Hi!
No worries, your efforts will not be in vain. But it will be an optional
list until it is tested enough to become core. Its no doubt a long
process, but a necessary one.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: AntiChrist [mailto:seimejote_at_...]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:45 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Re: Thoughts on Chaos
--- In netepic_at_y..., deaconblue3_at_j... wrote:
> -->If teh background permits it, then it can be. As I said before,
> Heresy era battles would certainly permit this, and would even be
> encouraged. Then again, they wouldn't be Beserkers either (except
for
> the veteran company). I'm saying that at the most advanced point
of the
> time line (M41), it would be outside of "normality" for that to
happen.
> By M41, the old traitor legions are so fractured that they retain
little
> or no aspects of their former structures. even their armor colors
have
> changed, and they usually retain only one or two bits from the
Heresy era
> armors. The World Eaters have killed off all their librarians and
> chaplains, for example, so the old structure simply can't be.
Actually Abaddon is preparing another Black Crusade, so is not
unlikely that some major organized raids of Chaos Space Marines
Legions take place...
>
> Yep, that's your opinion... mine is different. The history of 40k
is
> simply evolved, new races are born and some things changed. Comes
to
> my mind that according to your ideas, I cannot field TAU or C'tan
> armies either (I agree with you that they squeezed them into the
> background only to sell the pieces, but they are still there and I
> should have the possibility to play with them too).
>
> -->Yes it is my opinion, and that of others as well. 40K did not
evolve.
> The changes were often made, not "naturally" but arbitrarily to
> accomodate new figs, not because they advanced the story, or
enhanced the
> setting. The destruction of the Squats was one such move, made not
> because of the setting, but despite it. You are aware of why the
Squats
> were eliminated aren't you? I don't like the Tau. I think they're
> mishandled, and are more of a pentagon in a rhombus hole. There
> shouldn't be a C'Tan army either IMO. the C'Tan are dead, dead,
dead.
> They make the Slaan look lively and active, and they're so
degenerate and
> slumping as to be more myth than fact. Lastly, using your own
argument,
> if we don't have to accept the older fluff, we don't have to accept
the
> new stuff either.
The story HAS advanced, you (and me) like it or not. The TAU are
here, the C'tan are awaken, awaken, awaken. The Necron aren't
creations of the Slann but their enemies.
I don't say "old fluff should be ignored in favour of the new one",
I'm simply saying "I should have the possibility to try new armies of
the actual setting, and there should be an army list that permits me
to do so", and you're answering "You cannot field an army
uncompatible with the 40k setting I like most".
...at least is what I argue from your posts...
Remember that there are people who like the actual setting too,
saying "the real 40k stopped at the v2, the latter is only a
commercial move" it's just a bit upsetting.
Beside this, I'm one of the two people that have to co-ordinate the
creation of the TAU list, should this now be treated as
an "unofficial NetEpic list"? Just to be sure the efforts I'm putting
in this game are well placed...
Emiliano
>
> Josh R
>
> "No matter where you go, there you are." B.Bonzai
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Sun Nov 24 2002 - 13:42:47 UTC