is it normal? |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
No, it is a typo. ?It is fixed in the final draft. ?Thanks for keeping an eye out for these things though and feel free to post more questions or concerns. ?Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest through the trees. EDIT: To actually answer your question... CC 6+ and FF 5+. I'm going to go get some coffee now.  |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [Dark Eldar] Raiders pdf DRAFTs |
Top of the thread has the most updated Dark Eldar version. The official 1.5 differs considerably from the draft posted earlier, but that is what drafts are for. Feel free to make comments on the document itself here. If there are any issues with the Dark Eldar list, let's bring it to a different thread. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|