This is a couple of months in the making. What is it? In a nutshell it's pretty much what Markconz and Hojyn have done in the past with their handbooks, but updated to 2012 and includes only those lists stamped as "NetEA Approved". The idea here is that it can be used by people running/playing in NetEA tournaments as it's an all inclusive document. Other EA groups will hopefully find the rules and FAQ sections useful too.

NetEA Tournament Pack 2012 - 2012/05/31

Basically I went back to the old PDFs, copied them over word for word, applied all the errata (the PDFs on GW's site are missing some and have new typos, so using the old files avoided all that), added the updated FAQs as footnotes to the appropriate sections and added the NetEA Approved army lists from the Army Compendium.

I also tried to incorporate everyone's suggestions on the Army Compendium into this (as we can use the templates for the 2013 compendium). Basically that translates into bigger fonts, bookmarks, an auto-generated table of contents, more space, dotted i's, crossed t's, etc.

What do I need from you guys?

Proof it. Proof the lists and stats (but defer to the AC's judgement), and proof the FAQs (but defer to Neal's judgement). Each of the AC's has seen their faction's stats and lists, and others have pre-proofed it as well, but I'm sure there's still errors in there.

Don't proof the rules. I don't want to get into correcting GW's langauage/changing intent/etc. The rules stay as is.

The plan is to give you guys all of June to proof it, then come July it'll be updated and frozen (along with the updated Army Compendium) until January of next year.

A Note on Printing

The page is the width of an A4 sheet and the height of a US letter (essentially the shortest measurements from both types of paper). I did this so you can print it as close to 100% on either of those two types of paper without having to worry about scaling and it looking like crap. Of course you can always print it at 100% on either, but seeing as that's an extra step I thought people would prefer the ability to be lazy and not worry about it.

Also, if you're thinking about printing this out I'd hold off until July after some typos/errors have been worked out.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I'd like to say that this is a brilliant, worthy, and magnificent exercise.

Page 2:
I think it's worth mentioning that it's actually the semi-official successor.

Errata is a plural, IIRC, and so it should be "some errata are missing".

Page 3:
The page numbers in the table of contents seem to accord with the numbers of the PDF, not the page numbers. And sometimes are flat out wrong: the Support Craft rule (among others) is on page 33 or page 39, but is certainly not page 37.

Several ofs are capitalized where they should not be (1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.7.3)
Self-planetfall should probably be a hyphenated word.

On page 4:
Regarding the various "Forces" sections: I'd group everything by its larger "species" and have any unique units in their own subsection within that. The White Scars having an entire page for their bike unit is just wasteful (I can provide an example of what I mean, if you like). Or at least put them in order by "species", rather than the current rather chaotic arrangement.

The army lists would also make more sense if ordered by race rather than...date of production?

5.4.1 is not appropriately indented.

I think the Steel Legion, Ghazgull's Orks and the Feral Orks could all have their titles easily shortened, which would reduce the ToC by an entire page (Steel Legion Imperial Guard, Ghazghkull Thraka's Ork War Horde and Snagga Snagga's Feral Ork Horde).

Should it be the Stigmatus Coven? A covenant is an agreement...


It may fall into "fixing GW's crappy language", but making the titles consistent in the use of the plural would be nice (dangerous terrain tests v dangerous terrain test, for example).

There are a number of blank pages scattered throughout. I don't think they're really necessary (I could be wrong).

Page 7:
I know you said "no wording", but "move and fire on each other" means that the units are actually moving on top of each other, whereas "move, fire on each other" wouldn't. And it's on the first page...

1.1.2 has a "Stands" in the first line that probably isn't supposed to be there.

I think "Each datasheet provides the following information:" should have a period, not a colon. Nesting colons is mean and naughty, as I understand it.

The FAQ notation at the bottom should mention cases like the SM Dreadnought, where it is a choice at the beginning of the game.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Looks good Dave. I'll start having a read. Is this a Word file? If you want I can try to lay it out in InDesign

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

It's an OO.org writer document. I'd like to keep it in that format as it'll ensure that people can edit it down the road. I'm sure it'll be prettier in real layout software (thanks for the offer) but I want to avoid duplicating work down the road (say if someone doesn't have app X to edit it, and has to move it into app Y).

The ToC is the one area that really pisses me off though. I insert it, OO re-paginates, some things can't be seen unless I delete them and CTRL-Z, and obviously the page numbers can be wrong. Weird stuff. Sometimes it gets it right though, it's just really buggy. I'll make sure the "final" has a correct ToC, even if I have to do it by hand (sigh).

I went with this order for the forces/lists to ensure the numbers synced up with the rulebook and FAQ.

On the blank pages, they're in there to ensure sections start on the right-hand side, or that army lists/datasheets are on a single sheet, front and back (there's a few methods to my madness). View the PDF in side-by-side to see what I mean.

Keep the typos coming.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Re: order of forces - perhaps move the order of the FAQ around, too, then? It really is confusing.

Page 10:
The "3" for footnote #3 would look a lot more natural if it was inside the box. Perhaps on the title of the box? Of course, OO may not let you do this.

Page 12:
"May if you wish try" should be "May, if you wish, try"

The action test table is in the footnote. I don't think it's supposed to be.

In the example of play, "any enemy" should be "any enemies".

Page 13:
The plural of cm is usually cm. There are 208 examples of cm in the document and only 48 of cms. I'd suggest switching the cms to cm (right now it's not even consistent on a particular page, or even within particular sentences).

Page 14:
Same comment as at page 10 - footnote more natural in box somewhere.

Why are the italic numerals sans-serif but the rest of the font isn't? This appears elsewhere, and it confuses the hell out of me.

Page 15:
Might be worth including the FAQ around whether units that are obscured by terrain get a -1 penalty when shooting out of it. People seem confused on the point at times. Same deal with cover saves.

The images' captions are switched.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Brilliant idea Dave!
Definitely a good idea to be able to edit it down the track (add army lists if/when required).

I found the layout of the army lists a little confusing. I'd prefer it is they were grouped together (ie, all Marine lists together, all Guard lists together etc). Just easier to find stuff quickly.

Are all the FAQ's up to date?

_________________
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.

Neal's latest additions aren't in there (they should be by July though), but the entire master FAQ forum thread is.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Good stuff mate.

_________________
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.

Good point. Email me a copy and let me see if I can do anything to it, Including looking into that TOC issue

Just a quick comment.

If this is a Tournament pack, do the rules need the training scenarios?

I would like to reiterate that this is an awesome and impressive effort, and my continued nitpicking and complaining should not diminish that. Seriously. This is amazing, and I am very, very, very impressed. Very. Seriously. This may be the best thing to come out of NetEA ever.

Page 16:
Once again, the footnote'd be better applied to the title of the box.

Page 17:
"Be in range and" should probably be "Be in range of and"

In FN#12, "Terrain blocks the LOF, units don’t" is kind of unhelpful immediately after something saying war engines block LOF. In fact, that entire FAQ just seems misleading. I think it needs a rewrite.

In the same footnote, the specific FAQ dealing with units with Small Arms and suppression is redundant with the one immediately before it.

The final FAQ note should probably have "no enemy from the target formation" instead of just "no enemy". Then again, it effectively doesn't matter.

Page 18:
Step-by-step should have hyphens, not en-dashes.

Step IV of the shooting process has been accidentally merged with Step III.

FN#13: For some reason, BM now seems hilarious. BM. Hehehe. Speaking of, its capitalization is inconsistent.

"Get a BM" should probably be "Place a BM" for clarity.

"for causing them" should probably be "by causing them".

The final FAQ in this note is confusing because it implies you COULD fire at something if it was out of range. You can't. It doesn't clear up an ambiguity - it asks if you can do something you explicitly and obviously can't do in the rules. I found it actively confusing. I'd strongly recommend removing it. Seriously.

FN#14: the second FAQ should be "What about splitting" instead of "Is the answer about splitting". And add a question mark at the end of the sentence.

The third FAQ asks a question that's in the main rules on the exact same page. I'd recommend removing it (if the answer is "it's in the main FAQ, I'd recommend taking it out of THAT, too).

In the fourth FAQ, 'Three' should not be capitalized. "Marines saves" should be "Marines' saves".

Page 19:
In the Special Rule box, "to hit" should be "to-hit". This may be an issue elsewhere, as well. Consistency, and all that.

FN#14: First FAQ should say "has a mixture", not "have a mixture". It also might be better entirely rephrased as: "Can a formation with a mixture of AP and AT shots destroy transports with the AT shots and then shoot the infantry that was inside those transports with the AP shots?"

Since the experimental hit allocation rules wouldn't be included in this document (I assume), perhaps that reference should be eliminated from the first FAQ answer?

In the second FAQ answer, I think "stack" or "are cumulative" would be clearer than "apply".

I'd recommend amending the fourth FAQ to read: "One unit that has a line of fire and is within range may not shoot for each Blast marker on the formation.", since that's what the rule actually reads now. Also, what the hell is this question doing here?

The fifth FAQ answer should read "If the formation consisted of 4 infantry and 4 LVs" instead of "If the formation consisted of 4 infantry instead of 4 tanks". Clarity and all that. It would also be good if we could be consistent about the use of numerals vs. words for numbers, but that may be asking a bit much.

In the sixth answer, Rhinos is not capitalized twice and Marines is not capitalized once. It also might fit decently in the previous section.

Page 20:

Marker is not capitalized in the first paragraph and again in the last paragraph. If Blast markers shouldn't be capitalized, then the FAQ answers are incorrect to be doing so.

Should macro-weapon be capitalized?

"Note: With" should be "note: with" or should be a sentence in its own right.

In the example of play, the 'R' in Rhinos is not italicized. It also might be good to explicitly mention that the Ork Boyz's armour save is 6+.

Page 21:
The first line would read a lot better as "...some other weapons fire a barrage of shots inflicting mass destruction on the enemy." "Causing" seems to be grammatically incorrect here, though I can't quite articulate why.

In the second paragraph, it should be "are added together". I think.

Barrage points should be capitalized in the second-last sentence.

If the FAQ is supposed to apply, I'd strongly recommend removing the "no placement restrictions apply" bit in the main rules text. It only causes confusion as is, IMO.

Note 16: once again, prettier inside the box.

The fourth FAQ is missing the quotation marks around the rules quote and its final question mark.

Page 22:

The second FAQ has "an" instead of "and".

In the final FAQ answer, Drop Pod and Deathwind should be capitalized.

Page 23:

First FAQ answer: formation shouldn't be capitalized.

Fifth FAQ answer: page number almost certainly doesn't match, and should be removed.

Sixth FAQ: overwatch is capitalized and shouldn't be. Who's should be whoever's.

Seventh FAQ: Missing a space after the question mark.

Unload should be unloads. Three times.

First paragraph of the second column: it'd be a lot clearer if it read "shoot at a formation that is" instead of just "shoot at a formation".

Page 24:

Bolding and italics are both being used for emphasis. Might be best to pick one. If not for the whole document, at least for this page.

Page 25:

The comma after "end of the assault" should be removed.

Same deal with inconsistent use of italics and bolding.

Can pgs 18-20 not be condensed into two? Especially if the extraneous FAQs are removed?

I will mention again how ridiculously awesome and impressive this is.

I think taking the training scenarios out'd leave a big ol' gap in the numbering.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Page 26:

The capitalization in the FAQ is really inconsistent with that in the rules text.

FN#21: The second FAQ question asks something that is explicitly explained in the rules text.

FN#22: The first question asks something that is explicitly explained in the rules text. The second question, fourth and fifth questions should be combined, since they're the same thing.

Page 27:
The table's down in the footnotes again.

Page 28:
Step 4 should be Step IV. It would be good, IMO, if the FAQs were on the pages where the relevant rules text was - for example, the FAQ from p. 27 about what to do when an assault stalls out fits better here.

Oh, and now we're using caps for emphasis as well.

FN#25: third FAQ - should be scores, not score. And 1.12.7, not 1.12.8. Panic-stricken, not panic striken.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Great to see bookmarks.

Unit data tables are a significant improvement over the compendium 8pt Garamond without negative tracking vs 5.5 at -40 is a world of difference.

*insert my normal comments about en and em dashes, hyphens, multiplication signs (some of these are errors on GW's part in the original)*
Generally doc seems to be using en dashes for everything now, even things that should be hyphenated (eg, step–by–step, these need to be hyphens -) and then some rogue em dashes are popping up.

Also some general spacing things, eg. headings currently having equal space above and below them in what looks like your 2nd level headers, tightening up table spacing in places like 7+ to hit etc.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Also, 'cms' and 'cm'. GW mucked this up to start with, even using both inconsistently in the same paragraph in places. If you could find and replace that silliness that'd be great

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

What's the semi-official successor to what?

Errata is a plural, IIRC, and so it should be "some errata are missing".





The rule, or the FAQ? Everything looks right to me.



Up to the AC's. I pushed a bit on some names but it's their call on their list.



Right, they are Stigmatus Covenant Covens. Apparently someone made an agreement with Stigmatus and they decided to organize their rabble as covens.



Put forward the edits on the FAQs and we'll see what Neal thinks, I'm not touching the rules though.



Right on both of them, but I'm still not touching the rules.



I've got a FAQ suggestion for Neal on this for section 5.0.



Got specific section numbers?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17