This article is within the scope of the BattleMechs WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleMechs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Split Rifleman and Rifleman II?[edit]

The Rifleman and the Rifleman II share a name, weaponry and battlefield role, but the Rifleman II is twenty tons heavier and (despite the XL Engine) should be more survivable. Should the Rifleman and Rifleman II be split up, like the Hermes and Hermes II, Griffin and Super Griffin, Marauder and Marauder II, etc. The only difficulty I see is the lack of a picture.--S.gage 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote 'yes'. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the Rifleman II isn't really it's own design with its own TRO entry. If it gets one, then I'm with you, but I don't think there is enough information on that one variant to warrant an entirely new page. --Scaletail 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Though I think the unit should be separated, I cannot deny that without an actual TRO entry, it is hard to make this change. I'll wait for more concrete information. At this point, the Rifleman II can be split from the rest within the page, but I'll leave the link empty.--S.gage 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As this happened quite a long time, isn't having the entry here Record Sheets: 3055 Upgrade enough to grant its own page?--Pserratv (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2018 (EST)
Yes it is. Imho, the Rifleman II should have ist own article. Feel free to create it. ;) Frabby (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (EST)
For good or bad, done :)--Pserratv (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2018 (EST)

Rifleman C[edit]

I added the details of the Rifleman C from The Battle for Twycross scenario pack. I explicitly included the details of the source for this design, as I realize these designs have not appeared often, and their canonicity could be considered questionable. The inclusion of this design is strictly informational, and can be removed if considered too controversial.--S.gage 02:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the record sheets to those designs were published at some point. Good idea, btw. ClanWolverine101 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The original four volume BattleTech Record Sheets series seems to cover them, I only have BattleTech Record Sheets Volume Four: Assault 'Mechs but the Victor C and Atlas C in it seem to match based on what S.gage has been adding. Cyc 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

55-ton Rifleman[edit]

I remember reading a while back the the original Rifleman design, the RFL-1N, and its followup, the -2N, were 55-tonners. I can't, though, remember where I read that. Does anyone have the documentation for that and the ability to add it? GOLFisNOTaSPORT 13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In what appears to be an oversight, the Solaris VII player handbook from the boxed set repeatedly refers to the Rifleman as a 65-ton design in the writeup on Gray Noton. Perhaps that's what you are remembering? Frabby (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (EST)


Would it be legal to link pictures here from artist, that do MW fan art, even if they are professionals? On, an artist named ShimmeringSword has a mindblowing Rifleman drawing, and i always get the feeling of inferiority when i see the plain black and white pics in the data. I am aware that this site is about background info and not about colorful presentation. But would it be legal? Heretic1311 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2013 (PDT)

You already mentioned the problem yourself - Sarna BTW is not about colorful presentation. The established procedure is to put the wireframe drawing from a 'Mech's first TRO appearance into the infobox. Most 'Mech articles have a gallery section at the bottom with additional images, both black and white and color. I think, however, that only canonical images go here (as per Policy:Notability and Policy:Images), unless there are no canonical images of the 'Mech in question.
To answer your question, linking to an external site would be legal (although it might be in violation of Sarna BTW policy). Uploading images taken from elsewhere on the internet, on the other hand, is almost never legal (pretty much every image is copyrighted) and this is strongly discouraged, unless you're 100% sure the fair use doctrine does apply. Frabby (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2013 (PDT)
Canonicity is relative, given the fact that most mechs have at least a couple of variants, not to mention that different mech producers might change minor appearence details, like Kurita did with the Hatamoto (okeyy, there was some more change...). Have you bothered to check the pic? Would you consider it worthy and canonical? Especially since Shim does BT art officially too. Heretic1311 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2013 (PDT)
I more than understand you point, I'd love to use my David White ComStar Battle Cobra commission here, but even if its done by an artist who does official art, unless it was used in an official BattleTech product it doesn't count for Sarna purposes.Cyc (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (PDT)
I'm afraid I agree. Canon is products produced by the company that holds the property rights. Imagines sold to the property holder, is the only thing that is considered canon. The artists are freelance artists. I found images that was produced by Chris Lewis which should differient images of a canon variant that match it completely. But it was produced for fans, not by Company. Sarna has bad rep unfortunately, so we have to make sure what we put on the site is what is legally canon. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2013 (PDT)

This just triggered a new idea: when the "original first pic" is illegal, as with the unseen (not sure if Macross lawsuit is solved) wouldn´t the next official pic, in this case the "Phoenix Project" mech be the correct one? And what is this about Sarna having bad rep??? Heretic1311 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2014 (PDT)

The "unseen" images are not illegal. And they remain the correct 'Mech images canon-wise. As far as our BattleTechWiki is concerned, using these correct unseen images for articles covering the respective 'Mechs constitutes "fair use" in my opinion and should not put us in legal jeopardy.
As for the Project Phoenix designs, these are new, additional 'Mechs. They do not replace the old unseen imagery; but as the BT timeline advances, new designs including the Phoenix designs have been supplanting the classic unseen designs.
Finally, who said Sarna has a bad rep? :) Frabby (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2014 (PDT)
Wrangler, just above my question today. I wonder what he was talking about... any idea? 10:54, 24 April 2014 (PDT)
Wrangler may be referring to the common accusation that we have incorrect and untrustworthy information, and thus people complain about us, but about pictures I'm not exactly sure what he'd mean. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2014 (PDT)
Any Wiki project, so Sarna too, is often seen with distrust, since almost anyone can change it. I don´t share this point of view, but i understand it. If i seek critical information, i look up specialized sources, but for the genereal stuff, wikis are great. About Sarna, i found is mostly highly satisfying, only lacking details like reactor weight and in a few mech their number of jump jets. Heretic1311 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, I understand it too, but these people could do something about it instead of only complaining. Also, the reason that we don't have too specific of info is because if we had too much then it would cause legal troubles as we could then compete with the print sources for info. At least that's how I understand it. Either way, the majority of BT history I know has been from this very site, so I kinda like to see it keep going. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (PDT)

Ok, so, in the end, this talk got pretty dark... as kind of an apology: This was the painting i meant originally. If we can´t use it in the gallery, i set the link for those who enjoy great artwork. Shim also does official BT art. Heretic1311 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (PDT)

Yes, Shimmering Sword is a fantastic artist, but since it isn't an official BT picture it couldn't be in the gallery. I'm pretty sure that you could link to it on the article page. I don't know exactly where you'd put it, but I'm almost certain that it would be perfectly fine by BTW standards. Sorry for contributing to derailing the train of thought. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2014 (PDT)