-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Canapicchi <canapi_at_...>
To: netepic_at_egroups.com <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Date: 10 May 1999 08:03
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Leviathan
>
>Daniel Wiebell wrote:
>> I always assumed that Space Marines didn't want to lug huge pieces of
>> exceptionally slow machinery around, hence their lack of super heavies
and
>> praetorians. It goes totally against the grain of swift strike force by
>> having an enormous beast like the Leviathan crawling along slowing
everyone
>> down.
>>
Actually though a SM Praetorian would be an interesting idea. A sort of
"not really a Titan" type of thing so they could claim they weren't breaking
the Imperial rules about dividing the functions of the Navy/Army/Titan
Legion whereas they were "really."
Only question is what sort of thing would they consider fielding - a sort of
Super-Dreadnought, I guess. Smaller than a Warhound and bigger than a
Knight.
Ral Partha might have some suitable models . . .
A#
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home:
http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From "eGroups.com Poll Results" <tzeentch666_at_...>
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-netepic_at_egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact netepic-owner_at_egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: netepic_at_egroups.com
X-URL:
http://www.egroups.com/list/netepic/
Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-netepic_at_egroups.com
Received: (qmail 4916 invoked by uid 7770); 15 May 1999 00:10:15 -0000
Received: from mu.egroups.com (207.138.41.151)
by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 May 1999 00:10:15 -0000
Received: from [10.1.2.6] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 May 1999 01:10:15 -0000
From: "eGroups.com Poll Results" <tzeentch666_at_...>
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Voting Results: Should NetEpic 4.0 Abstract More Units?
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here are the results of the vote:
1. Yes, abstract as much as possible 1
2. Yes, but not to the extent of E40K 4
-----
See the results at
http://www.egroups.com/vote?vid=netepic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home:
http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From "eGroups.com Poll Results" <tzeentch666_at_...>
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-netepic_at_egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact netepic-owner_at_egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: netepic_at_egroups.com
X-URL:
http://www.egroups.com/list/netepic/
Reply-To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-netepic_at_egroups.com
Received: (qmail 5201 invoked by uid 7770); 15 May 1999 00:10:52 -0000
Received: from mu.egroups.com (207.138.41.151)
by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 May 1999 00:10:52 -0000
Received: from [10.1.2.6] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 May 1999 01:10:51 -0000
From: "eGroups.com Poll Results" <tzeentch666_at_...>
To: netepic_at_egroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Voting Results: Should NetEpic 4.0 Abstract More Units?
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here are the results of the vote:
1. No, keep the units as they are 1
2. Yes, abstract as much as possible 1
3. Yes, but not to the extent of E40K 2
4. No, in fact we should have more units 3
5. Yes, but only for the really wierd ones (Flamer Marines) 11
-----
See the results at
http://www.egroups.com/vote?vid=netepic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home:
http://www.eGroups.com/group/netepic
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Received on Mon May 10 1999 - 15:26:44 UTC