|
|
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
| |
|
| It pretty much is. Since Raken fucked up and blew it up, we're effectively retconning it back. - [[User:Oberst|Oberst]] 09:26, 19 October 2007 (MDT) | | It pretty much is. Since Raken fucked up and blew it up, we're effectively retconning it back. - [[User:Oberst|Oberst]] 09:26, 19 October 2007 (MDT) |
| | |
| | Different ship, same name. Got it. The history can easily say "this ship was christened the Archeron in memory of" and then you can give the history. No big deal. However, you are not retconning it. This ship was destroyed, just like every other clan had ships destroyed. You guys are not special and can create new ships just like everyone else. --[[User:Sarin|Sarin]] 16:28, 19 October 2007 (MDT) |
Revision as of 22:28, 19 October 2007
In the GJW fiction, this vessel was destroyed. While Tarentum has a Belarus cruiser, technically it should be a completely different ship. A new name/page would be needed --Halcyon 19:50, 18 October 2007 (MDT)
New ship, redesignated Acheron. It happens, you know. Sometimes navies like a specific name and will keep the name alive, see: USS Enterprise, USS Baltimore, HMS Victory, HMS Exeter, La Redoutable. - Oberst 09:16, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
That's fine. But as the ship "history" still makes it seem like the previous version, it was a safe bet to assume this was the same vessel as well --Halcyon 09:20, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
It pretty much is. Since Raken fucked up and blew it up, we're effectively retconning it back. - Oberst 09:26, 19 October 2007 (MDT)
Different ship, same name. Got it. The history can easily say "this ship was christened the Archeron in memory of" and then you can give the history. No big deal. However, you are not retconning it. This ship was destroyed, just like every other clan had ships destroyed. You guys are not special and can create new ships just like everyone else. --Sarin 16:28, 19 October 2007 (MDT)