I can't speak for most of your points Apoc, but the Index page numbers are the PDF numbers minus 2. Just add two to get to the right spot.

Is it possible to add bookmarks to the first page of each faction/chapter? Failing this, does anyone know how I can do it myself?

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Yes, does not mean you don't need page numbers though, was just an illustration of where they might help.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Agreed.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Yes, could also make everything on the contents page a clicky link. You can do it yourself, but easier for them to do it and re-export the document as it can be built into the document formatting.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

I think the strength of the compendium is both having everything in one place AND only needing to look at a couple of pages of it at once. Although it adds a lot of duplication, it doesn't negatively harm the compendium and it does give users of the variant lists a much easier time. As for having to edit multiple entries, I would imagine that most units that are shared across multiple lists are relatively stable (tac marines, for example) and would therefore rarely need editing. Besides, updating documents like this is a piece of cake compared to creating them from scratch

As for format, landscape please, from the preference of someone who only ever uses these things electronically - having a whole data sheet with everything I need filling the screen would be awesome. Shouldn't hurt the peeps that print it off either, although I've no experience with tablets to comment.

I wouldn't start splitting the compendium up as we would then come back to the point where multiple information sources are needed to play the game. An accurate index is clearly paramount though.

Ditto Apoc's comment about hyperlinking the text - it's AWESOME!

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

Not getting at you here SG, but just in case other people think this as well. I am not trying to make nothing out of obscure points, LOOK at the document. Print it. The type is far smaller than it needs to be in that space, I'm not saying that it is impossible to read*, I am saying it is harder to read than it could/should be for no valid reason. The bullet points are irregular etc

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

What bugs me is that sometimes you have a page split which splits a unit's stats line. Or you have one page where there is nothing but a single line from a previous page.

Ok now that i have looked for an example it seemso nly occur with the Red Corsairs list.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

my 2c(s)...

* If the 2012 doc is updated (even for a minor typo). Please, please, please put a date-stamp on the front (similar to the EpicUK lists). Otherwise we can end up in a situation where 2 people have seemingly identical 2012 documents with different lists and no way of knowing which is the most recent.

* I think reference sheets should cover an entire race, for the following reasons:

Less chance of errors.
Less work for the editors.
I like having all units in one place to compare them.
It's only marginally less convenient to print what you need.

* I think approved lists should be separate from the other lists. I would go for putting all the non-approved lists in an appendix.

Once again, thanks to everyone who contributed. The compendium is an awesome asset!

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

well, i can say with pretty much certainty that if we change to option 1, i will stop using the compendium altogether. it is a HUGE pain in the ass to jump between pages on the PDF in order to find the correct unit stats
option 2, will make things harder to find the right stats at any given time. it may make things easier on the editors, but the players needs should come first

the current setup is good. it allows people to easily break off any batches of lists they want (if people want a Chaos Compendium, they just chop the PDF into those pages. if they want just the red corsairs list, they can chop it into those pages. even easier if they're printing out)

a seperate "approved only" compendium might be a nice idea, but stripping it out from the main compendium in the process would be a terrible one

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

The two things I would really, really like to change:

1) Bigger type. It's extremely small, and it doesn't have to be - there's plenty of space around it. I'm not even going to try to read this on a Kindle

2) Portrait summaries, not landscape. The vast majority of units fit on one line (or need multiple lines anyway because of weapons) and it is a lot easier to read in portrait format - like when you want to check the notes for a unit, it helps that it is as close as possible to the name so you know you're reading the right notes. I know they were landscape in the original rulebook, but the portrait summaries in the 2010 draft were so superior.

More stuff I like but I recognize as being just what I like and not something that's objectively better:

I would prefer one summary for each race, and then one page for each army list. Again, like the 2010 draft. It allows me to print out the summary for the race, and not have to print another one if I play an alternate list. Also removes a ton of duplication. For some armies (LatD, Siegemasters) separate summaries make sense as there is almost no overlap with other lists of the race, but for most races (orks, necrons, marines, eldar) it's usually about 5 (max!) new units per army list.

edit: It's also a bit silly that the index doesn't match the actual page numbering used in the pdf. Unless you print out the entire thing in one binder, you will never use the actual printed page numbers, so the index is off by two pages 95% of the time. That's just unnecessary.


And finally: Good job Dobbsy! I got some nitpicks, but they're just that, nitpicks. It's *awesome* to finally have a NetEA complete book!

I also think two documents is a good idea. One like the current with all list and then one version with only the approved lists.



I also liked the layout of the 2010 draft documents better, but that's just personal preference.

cheers

Gotta say I agree with this.
Functionality for the end user (us players) has to be the most important thing. The current layout does mean just printing out the relevant pages and not having to trawl through a whole load of useless information during a game.

I also do not want to see the army book separated into Approved/In Development/Experimental lists. I think it's enough that the list be clearly labelled at which stage they are at an then let us decide which lists we want to use/extract for tournaments/campaigns etc.
If the type can be made bigger and still keep the relevant information on 1 page then I'm all in favour of that (eyesight ain't what it used to be) but only if this doesn't mean a HUGE amount of work for the developers...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.