Re: Slann Necron name change

From: Stephane Montabert <kotrin_at_...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:50:40 -0800 (PST)

I have to disagree with those saying that a name
change is not required. A name change IS required.

Necrons have been around for a number of years now in
W40K universe and can hardly being considered an
oddity - they are here to stay. Sorry, but for once I
don't buy the "a pox on the "suits" of GW!" stance of
Gary.

In their Codex (if I remember correctly) they are
completely unrelated to Slanns - they are followers of
C'tan, which designed them as a cursed gift to
immortality and to wage war on another race which is
more Slann-like than any other. So it's more than odd
to have them in line with Slann armies, as they have
been created to fight them!

Now, I understand that we are all old players with old
armies and that anything is seen as an annoyance (as
old people react...), even a mere name change. But
frankly, the gap between NetEpic and W40K player would
be hard to assume with such a discrepancy. Keeping
things as they stand now would be wrong - it's not
like maintaining OOP races like Squats or expanding on
loose ends like Exodites or Dark Eldars, it's clearly
like designing our own NetEpic universe unrelated to
GW one.

Although I understand and somehow abide to this point
of view, the problem is that it's a big issue on
allowing the release of a true Necron list like GW
did.

Strange to defend GW over some members of the NetEpic
community, but it happens ;)

  Stephane

PS: For me Slanntyrs would fit the bill. What about a poll?

.:: www.stephane.info ::.
"It's better to enlarge the game than to restrict the players." -- Eric Wujcik

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Jan 27 2006 - 12:50:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 11:00:04 UTC