Re: [NetEpic ML] IG/TG/SoB and all things Imperial

From: Joshua W Raup <deaconblue3_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:45:29 -0400

Hi Joshua!

-->Hello again!


Well, everything I posted was based on Titan Legions, Codex Titanicus.
pages 11-16. As well as an issue of White Dwarf, when the Knights were
first described.

--->The TL codexes were partial rewrites to justify the new units and
models from GW. Some of it worked, some of it didn't. Some of it
contradicted the previous stuff, and some of it didn't. It's a problem
I've had with GW for years. And I believe the Knights were first
described elsewhere (A WD?), before TL came out, and they changed bewteen
the first appearance, and the TL codexes. I remember things as Jyrki
stated, with the Knight worlds being more independent than an actual part
of the AM structure.


While I understand your desire to simplify the IG and TG, I can't agree.
I believe that Titan Legions supports me.

--->Revisionist fluff. Bah! Almost as bad as revisionist historians.
Ok, this is a personality quirk of mine. I fully admit it. I like
consistency in the back story to my game universes. It's one of the
reasons why I've become so disgusted with GW, and its constant rewrites
of teh back story. Welcome to the kinder, gentler 40K, sanitized for
your protection. 8) The TL stuff was a bit screwy to me, and tried to
rework too much to justify itself. As I said, some parts worked, others
didn't.


If you have a copy, please read it. I sure don't understand how you can
support your argrument, based on what is written in those pages.

-->It very well may. Unfortunately, my copies "walked" a while ago, and
the sumbitch that has them, won't give em back. So, there's a gap in my
collection, and I can't reference things from that. Any one have
a...*ahem*...scan of those pages? Of course not...that would violate GW
policy.....8)


What does everyone else think?

-->Even with the TL stuff, I still maintain the same position. I think
that it would be more "in tune" with Imperial doctrine, to have them
combined. Some units would remain, such as the Titan Defense Company,
but others would just be part of the list. There should be a good mix
between the "regular" IG list and any AM/TG list in any force from such a
list. Restrictions on some of the units should be in place, but this can
be done in a single, unified list. the more we get into this, I am
bevoming more convinced that we need to get together on the same page for
the "official NetEpic fluff." I think this shows the nature of the
problem. We have AT-SM1 vs SM2 vs TL vs E40K, and parts of all of them
don't mesh together. How about an "official 'history' of the NetEpic
universe" so we can reconcile these differences?


Warprat ;)

Josh R
Minister for General Mayhem
"Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 18:45:29 UTC