Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Slann Fluff

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:40:00 -0400

Hi!

>Hi Peter,
>
>thanks for the chance to comment. I am a newbie here at netepic, but
>a long time epic slann player with necron allies using house rules.
>You can imagine my great delight to discover that there was a network
>of people 'out there' with many of the same ideas. As such, although
>I do not object to a stand alone Necron Army list, perhaps quite
>different from the present Slann ally list, I do object to renaming
>and removing the necrons from the Slann list.I have three lines of
>rational for this:
>
First, welcome to net epic. I hope you enjoy your stay with us!

Second, let me clear on this. "necrons" are NOT being removed from the
current slann list. The units which have several years playtesting WILL
remain unchanged. What is to be changed is their "name", so as to
differenciate slann "necrons" from the "bad" necrons. Its just semantics.

Third, the fluff will be altered to adjust to these name changes and
thats where all you input is most useful.

>1. From the earliest days of the necrons, there has always been a
>slight slann look about them. the monoliths resemble the Slann flying
>pyrimid of WD #100, and many of the necron starships have a very
>mayan temple look to them, so much so that I always considered them
>Slann starships crewed by Necrons. As backstory I see the Slann and
>Necrons once being allies, with the issue of the creation of the
>necrons being murky to accept recent GW story line or a more old
>fashion view, and the split being the primary cause of the current
>decline of the slann
>2. The Slann have always been difficult to build armies with because
>they were never well supported by GW, so you don't have
>much 'offical' background to work with. Removing/renaming the necrons
>would remove the one major touchstone Slann players have to the
>modern GW universe and create another non-canon race for which a
>background would have to be created, with no real connection to any
>universe
>3. Epic Slann players are, by their nature, use to 'making do' with
>all manner of ad hoc miniatures to fill out there army, but this
>doen't mean that they would not be delighted to actually be able to
>buy appropriate minatures. I know we'll never see epic slann
>miniatures, but was looking forward to the day that I could buy real
>offical Necrons!
>
I agree. IF you play the current slann army, your into "doing your own
thing" using proxies making conversions, etc. The army doesn't exsist
under any epic version except net epic. So that means we must be quite
resourceful.

>My purpose/hope here is to see the slann as a viable epic army. Part
>of this is from well thought out and tested rules, which netepic
>provides,but part of this comes from th fluff, background and
>presenting an army the future epic players can relate to. I believe
>that Necrons are an important part of that viability. Again I have no
>objection to a stand alone Necron Army, that may be quite different
>from the Slann Allies.
>
>I hope in the near future to post some pictures and house rules on my
>Slann army, it developed for many years apart from netepic so is
>another take on things.
>
I would love for you to post you army list and tell us your philosophy
regarding the choices you made and whatever playtest data you got to share.

You'll find a receptive audience here!

Peter
Received on Mon Feb 23 2004 - 23:40:00 UTC