Talk:Battle Rider

OK Maybe I'm Wrong but the Statements about BR's being a bad option VS Virus just smacks of Non-Cannon. No where in the books (MT TNE or other) does it say anything like this.

In Adventure 5 Trillion Credit Squadron, there is a discussion of fleet tenders vs. battleships. Supplement 8 says what's in the article. This is also reflected in Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium. These articles describe the weakness of this design: If the squadron is loosing, there is no way for the tender to recover the riders while under fire. If the tender is lost, there is no way for the riders to retreat. Tjoneslo 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Supplement 8 and Adventure 5 Trillion Credit Squadron say nothing about Virus. As to the argument BR vs BB, that just means they retreat to deep space where they are untouchable(A5-TCS/B5). Besides the BB's have the same problem if they lose their J-drive and BR are easier to replace (ie: cheaper and less time) because they are smaller(A5). In the long run BR's are just a viable as BB's. Of course that is all IMTU but there are many many TU's. It looks to me like the paragraph by Mr. Gray is from his TU and not an Official FFE one (maybe someone else put it there thinking it to be Cannon). If you look at the linked page used as a reference, you find the first sentence is "Peter Gray shares his views on the politics that have shaped the Regency in his Traveller Universe." Which is why I opted to move his statements to Non-Cannon.

That said perhaps the BR article (and others) should be split up in to settings instead of just cannon versus non cannon. as a CT and GT player Virus references being referred to as cannon is irritating. And yes I realize that to a TNE player doing the same sort of thing from a GT perspective would bother them. However if the descriptions are generic and/or the setting is identified with a header then all parties should have little to complain about. Will 6:52am Aug 7,2007 (EST)

The paragraph we are discussing probably falls under "fanon" or Fan-Cannon. The statement as written never appears anywhere in canon, but is a reasonable and logical extension of printed canon. There is no official policy regarding fanon in this wiki at this time.

Regarding articles by era, there are three threads in the watercooler forum: 1, 2, 3, the last being the most complete description of the policy. If you would like to comment on the policy, please do so there.

Tjoneslo 11:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)