Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: Brief history summary

From: warprat <warprat_at_...>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:46:46 -0700

Hi! I've enjoyed reading the comments on this issue.


I prefer Josh's view on this. When I read the "Fluff", this is pretty
close to the way I percieve the Warhammer Universe. This is NOT to say
that other views do not have merit also. I just seem to think about the
same as Josh on this.


Great comments by all!

Warprat ;)




deaconblue3_at_... wrote:
>
> Ah, another one of my projects that got side lined for real world
> business...
> A few things here:
> 1. As regards the Emperor, and his "inability" to communicate,
> not entirely so. Lucca, says it is due to his tenuous hold on the
> material world. I disagree. The Imperial tarot is the prime method of
> communicating with the Emperor, and considering the size of the Imperium,
> it's got be a bit of a strain to answer several billion questions at a
> time. I would say that it is not a matter of his hold on "reality," but
> more a matter of his being astronomically busy. simply put, he's
> spreading himself thin. Which of course, leads to its own set of
> problems.
> 2. Knights. They are not part and parcel of the TG, or Adeptus
> Mechanicus. They certainly have a relationship with them (a close one),
> but are not directly part of either. Sorry, not gonna happen. They are
> a spin off of the Eldar Exodites, and not from the AM.
> 3. I know we've gone over the "stagnant" nature of the Imperium
> before. Me and Lucca disagree on this, and most likely forever will.
> There really isn't enough information to really make a case either way on
> this one. What we do have is limited to military technology, and we
> don't know much about other aspects, such as medicine, commercial
> technology, or even space technology. We only have what gets seen on the
> battlefield. I tend towards saying that the Imperium is not in fact
> stagnant, just slow in universe shattering developments.
> 4. I never liked the Sensei bit. It has possibilities, but as
> presented, was weak, and was put out in the time when RT was a cross
> between a mini game and an RPG. It doesn't quite fit in. It could be
> made to though.
> 5. Does anybody have the fluff from the Armageddon board games
> and supplements? I don't have those, and would like a look at what they
> have. Also, was there anything of significance in the following RT era
> books: Vehicle Guide, Tales of the Astronomicon? I have all the others.
> 6. I have reams of notes on this, as it's been an on going
> project of mine for some time. I haven't had a chance to go through the
> Slann stuff yet (it's on the web), and I can't remember who sent me the
> link (Hellreich? Warprat?). Any case, thanks for the link. I'll try to
> type up some of my notes soon, and get them out to the list.
> 7. GW and fluff. They change it when it suits them. Why? A
> couple of reasons. First is to justify the introduction of new units and
> models. Sometimes this contradicts what has gone before. Example;
> Knights. Also, we have the "kinder, gentler 40K Universe." done
> primarily to get the "new" market, 10-15 yr olds, and make it palatable
> to their parents. Makes getting it all together a real chore.
> 8. I have a theory that the Emperor was Christ, and all the
> stories about the Templars, and Priory de Sion are true...(in the 40K
> universe)....
>
> Josh R
> PS-Peter, are you online at home yet? I have the IG book ready...
>
>
>
> Minister for General Mayhem
> "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Gen. Joseph Stilwell
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Received on Thu Aug 17 2000 - 04:46:46 UTC