Difference between revisions of "Talk:Longbow"
Sarna News
m (→Longbow LGB-OW: Muddy of which version should be first) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::Looks good now, thanks. Although now that you point it out, the entry in TRO:3039 seems to imply that the LGB-OW was the original model and the LGB-7Q was a less commercially successful variant. If so, should the page be changed to reflect that? --[[User:Iueras|Iueras]] 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | ::Looks good now, thanks. Although now that you point it out, the entry in TRO:3039 seems to imply that the LGB-OW was the original model and the LGB-7Q was a less commercially successful variant. If so, should the page be changed to reflect that? --[[User:Iueras|Iueras]] 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::IMO Yes, but Sarna policy seems to be first TRO appearance takes precedence. Its muddy, ideally the "classic"/first version of many designs like the ''Wolfhound'' and ''Cataphract'' should be the 3025 tech versions rather than the TRO3050 versions(first TRO) appearance, but then if we go for first version we'd be having primitive tech versions of some classic designs replacing the TRO30235 versions. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 11:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | :::IMO Yes, but Sarna policy seems to be first TRO appearance takes precedence. Its muddy, ideally the "classic"/first version of many designs like the ''Wolfhound'' and ''Cataphract'' should be the 3025 tech versions rather than the TRO3050 versions(first TRO) appearance, but then if we go for first version we'd be having primitive tech versions of some classic designs replacing the TRO30235 versions. [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] 11:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::Gotcha. So, since the first Longbow in a TRO was in the 1995 TRO:3058 as the LGB-7Q, that one is listed first - even though the text in 1995's TRO:3058 says it was an upgrade to the LGB-OW to fix some shortcomings, since the actual entry was for the LGB-7Q and not the LGB-OW. Have I got that right? I'm new around here so I don't want to step on toes. --[[User:Iueras|Iueras]] 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 5 August 2011
|
This article is within the scope of the Project BattleMechs, 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. |
|
Sword and Dragon info
Would someone mind explaining what information needs to be imported from Starterbook Sword and Dragon? I've looked through the book and I can't see anything that isn't already here. Thanks!--Mbear 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The tag is pointless. I think someone realized the product features his 'Mech and included the tag without bothering to acutally do the work and include any info... seeing how Sword and Dragon is much older than the introduction of moratorium tags to BTW. Not very helpful editing.
- Trusting your word and without double-checking myself, I have removed the tag. Frabby 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Longbow LGB-OW
According to this page, the LGB-OW variant drops 2 LRM-5 launchers, 2 medium lasers, and armor for more speed. According to the LGB-OW record sheet in the back of "Sword and Dragon", it still has its 2 LRM-5, but has dropped the medium lasers in favor of a single small laser. The other info (armor and speed) is correct. Can anyone verify this? --Iueras 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm in TRO:3039 right now, and I don't see it depicted as the entry indicates. I don't have the RS, so I'll let you confirm if my edits match the LGB-OW RS. Hope this helps.--Rev (talk|contribs) 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good now, thanks. Although now that you point it out, the entry in TRO:3039 seems to imply that the LGB-OW was the original model and the LGB-7Q was a less commercially successful variant. If so, should the page be changed to reflect that? --Iueras 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- IMO Yes, but Sarna policy seems to be first TRO appearance takes precedence. Its muddy, ideally the "classic"/first version of many designs like the Wolfhound and Cataphract should be the 3025 tech versions rather than the TRO3050 versions(first TRO) appearance, but then if we go for first version we'd be having primitive tech versions of some classic designs replacing the TRO30235 versions. Cyc 11:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha. So, since the first Longbow in a TRO was in the 1995 TRO:3058 as the LGB-7Q, that one is listed first - even though the text in 1995's TRO:3058 says it was an upgrade to the LGB-OW to fix some shortcomings, since the actual entry was for the LGB-7Q and not the LGB-OW. Have I got that right? I'm new around here so I don't want to step on toes. --Iueras 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- IMO Yes, but Sarna policy seems to be first TRO appearance takes precedence. Its muddy, ideally the "classic"/first version of many designs like the Wolfhound and Cataphract should be the 3025 tech versions rather than the TRO3050 versions(first TRO) appearance, but then if we go for first version we'd be having primitive tech versions of some classic designs replacing the TRO30235 versions. Cyc 11:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good now, thanks. Although now that you point it out, the entry in TRO:3039 seems to imply that the LGB-OW was the original model and the LGB-7Q was a less commercially successful variant. If so, should the page be changed to reflect that? --Iueras 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)