What is the source(s) for this? Scaletail 16:43, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

  • I used to compile a list of BattleTech spaceships (names, type, affiliation, fluff). This list is over 10 years old, but I found an entry for the "Kick Ass Special", a "Vampire" class dropship described as a small aerodyne jump-infantry carrier in service of House Davion. This part at least seems to be canonical; the information was noted by myself to come from the House Davion sourcebook, which I don't have so cannot check now. However, it seems no technical specs/game sheet (tonnage, armour, equipment, etc.) was provided for the ship class or I would have noted that as well. Btw, do we have a project: spaceships here? Seeing the list again, it might be useful for the Wiki. Frabby 07:27, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
I found the reference in HD, but I cannot find any canon stats for it and a search of the CBT forums turned up nothing on it. It's not listed in Aerotech 2, or even the list of troop-carrying DropShips in Field Manual: Mercenaries, Revised. As for a project for ASFs, and 'Ships, I don't know of anything, but there's no reason why you cannot start one. Even if you don't, we can sure use articles for them in the same manner as the 'Mechs. --Scaletail 18:16, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
Is the information on canon? I doubt it, because of the disclaimer they put on the page. The picture indicates that there is a true canon source in one of the books though - it would be good to know which one. The background information in the article also sounds as if taken from a sourcebook; some of it can be taken from the article in the Davion Housebook but the part about the engines, interesting as it may be, currently lacks any reference to a canon source. Frabby 03:51, 15 September 2007 (CDT) itself is not canon, but it uses canon sources and usually gets things very close to being right. Something looks wrong, but I don't know (without whatever source was used) whether it's because the Vampire was created with an old system or whether data was input incorrectly. I threw it up under "references" because all of the information that was put in the infobox matches up with the data from CM, so I'm assuming that that was the source. --Scaletail 09:08, 15 September 2007 (CDT)


The entire description seems to taken word for word from Technical Readout 3026 Revised page 106, last I checked that was called plagarism and is illegal without the expressed consent of blah blah blah. I suggest you fix it in the near future.

The entire thing, or only part of it? --Scaletail 09:18, 6 January 2008 (CST)
Yes the entire thing, thats why I said "The entire description".