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

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:26:36 -0500

Hi!


>--->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.

You are very correct. I am aware that newer players may only know the
cirrent background that has been markedly changed in some cases. Knights
were originally described in WD 125 (Or around then) and represented human
worlds cut off from each and they developed a feudal society. Actually human
knights have more in common with eldar exodites than the Imperium.


>--->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.

Again I agree. TL fluff is a remake and sometimes a bad one. I tend to only
follow the original epic fluff as laid out in the original WD articles. Of
course the tech guard is a new addition with no base in the original
background. Even the SOB has origins in the old background they were known
as Adeptus sororitas and they way they look and act seems true to that
background. I can see that the tech guard may have its own unique
organiation, but so does the Space Wolves, Dark angels and such and they
dont have their own book. Why not view the Tech guard as a type of IG
"chapter". They share more in common than differences, so it holds to reason
they should be in the same book.


>-->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)

I have it (then again what dont I have concerning epic.....), but again the
statements are ONLY in that source and in none of the original one. It was
obviously "made" to justify their inclusion at that point in time.

As for scanning stuff for people...welll...direct private e-mails....can
obtain results.


>-->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?

Hey! That is a great idea! A lot of difference in opinion does stem from
what views people have on the background, and we all know it has become
diluted and confusing over time. I think we should state a more or less
"standard" version and develop things along that line.


Peter
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 19:26:36 UTC