Greetings from the NetERC!

Here comes the bad boys (and girls!) of the Dark Eldar.

I believe Moscovian has a few changes/updates planned, but I don't currently have that information.  Once those changes are revealed, they'll go into the docoument.

Again, please give it a once over for errors and/or omission.

This document contains a singe army list:

Kabal of Pain's Way Dark Eldar

Take a look!

NetEA Army Book - DRAFT - Dark Eldar

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Wow, no Dark Eldar players I take it...  

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I'd like to, I really would!

But I still don't feel my skills are adequate for DE yet

Okay, DE stuff...

I have no idea what version it is anymore.  I'd call it Raiders v1.02.

Wyches need a FF 6+, not 5+.

Darkgates is a cute touch, but I think it is going to generate questions... "Is a darkgate the same as a wraithgate?" I'd like to keep it as a wraithgate for consistency sake, or a note in an errata section indicating that the name was changed from wraithgate.

A kabal syndicate is 6 DE warriors, not 4.

Needs a space between '0-1' and 'Dracon' in the upgrade section.

Wyches, Hellions, and Reavers are supposed to be changed from +125 to +100.  

Additional Raven is being changed to +100.

Support Craft: While not part of the DE rules, I will grudgingly move this to match the rules for the Tau.  That means that I will have the Executor count as always popped up.  If the Tau have this as part of their Manta notes, the Executor will need the same notation.  If the support craft rules are going to be carried in the Compendium as a special rule, then this notation will obviously just be left alone.

Free planetfall: this should remain as long as the NetEA are going to keep it as a special rule.

Just let me know so I can change it on the Raiders update to be consistent.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Only ever played against them, but it at least proves there are DA players out there

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

The problem I found was that it wasn't consistent through Raiders; in some places it's a "Webway Portal" and in other places a "Wraithgate".

From the Craftworld Eldar rules, "Webway Portal" is the generic "portal" rule for their use, while a "Wraithgate" is a specific type of Webway Portal, the smallest and most limited kind.  I feel your naming conventions should mirror that if at all possible.

I put in "darkgate" just to remind me of that.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Go with Wraithgate or Webway rather than inventing a new term IMO, the Dark Eldar share the same network as other Eldar backgroundwise.

Again, the term "Darkgate" wasn't inserted as a new term, but to draw attention that there was an inconsistency.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

It isn't consistent in Swordwind either.  

Hey, I don't really mind.  I just want it mentioned that a Darkgate is a Wraithgate equivalent in the errata if you so choose to make the change.  It really isn't a big deal and the name does have some moderate appeal.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

not sure if this is the right place to ask or not, but do shadowfields work in FF or CC, or are they just against shooting?

They work in FF but not in CC. That should be explicitly stated in the rule - if it isn't I'll make sure it is changed for R2.

thanks mosc

Just re-read the rule and it is there. The bit that was causing Dave and I confusion was the "This has no effect on engagements, however, either in FF or CC". We took it that that bit was referring to the -1 to hit, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify that. Just adding "-1 to hit modifier" between "This" and "has no effect.." would work. It's something my PhD supervisor always used to smack me over the head with; if you use "this" you need to state what "this" refers to

But then I'm a pedant, so feel free to ignore that

Well this and that are neither here nor there, they usually say about those, that is.

I'll fix it.

very good, I see what you did there