Plushy said:

What exactly could be removed? I was already over my word-count with the armoury, the player characters, the vehicles, starships and the NPCs. I can't eat into the word count of another writer's work (that's not something for me to decide), so the only things I've have been able to remove to make room for something else… are things that are either necessary or desired within my section.

With art, formatting and text, an alternate rank typically takes up two pages - probably about 1500 words. "A few alternate ranks" takes up a considerable amount of space, so it's hardly the easiest thing to 'find room for'.

People loved your work, and want more, I say its a compliment!

Seeten said:

It's not that, it's the recurring comment made on these forums of "oh, just take something out to make room for it".  It's never that simple, and to see that sort of comment pop up again and again, particularly when what one person wants is inevitably going to be different in some way to what someone else wants, and it's impossible to cater perfectly to everybody, gets frustrating.

H.B.M.C. said:

Please stop making excuses for FFG's failings.

signoftheserpent said:

It is not a Dark Eldar codex/splatbook, it iss an adventure featuring Dark Eldar. Big difference between the two. Stop making up arguments and trolling.

It's been said before.  FFG never marketed this book as a DE sourcebook. They said it was an adventure book, featuring the Dark Eldar, with rules for making a Kabalite Warrior.  That's it. Full Stop.  No-1 already said that he wrote more than could fit in the sourcebook part.  It was an adventure book. They cut the non-adventure stuff for the sake of The Adventure.  What's the problem here?

Ferau said:

Actually, I never said that I wrote more than could fit. I haven't actually seen the final book yet, so I don't know for certain what's included and what isn't (and thus can't make any such claims), and it's common practice to leave a few pages 'spare' to account for a little overflow. At the end of things, I was about 1800 words over, though that's partly because the intro I wrote was much shorter than initially planned, while the appendices (the NPCs, player character rules, vehicles, weapons and starships) were somewhat over. The total word-count was just under 30,000 words, which isn't that far beyond what was planned at the start of the project.

@signoftheserpent: As for comparisons between the page count of a wargame codex and those of an RPG sourcebook… the actual rules content of a typical codex is tiny. An average unit entry in the bestiary section of the books takes up about a page, including rules, background and art. An RPG sourcebook covering exactly the same subject matter (as in, literally translating a wargame codex into an RPG book) would arguably be two to three times the size of a codex simply due to a necessarily expanded mass of rules content, before you consider all the things that an RPG can effectively cover which are not fitting subject matter for a wargame supplement, and larger still if you want utterly exhaustive rules for making all of those different factions and groups to be usable as player characters.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

What could have been cut? Um… the Adventure?

Seriously, far more people will be buying this for the DE rules than to play the Adventure. Had the identical page count been devoted to detailed rules for playing a variety of DE, and the book been marketed as compatible with all WH40KRP lines, and the Adventure been reduced to a detailed synopsys as an one example of how to use DE, I have no doubt that it would sell extremely well.

I will admit that it can come across as trolling to judge a book by what you want it to be rather than what it is, but, seriously, is that observation not obvious to everyone?

I don't have the book yet, seeing as I usually wait for the French edition to buy something (we are stuck just before edge of the abyss… that has been announced for November 2011…).

The further I see this post develop, the more I feel ill. I personally find the concept great: An adventure, of which there has been only one of decent quality until now (lure of the expanse) combined with a new play style… I don't see how this could be better. What the FU*** do I care for alternate ranks? If I would want play 18 different types of DE, I'd play warhammer 40k. So what, I only get one type of Dark Eldar?? Poor me, now I have to restrict myself to only one completely different play style, instead of one completely different play style, and a few different ways to play it. I don't look at what I don't get (I don't care for Eldar, Demiurg, squat, hrud, tau, necron…), I only look at what I get which, in this case, is a whole new adventure, and a new interesting PC. As far as I am concerned, anything in the DE codex is restricted to dark eldar raids, and anything I get in the rogue trader line concerns those few exceptions that would ally themselves with a Rogue Trader. Works for me.

On another note, I only buy rogue trader books. I am a rogue trader GM, not a 40k GM. I don't care for Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, Dark crusade and Only War. If I have to buy a Dark Heresy book, just to use a single npc character and 2 weapons, I have thrown away between 40 and 60 €, for a book whose lore, does not interest me, whose rules, do not interest me and whose scenario do not interest me. So any time I hear someone complain about things that get reprinted between different games: what do I care? In my line, I have yet to find something that has been printed in two books, and as far as I am concerned, any of the other lines does not exist.

So to come to a conclusion: Your work looks great N0-1_H3r3 , and I can't wait to get my hands on it. Keep up the good work.
 

How is the field on Ghostplate armour supposed to work? It seems to use a weird field rule for no benefit other than to make it have a special rule.

AFAICT, it has a PR 20 and fails on doubles, but it seems to imply that it also blocks the attack on any roll of doubles even if greater than 20 (so it stops attacks on 01-20, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, and 00, but fails on any double after stopping the attack). What's the point? If so, then it's pretty much the same protection as giving it PR 30 with an Overload 01-10 (which could be adjusted by craftsmanship of the armour) and that would be much easier since it follows the established field rules. OTOH, if it just fails on doubles greater than 20 without stopping the attack, then it really sucks - it would hardly be an example of superior eldar technology since it's way worse than a basic refractor field, and it's funky rules leave no option to have craftsmanship improve it.

Adeptus-B said:

Again, not my decision to make. That wasn't my work (I don't write adventures). Plus, the book itself was intended as an adventure with extra material on top, all focussed around a central theme, so cutting the adventure would be akin to cutting the background from a background book.

HappyDaze said:

Not sure - the "fails on doubles" bit was added after I handed my manuscript in, and I haven't seen the final version of the book yet.

So, back on topic, ARE there NPC Mandrakes and Haemonculi in the book?  I'm specifically looking for Mandrakes.

Adeptus-B said:

Or…. not. The Dark Eldar aren't exactly the most popular army in 40k and I have to say I think the market for such a DE focused book would be pretty small. I think selling it as an adventure with some DE PC rules was a smart move - they guarantee to get just about every DE fan playing 40k RPGs regardless + customers looking for a new RT adventure.

Ferau said:

There is a named Homonculus in the book, but I don't recall seeing Mandrakes. I am away from book at the moment and will check later.