Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Necrons for NetEpic

From: Peter Ramos <netepic_at_...>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:08:04 -0400

Hi!

I was thinking that perhaps the could all retain the same name, but as
our own fluff, when the slann made their necrons as sentient AI's
perhaps some didnt "want" to be subservient. Some rebelled and our now
out for their own purposes, hating all organic life - thus the "other"
necrons.

How does that sound?

Peter

Gary wrote:
>
> Bob you said it much better than I can.
> I think I am getting grumpy in my old age. ;)
> Gary
>
> --- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Robert McCord" <rdmcii_at_...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Yes to Slann necrons and stand alone (or necro tyr) necrons
> >
> > 2. No to Slandroids!
> >
> > Rational - Actually the same reason for both. Netepic is
> inclusive, it
> > supports old GW fluff and can (and should) reflect current fluff.
> I
> > understand and approve of those wanting 'modern' necrons, hope I
> see
> > them. but for those prefering an older style fluff army, their
> necrons
> > should not be 'demoted' Call them Slann necrons, necro slann or
> similar
> > if you must but don't deny the flavor and instant recognition to
> the
> > name!
> >
> > We should be able to find a way to give everybody their necrons
> and
> > diverge the fluff to give everybody their semi GW background. It
> goes
> > to the heart of the strength of NetEpic, why it is the best epic
> system!
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 07 2007 - 02:08:04 UTC