I agree that we should have a tag on articles like that

now if an article is directly in support of canon that could be different (for instance if one of the GDW authors hears about the fanzine and wants to contribute an article)

As for articles like Matt's - I loved it and even if it contradicted canon in some ways it is perfect for a fanzine. Its his view on Twilight 2000 as a fan - and is something we can use for campaigns in our own worlds.

Face it - the canon stopped in early 2001 with the exception of a few Challenge Magazine articles here and there that are later

Thus anything with a tag after May or so of 2001 has no "this contradicts canon" as we all know that 2300AD is only one possible future per what GDW said themselves.

Plus, as every module stated, the referee - i..e us - has considerable latitude to modify information no only within the modules but also within the sourcebooks themselves, even to the point of ignoring modules based on events in their campaigns.

That alone would mean that canon is what you make of it within your own campaign.

What the fanzine needs to say is that these articles represent our campaigns, which are based on canon, and as such they do deviate from canon in various ways and shouldnt be taken by anyone as canon that is gospel in all campaigns.

The 49th is a classic example - What Jason wrote is very good and informative and can be used as is or pieces can be used. Now that doesnt mean it canon in any way. But its a great read and a great piece of fan literature.

Targan's game with the Soviets Lublin's command being destroyed by Po's group or my group killing the Black Baron are perfect examples. Each would require the "Canon" return to Europe series to be modified.

similar situation with mine - we killed the Black Baron and gave the Madonna to another faction in Poland - thus a lot of the return to Europe modules were moot

same with what my GM did with the Corpus Christi modules - my experience as a player is totally different than the base modules - thus an article based on that would be very different from canon

You can see that with Olefin's timeline - that is what happened with us as players and how my GM had world events proceed - and it included how we changed canon both with how he had the game proceed but also with our own actions - on the way out of Kalisz we did a hell of a lot of damage that in his opinion changed the whole nature of the Soviet pursuit of the 5th and the follow on attacks against NATO by the affected units. The ambush we did on the 129th Motorized later on really changed the situation in the "Madonna" area as well.

With the greatest respect, there's been a big over-reaction to my last post and some replies seem to have missed the point. For the record my last post was intended to forestall any reeignition of the canon/non-canon argument, not ignite it. I'm in no way suggesting that Grimace or any contributors do anything other than as they see fit. I'll confine further comments on this issue to PMs for safety's sake.

I hereby move that all references to 'Canon/NonCanon' shall be relabelled 'That Which Shall Not Be Named' - For ease of use, 'TWSNBN' is acceptable.

Anyone second?

;)

I second and concur.

Grimace: glad to be of service. When I find the RDF air order of battle I did a while back, I'll find it and send it to you. It covers both sides, btw. Great job, by the way, on issue #1, and may there be more to follow.


As for the comment on the Naval stuff and the whole TWSNBN: I did the two pieces to fill plausible plot holes in canon, and to get comments and feedback in doing so. Again, if you want to use it in your campaign, you're perfectly free to do so. And if not, that's entirely up to you.

100% behind this statement/position.

@ Grimace
I hope to be able to finalise my work on the 2nd Marines 2000 operation soon for consideration for publication.

Looking forward to seeing what you can send my way, Legbreaker!

And sounds good, Matt! :)

Well, so far I've had three people mention that they'd contribute material to the 2nd issue. Can I get any other volunteers?

The more we get, the better this fanzine will become! It also means it will last longer.

So if you've got something that's been sitting around, long forgotten, and want to share it, send it my way! Art, stories, maps, PCs, NPCs, weapons, gear, additional/optional rules....whatever!

:peace:

Hmm, might have something on "supply and demand" post nuke aka trade....
May also be closer to having Australian forces in Korea done, although that's more likely for the 3rd edition. Might even do something like a "how to give orders for dummies" at some point...

Would you like some fiction? I can rework my tank battle short story, make it far less derivative of "The Death of Track 66" from Team Yankee, as you like.

Should have at least the excerpt from my East African Sourcebook describing how the war went nuclear in Africa. Possibly may even do my whole timeline for my idea how the war went in East Africa with mention of other areas in Africa up to April of 2001 if you would be interested in that as an article for the fanzine.

You could do an All ADA special issue and pull in all the fictional and improbable ADA vehicles we generated last year. :)

- C.

I'm all for an ADA issue: I am still very fond the GAU-8 armed M1. ;)

Hell, I'll take that one on the ground - I don't care that it won't penetrate the front of anything but light armor, the shaking up it'd give MBT crews would count as a mission kill! :D

Send the info my way, Tegyrius, and I can certainly include it in a future issue!

The good discussion thread was here. I'll email you a slightly cleaned-up iteration of my XM2A61 writeup.

- C.

How about something like " "news from the front"

It could include new vehicle seen in action and perhaps lessons learned of weapons and such that are new and/or modifications.

And of course all details don't need to be right:)

and other intelligence nuggets.

For myself, I don't see this as any sort of problem. I actually think that having two articles about the same topic but with different points of view can be more enlightening than having them spaced several issues apart.
Having the two articles in the same issue just opens up more food for thought and the editor (i.e. in this case Grimace) can but a small Editor's Note at the start of the second articles saying that e.g "For a different perspective on the same topic we have the following article..."

Personally, I like to see the different sides being argued and putting two or more articles into one issue or over the following issues isn't so much 'contradictory' for me as much as it is 'more exposure to different ideas' (if that makes any sense).
Just some thoughts.

I'll send you a writeup for a location I did for 2013, as well as any art I can scare up.

WOW! :D

Amazing job and excellent compilation here guys, well done!

How about an article on experimental vehicles - somebody could clean up our discussion a while back about the LAV-75 (which I think led to Paul creating a 105mm version).

I'll take it. Grimace, will you be able to lift images directly out of the thread? I suppose I could teach myself how to play with images in a text format.

Not to be a wet blanket but isn't that just the HSVT-L?

It's much, much easier if people can include images that they want in the article they are submitting. If I have to go hunting all over for specific images, especially if I don't know the EXACT search parameters to find the images, it becomes very time consuming and tedious and I become less likely to want to hunt for the exact images and I'll instead find something that's easier to grab.

Putting images into text files should be pretty easy. Just copy/paste.

And Raellus, thank you for volunteering for that!

Well, guys, it's that time of year. Hope this time of year finds you at a state of peace, at least for a little bit.

Just a reminded, there's about two months left to get any material in for Issue 2 of the Twilight 2000 fanzine!

Have a Merry Christmas to you all. Don't be naughty, otherwise the Carabineros will get ya!

http://tncampaignforliberty.org/word...211pod01_J.jpg

It was at the suggestion of someone here -- I can't remember who at the moment (the site search engine should tell us). I sort of thought, "That could be interesting." And I also remembered that Ares came up with a 90mm of their 75mm autocannon -- not sure if I ever did that one.

:zzwhip:
Well then, I'd say you have something to do for the new year! ;)

Such peashooters. ;) The Bofors 120mm/46 SAK DP installed on the Turunmaa-class corvettes Turunmaa and Karjala of the Finnish Navy was an autocannon as well (80 rounds/minute). Too bad, they never made anything but HE rounds for it (though I suspect, had the ships served in Twilight War, the enterprising manufacturers might have come up with a naval round for it).

The M20 Ridgway article is done and submitted.

Yes, I've got the M20 Ridgway article. Thank you for that.

Good stuff there, Grimace, keep up the good work!

Thanks! I will! As long as people continue to contribute material, I'll continue to collect it, organize it, and put it out there for everyone to enjoy!

On a completely unrelated note, did you see that they're doing a kickstarter for a new edition of Morrow Project?

Maybe I'll have to write my radio rules in Twilight that I have been thinking about since 1999. :D

Chuck

I'd be HAPPY to get those from you and include them in the fanzine!

Radio rules? *ears perking up* :D

Sent in a copy of my expanded medical rules (updated) for 2013...

Great! Our first installment for 2013! Thank you!

I don't play 2013 but I'm looking forward to it for ideas as I want to use the knowledge from my day job to expand the 2.0/2.2 rules.