Author Topic: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)  (Read 6509 times)

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13210
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #60 on: 20 February 2012, 13:00:36 »
Let me reiterate, people, the need to watch what you say in a topic as charged as this one.  Rules 1 and 3 can be all too easy to violate in the heat of the moment.

In addition, given the heavy discussion of the Unseen, please keep Rule 8 in mind and don't post pictures of them.

martian

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8064
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #61 on: 20 February 2012, 13:02:42 »
The Unseen miniatures are the ones that came in an earlier edition box set (Archer, Rifleman, Wasp, Marauder, etc), and the corresponding artwork is the stuff that used to be at the back of the BTech novels, is that correct?
Yes, Unseen 'Mechs featured in Technical Readout: 3025 and many older sourcebooks, scenario books and novels.

The Reseen are the versions of those 'Mechs that are now available from IWM and that I see on CSO, etc. These are re-imagined versions of those earlier 'Mechs to avoid legal issues. OK so far?
Reseen are re-imagined 'Mechs, redesigned in and around 3067. You can find them in Technical Readout: Project Phoenix.

My real confusion is that the silhouettes in my RS 3039 seem to be of the Reseen, or at least my understanding of that term. Why are these images silhouetted? Surely it should be OK to display images of the newer models.

Those silhouettes are essentially incorrect. In 3039 there were no Reseen because they came in 3067, just before Jihad started. As I said, in TRO 3039 there should have been silhouettes of Unseen from TRO 3025.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1332
  • the one and only
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #62 on: 20 February 2012, 13:30:54 »
3039's PP illustration pov was to describe in a sentence or so how the reseen's aesthetic had changed vs their respective unseen originals. I always thought that to be a particularly elegant solution.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Sid

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #63 on: 20 February 2012, 14:50:44 »
The Unseen miniatures are the ones that came in an earlier edition box set (Archer, Rifleman, Wasp, Marauder, etc), and the corresponding artwork is the stuff that used to be at the back of the BTech novels, is that correct?

Correct. 

The Reseen are the versions of those 'Mechs that are now available from IWM and that I see on CSO, etc. These are re-imagined versions of those earlier 'Mechs to avoid legal issues. OK so far?

The writers tried to bring them back with a new appearance by 'upgrading' them later in the timeline.  The fluff used to explain it was that they were designed at different factories.

So they took the 'original' unseen Warhammer and created a new version later in the timeline that looks like this

The one from 3025 still looks like it always did- to avoid a 'retcon' of the originals and older artwork...and in an attempt to keep everyone happy (which, of course, there were people unhappy from both camps...).

In any case, that left the problem of the original 'mechs still being referenced in sourcebooks, and appearing on RATs and the like.  New players wouldn't have any real information about them, though, aside from a record sheet at best.

So, they were added back into the TROs...but because the artwork for the original models still isn't usable due to legal issues, silhouettes were used instead of artwork.


My real confusion is that the silhouettes in my RS 3039 seem to be of the Reseen, or at least my understanding of that term. Why are these images silhouetted? Surely it should be OK to display images of the newer models.

D
So what people are discussing here is whether they can replace the silhouettes with new artwork, that would be different from the originals, and not the 'reseens'- as they are intended to look different after being upgraded.

Essentially, it's an artwork 'retcon'.  The original Warhammer looks like 'this', and the older books which depict it as looking the same as Robotech's 'Tomahawk' would no longer be correct.
 
Formerly known as 'Phad'

thrawn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 213
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #64 on: 20 February 2012, 16:25:00 »
Thanks so much for this, really helps clarify things. Appreciate the information!

D
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth and say, 'No, you move'." - Captain America

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 864
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Battlechat 2012 February 18 (first)
« Reply #65 on: 20 February 2012, 17:39:48 »
MWO's reimagined 'Mechs seem to be relatively well received. If BattleTech's fanbase has turned over enough to make retconning 'Mech art a plausible option; and if the goal is to produce 'Historical' products, which still suffer the mountainous burden of fact-check; then now may be a good time to kill two albatrosses with one stone and officially reboot the Historical continuity.
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)
Blog: currently working out BattleMech manufacturing rates. New secret project will resume eventually.