Talk:Unseen

Other Unseens

Wasn't the Stone Rhino an unseen?--173.66.141.199 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was, it was part of the 2nd batch of unseen(s). Author may not had remembered that, along with the Raijin and the Nexus. -- Wrangler 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Behemoth miniature from Battledroids was most definitely based on the Monster from Macross, but the Battletech Clan-era mech is far different, much like the differences between the Ost-series and the Macross Regults. http://brianscache.com/battledroids/behemoth.jpg has a picture of the Battledroids Behemoth mini.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Basara549 (talk • contribs) .

BattleMaster IIC

Where is this coming from? There never been a canon Reseen/unseen BattleMaster IIC design. Only Clan influenced BattleMaster was the BattleMaster C, Red Corsair's BattleMaster, and the refitted one from Tukayyid (scenario pack). The Red Corsair was never given or named designation with "IIC". -- Wrangler 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's how it has been referred everywhere, obviously after the assumed scheme shown in other mech types. I didn't intend to create confusion but it was reasonable without making something up, and create more inconsistency. We could put it on a to be determined classification/name list. A kind of all present earmark/reminder.

On another note it seems the Super Griffin and Super Wasp have been given an exempt, but I can confirm it for sure yet.

-- Almighty 16:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Super Wasp and Super Griffin, it should be pointed out that there are no canonical pictures of either in the TotBW sourcebook - the articles provide the regular pictures of a (standard) Wasp and Griffin, respectively. As such, both 'Mechs do not belong on the list. Frabby 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. However, it stands to reason that they look the same. The unseen rules will apply as soon as someone uses those pictures. Almighty 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the BattleMaster IIC came from MechWarrior 2. Not exactly a canon source. GOLFisNOTaSPORT 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the BattleMaster IIC to avoid confusion. The Red Corsair was given a canon variant of the BattleMaster in a Operational Turning Points: The Red Corsair. I also removed the Super Wasp and Super Griffin. Regardless of the assumptions of their appearance they were not given canon artwork until the recent Experimental Technical Readout: Succession Wars, Volume 1. This artwork is, of course, not Unseen. Cache (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2014 (PST)

Unseen IICs

Wait a minute... the IICs from TRO3055 are also done by Victor Musical Industries But I know they're derived from such designs. I have the copy of the original 1992 Technical Readout 3055, within mech images such as the Marauder IIC, it says "Battlemech Design (C) 1992 Victor Musical Industries, Inc." --76.170.230.129 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Going by the Gallleon tank and Leopard DS, I think a picture/depiction is only unseen if it was specifically declared, irrespective of where it came from. To wit, if something wasn't declared unseen, then it isn't. Frabby 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since, the agreements are changing and the matter has not really been settled. These design images should be careful dealt with. As we have seen the upcoming PC game "MechWarrior 3015" already ran into trouble by using the Warhammer. Almighty 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How best to incorporate this info?

It looks like there's a quasi-official list of the current Unseen (pretty much all the Macross mecha, with a couple of exceptions) on the official CBT boards (this page, look at Rule 8). Should this be taken as gospel (along with the latest Historical Turning Point PDFs) as to what is and what isn't officially an Unseen as far as Catalyst/InMediaRes/FanPro/WizKids are concerned? 68.5.200.198 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this should be taken as gospel though it couldn't hurt to confirm that the information is updated properly. There was a bit of confusion caused by the return/not-returning in BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction and future products where some on that list are featured (Thunderbolt and Locust stand out). A big cause of confusion is that FASA and Harmony Gold/Playmates reached a private settlement and the terms remain confidential. Nobody at CGL was aware of the terms of the settlement when 25 Years was created and I doubt anyone there kept track of what other products Unseen images slipped in during the confusion. Cache (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2014 (PST)

Firebee and Hornet?

Since when are they part of the Unseen? Unsigned - User:Onisuzume

Yes and No. They originally appeared in Battledroids and first print of The Spider and the Wolf. The formentioned book was a graphic novel insense. In the book, it shamelessly used unseen images that never carried on into TROs. Hornet was originally shape of Robotech Alpha Fighter in Battaliod mode, while Firebee was using a Wasp/Stinger miniature in Battledroids. Firebee was never used in mainstay Battletech until recently, with its own canon image. Hornet's unseen image was only used in the book, never again. -- Wrangler 12:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Hornet" in that book is a particularly convoluted case and has been discussed on CBT.com. The MechWarrior in question may or may not initially have piloted a Hornet as it was later introduced into the universe. In all other sources he pilots a Stinger which resembles the Alpha Veritech depicted in the comic to at least some degree. Herb Beas himself declared the picture in the comic inaccurate/non-canon; it clearly does not depict a Hornet.

Where is the Firebee mentioned? Frabby 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, so could someone upload those specific images to the respective articles and mention that they're unseen images? Otherwise, most of the people will only be confused over it (like me). Or, at the very least, mention it in this article which images of those respective 'Mechs are unseen. Onisuzume 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Firebee and Hornet from the article to avoid confusion. If someone wants to upload any images from their respective sources I would suggest creating a new section for anomalies. Cache (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2014 (PST)

Basara549 :: One of the interesting things about the comic section of "The Spider and the Wolf" was that TWO mechs that were never supposed to be in Battletech (but were in Robotech) were in it. There was the Mospeada Legioss/Robotech Alpha fighter, that was referred to as if it was the Falcon Battlemech - but there was also pictured (but never named or statted) mech in the same panel. That second mech was the Southern Cross Auroran/Robotech AJACS transforming space fighter/atmospheric helicopter. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v8rTSZFcln0852_DFNgtIAHIeHHkhA_N/view?usp=sharing

Category: Unseen

Would anyone be adverse to me making Unseen a category? GOLFisNOTaSPORT 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Be Bold, is there not a category, create it.--Doneve 03:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Put only current unseen in the category. Having former unseen there would be confusing. --Neufeld 08:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is done. GOLFisNOTaSPORT 08:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for clarifying the Unseen and Reseen categories: Rather than putting the articles in each category, why not include only the images? After all, it is the images that are Unseen or Reseen. Thoughts? --Cache (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2015 (PST)

If there truly are no Unseen variants, just art, then we definitely need to change the way they're listed in some manner. --Trifler (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2015 (PST)

Reseen vs. Project Phoenix

I think the way Reseen is used in this article is confusing. All Unseen designs were given new artwork with Project Phoenix (more or less). These were dubbed as the Reseen. Once designs such as the Ostsol, Ostroc, and Ostscout were declared "legal" they also became known as Reseen. Can/should we find a way to distinguish the two uses? Cache (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2014 (PST)

Yes, definitely. There are two very distinct meanings for "reseen" and we need to make this very clear. Frabby (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2014 (PST)

I'd like to note those whose original images are no longer Unseen, as "returned" rather than Reseen. After digging into the BT.com forum thread I have found that only the Ostscout, Ostsol, and Ostroc fit in this category. Others such as the Locust, Griffin, Shadow Hawk, and Thunderbolt that were brought back in products from 2010-2011 were mistakes that will be corrected in due time. I sent a message to Worktroll for some clarification, and will update the page if/when I receive a response. Cache (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2014 (PST)

Not a mistake, from what I understand. Rather, CGL thought for a few gleeful days that they had secured the rights to all unseen again, only to find out that it wasn't the case for some of them after all. That made them declare any and all out-of-house art "unseen", regardless of whether or not it had originally been unseen or if they had since secured the rights again. Which means that there are several meanings of the word "unseen" as well, by the way. Frabby (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2014 (PST)

According to Worktroll in the (now corrected) link above, after the reversal of the Return of the Unseen in 2009, the products were "compiled at a point where it was believed that the artwork for non-Macross Unseen could be used; unfortunately this turned out not to be the case. Due to the timelag in production, the images weren't caught in time." I find it odd that a small, PDF-only product released two years later (in 2011) was too far along to correct, which is why I said mistake. Of course, the 25 Years book makes no sense because brand new Unseen artwork was removed but previously used Unseen artwork remains. (I asked about that, too.) Cache (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2014 (PST)

November 2014 Update

I received a response from Worktroll over at the bg.BT.com forums regarding the list of Unseen there. The 3058 Galleon is returned now (not Unseen) and the non-canon BD Behemoth is on there only to try to stop people from posting pictures of the Destroid Monster. I did a significant update/revision to the article while trying to stick to the original structure.Cache (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2014 (PST)

Trifler, what can't you agree with regarding the statement: "For the purposes of this article, these designs will be referred to as 'returned'"? Would you prefer "no longer Unseen"? The Ostsol, Ostroc, Ostscout, and 3058 Galleon are no longer "Unseen". I have verified this. To avoid confusion with the term "Reseen," which is used to denote "Phoenix" designs with new images, I chose to use the term "returned" and noted it in the article. Cache (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2014 (PST)

I would prefer to simply remove the label "Unseen" from the Ostsol, Ostroc, Ostscout, and 3058 Galleon pages, and continue using the term "Reseen" instead of "returned". Please note that I don't seem to be receiving notifications for my watched pages. --Trifler (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2014 (PST)

Perhaps it would be better to remove the Unseen/Reseen label from all lists. I'm working on this in my sandbox to see how it will look. Cache (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2014 (PST)

Definitions

I would like to come to an agreement for the definitions of terms used in this article. Being as clear as possible on this subject should be our goal. 1) Unseen: From my understanding, having communicated with Ironwind Metals, FanPro (years back), and Catalyst, "Unseen" is the term describing the artwork/images and not the actual 'Mech designs. Stating "Unseen designs" insinuates that the designs attached to the images are also forbidden, which is not the case. 2) Reseen: the term associated with new images of the "Unseen" 'Mechs (and ASF) created starting in TRO: Project Phoenix. 3) Returned/Reseen: terms associated with formerly "Unseen" images that have been declared (by the BT line developer) different enough from their origins to be used once again. Because "Reseen" has two distinct definitions I feel it is appropriate to use only "Returned" to describe those falling under definition #3. Thoughts? Cache (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2014 (PST)

While I do agree on principle that this would be the right thing to do in a scientific paper, the problem I see is that Sarna, imho, should only seek to collate and explain information for the fanbase, not create content of our own such as definitions. (The "Essays" being a notable exception.) The fanbase at large, i.e. outside of Sarna, may have different definitions, or no definition at all, for these words and theirs are equally "valid" as our (Sarna's) definitions. We're in no position to just go and create those definitions on behalf of the entire fan base. Frabby (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2014 (PST)

While I only intended to set the definitions for the purposes of this article, I believe I understand your point that doing so could set the definition for the fan base. There are other ways to be clear about the subject. --Cache (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2014 (PST)

Unseen Lawsuits

The link to "Unseen lawsuits" is broken. I don't know what page it's supposed to link to or I'd just fix it. --Trifler (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (PST)

It's not broken. It's a redlink to a page that doesn't exist yet. Explaining the individual lawsuits and the whole background of the Unseen mess is interesting and something I feel Sarna should do, but ultimately irrelevant for the Unseen issue as such. Hence I figured it should get its own article. I've been meaning to write an Unseen lawsuits article for a long time but haven't come round to do it yet. Frabby (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (PST)

Very good then. As long as it isn't still red next New Years. ;) --Trifler (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2014 (PST)

3025 Galleon Light Tank

Just to confirm, is the 3025 variant itself Unseen, or just the artwork? The list specifies "art only" so I wanted to see if I need to edit what I wrote for it in the Reseen section. It may just be implied, but I figured I'd ask. I suppose I'll edit something either way so that they match. --Trifler (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2014 (PST)

Artwork only was removed for all of the Unseen. Game stats and such remain legal. --Cache (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (PST)

Seems like we've been going about it the wrong way then. I thought the pre-3067 variants of the Project Phoenix 'Mechs no longer officially exist. --Trifler (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2015 (PST)

They definitely still exist, and they exist as those unusable images show them. The PP variants are just later versions that are "reborn" for the times, as the name Project Phoenix makes both implicit and explicit. GOLFisNOTaSPORT (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2015 (PST)

The first few lines of this article are pretty clear (and correct) on the issue. Nothing no longer exists, it's just that the Unseen images can no longer be shown. By saying they no longer exist you insinuate that they have been retconned into the Reseen imagery. Current products still refer to them, they just don't show them. --Cache (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (PST)

I guess that section above the table of contents just failed to catch my eye. I've read the article dozens of times but never noticed that part up there. :P --Trifler (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (PST)

Possible Gallery Change with nuSeen Retcons

This has more to do with the individual unit pages, but discussion feels easier here. Now that the Unseen officially are being retconned to the Classics/nuSeen imagery, what does everyone think about me creating secondary gallery for each unit with Unseen imagery? This would be right below the 'Gallery' section and would likely be titled 'Unseen Image Gallery'. Also, due to this being a retcon, would these images be considered apocryphal (and thus need to be labeled as such)? Not all of the nuSeen images have been revealed so I don't feel a need to rush into this. Please share any thoughts or suggestions.--Cache (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2016 (PDT)

While it could admittedly be regarded as arguable wether or not "nuSeen" are even pertinent to the Unseen situation, my opinion is that yes, they should definitely be added as you suggest.

I believe the intention is to consign all old unseen artwork to non-canon status (not even apocryphal) but as usual the devil is in the details: Fiction explicitly trumps art on the canon totem pole, and there are verbal descriptions aplenty that were coined on the original, unseen art (the new Ostscout in particular looks nothing like its detailed descriptions). As a result, there are individual units where I'm hard-pressed to say wether a given unseen image is now non-canon, apocryphal, or still canon. And whenever I'm unsure I default to apocryphal. My 2 cents. Frabby (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2016 (PDT)

Original rec.games.mecha Unseen Announcement

I've had this bookmarked for some time and thought I would share it here in case someone felt they could use the information. This was the official announcement from Jill Lucas regarding the HG/Playmates lawsuit settlement, posted by Lou Prosperi. on rec.games.mecha And a similar annoucement one year later on rec.games.frp.announce --Cache (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Original Artwork

In the interest of information and satisfying curiosity, I was thinking of finding and adding in examples of the mecha the Unseen were based on, so fans reading the wiki can compare and contrast the versions and see how they originally looked and/or were changed (like how the Ostall(Locust) is a much smaller unmanned drone in Crusher Joe).

But before I did that, I wanted to head off a potential issue: Should these images be restricted to this page only in a gallery, or should be also be posted to the galleries of the pertinent Mech/Vehicle pages for comparative purposes? SAMAS (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

I would avoid like the plague just to be safe, but that is my personal opinion. Even posting something "In good faith", well there is no good faith given the rather belligerent relationship between IP owners.--Dmon (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

The article has existed for years without any images. I toyed with adding them myself, but decided it would make things far too cluttered. The wiki format doesn't make good galleries. The names of the original designs and their series are clearly listed. In my opinion, people can look them up on their own.--Cache (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2019 (EDT)