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

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 08:34:25 +1000

At 02:26 PM 5/25/00 -0500, Peter wrote:

>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.

I would be more than happy to combine the lists AS LONG AS THE ABILITY TO
FIELD A VIABLE TG FORCE REMAINS!!! If we simply combine the information
into one list but keep the various Company, Support and Special cards that
are unique to the TG list, I really don't have a problem. As I stated in
an earlier post, I have the minis to field a TG force, but don't have
enough for an IG force.

>>-->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.

Again, this is a good idea to simply have the one IG list for simplicity
but the different cards need to remain. Otherwise we are wiping out some
people's armies (like my TG army) and this is NOT something we should be
doing. There is very little cross-over in organisational terms between the
two lists. Sure the troops may be the same, but the way they are fielded
is different. If we start to merge lists and end up cutting out certain
armies doing it, we'll be going the way of GW revisions and I for one would
not be happy about it.

>>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.

Now this is a really good idea.


-Kelvin....

============================================
         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
============================================
Received on Sun May 28 2000 - 22:34:25 UTC