Where was this mech produced? It was obviously intended for the FC/FS, but I don't see they had a factory anymore. ClanWolverine101 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- New Valencia. I updated the article accordingly. --Scaletail 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
VTR-DS "Dragon Slayer"
Why does this state 'canonical'? "(This variant was created as a Hero 'Mech for MechWarrior Online and is thus considered canonical.)" MWO is an apocryphal product, at best it is a Solaris-like variant.
- You're correct, with the caveat that "fluff for the MWO Hero 'Mechs" was explicitly declared canonical by Line Developer Randall Bills. Mind you, that's only the fluff, not the configuration per se (though the configuration is canon insofar as mentioned in the fluff...). Frabby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2017 (EST)
Then we should edit every other apocryphal or stick to one rule. I vote, regardless of what Randall Bill stated, that any MechWarrior game Mech is not canon. MWO is hardly canon, regardless of fluff. I could see it being partially canon only if the Dragon Slayer was merely mentioned by name in Source Books, but as far as I can find it is not. An example would be the Commando page, which lists every non-canon variant in its own section, including the MWO version which used a named Mech from a source book, but it was never given a source sheet. Thehawk (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
- I'm not 100% sure what you're saying... but we don't get to decide on what's canon and what is not (nor does Sarna seek to do that; see Policy:Canon). Randall Bills does. And yes, for our little wiki community this means we'll have to treat each mentioned MWO Hero 'Mech as canonical (only) to the extent of its fluff description, while it remains apocryphal otherwise regarding its exact stats and configuration. Not that MWO configurations translate well into the canonical boardgame rules anyways. (The HBS game is going to be a ton of fun in this regard, too, if it's declared canonical.) Frabby (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2017 (EDT)