Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Necrons for NetEpic

From: Peter Ramos <netepic_at_...>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:30:40 -0400

Hi!

Like I said before, it is perhaps high time to just make a name change
for slann necrons and make a list for the "regular" necrons.

Opinions?

Peter


Gary wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Stephane" <kotrin_at_...> 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 Tue Mar 06 2007 - 01:30:40 UTC