Re: Necrons for NetEpic

From: Gary <gary_clark1946_at_...>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:32:39 -0000

Hi Stephane,

Boy am I embarrsed. I didn't mean to come across so defensive.

It just struck me that you were against the Slann version. I can see
that is not the case. You just want the GW version also. I must
admit preference for the NetEpic one as I never cared for the undead
thing. I do hope tht you will take a look at it though. I think it
would make a good base for what you want.

GW did crate the Epic universe but I stopped taking them as gospel
years ago. To many lies and lack of support for Epic.

Once again my apologies for the way I sounded.

Gary

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "Stephane" <kotrin@...> wrote:
>
> Hy Gary
>
> > Sorry you don't buy it.
>
> Don't take it personnally Gary, I know how much work you (and many
> others) have put in this list :)
>
> I have no problem with people enjoying current Slaan book, where
> Necrons are slaan allies and the like. There's Smurf Army list,
> Undead army list and whatever one may come up with. In this regard
> the Slaan army book certainy holds much more legitimacy than many
> variants created for fun. I've read many messages here on how to
> balance Slaan units and where to find suitable miniatures. That's
> much work from enthusiasts and I know how one can be slightly on
the
> defensive when his/her work is criticized - 'did it more than once!
>
> The thing is that Slaan Army book is not threatened at all.
>
> Now, my stance on Necrons:
> > As far as the current 40K universe.... what if tomorrow the
Smurfs
> > destroy the Necrons? Are you going to buy in to that also? GW
> > changes fluff at their whim. The Squats are dead only at GW.
>
> You are right, GW can change fluff at whim and did it many times.
> Yet, it would be a bit extreme do decree that GW fluff is
worthless
> for that reason. They define the canon, and I think we should to
take
> it into account, albeit not being bound by it. GW has a (slight)
> legitimacy in the shape of the W40K universe, don't you agree? :)
>
> The problem is that current state of Necrons is not reflected in
> NetEpic. They DO exist in W40K settings as a standalone race.
> Although you might believe otherwise, I think they are here to
stay.
> Moreover, there's even an unofficial, but not fan-based, E:A list
for
> them! With the current pool or resources allocated to Epic games
by
> GW, few races can claim a similar attention.
>
> Sure, we are not forced to burn our Squat miniatures, thanks to
> NetEpic. But we aren't bound in the past either, where Necrons
only
> existed as a few background keywords. I don't see it any
> differently than when Tau were released.
>
> Long ago, I started gathering Necron-like miniatures - you know,
the
> famous Chaos Androids from the Chaos sprue. I saw several Epic
Necron
> armies in different forums, very inspiring and characterful. But
they
> were all for E:A game, based on the unofficial Necron army list. I
> wanted to create a pure Necron force for NetEpic, with Pylons,
> Monoliths, the Abbattoir and other goodies, and couldn't.
>
> The point is that there is no full-fledged Necron army list for
> NetEpic. Not everyone want to field them as Slaan allies!
>
> > However, Having said that, NetEpic is not a "closed system" as
GW's
> > 40K. There is always room for other armies... Or variants.
Everyone
> > is always welcome to contribute. If you have seen the Gold Draft
ok
> > but if not... please have a look before you put it down. There
is
> > room in NetEpic for the version you crave also.
>
> Indeed, I plan to create a variant. It might be very different
from
> the current Necron incarnation in Slaan book, because I want them
to
> be as close as possible to their E:A list.
>
> Now, I know I don't have time (let alone skill) to create a Gold
> version of Necron army list. My current goal is just to create a
> Necron army list covering current variety in Necron constructs, as
> they are defined in E:A.
>
> Best regards, Stephane
>
Received on Mon Mar 05 2007 - 22:32:39 UTC