What is "canon"?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If this comes across as rather antagonistic, that is not my intent but as I have been frequently told, I don't have a sense of humour and I'm too blunt

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

...I agree with Legbreaker that what is canon is canon. But when world events suddenly make the canon obsolete then maybe its time to be a little flexible...

Actually I believe this point is invalid, 'canon' is accepted as the body of work published by GDW (the games and their sourcebooks, Challenge magazine articles) or those bodies of work published by others with GDW's permission (The City Of Angels module). Even those articles written by former GDW staff (before or after GDW was closed down) should not be blindly accepted as canon unless they actually have GDW approval.
Real World events after the 'canon' start-of-war date of 1996 are completely irrelevant to the Twilight: 2000 game. If we completely threw out what was canon because the real world history was different to the game world histroy, nobody would ever have played Twilight: 2000 after 1996. If you start changing the canon material just to suit what's happened in the real world, you end up with the ludicrous 'Greedo fired first' situation that George Lucas foisted off on the fans in the 1990s editions of the original Star Wars movies because he felt they should be more family friendly (i.e. politically correct)

Arguement can be successfully made to include any real world equipment that was available by 1996 but wasn't included in the books so things like the Russian APS underwater assault rifle are perfectly acceptable. However by the gameworld history as set down by GDW, Germany was still divided up until 1996 and so the G36 should not be included as the G11 was going to be the next rifle for German forces.

If anybody needs a list of what is actual 'canon' material, visit Far Future Enterprises website and see what's on the CD-ROMs for Twilight 1st edition and 2nd edition... anything else is not canon

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

...Maybe we can get Kato to set up a NON canon separate forum and the best and the brightest like the DC group and Moh can use it set out their ideas? ...

I too feel that this is probably a suitable solution

[pmulcahy11b]

I always thought canon was something you shoot at the enemy...never mind, a bad, over-used joke...

Canon does, and should, evolve over time, as people get new, and sometimes better ideas. Look how Gary Gygax fought changes to D&D canon for almost 15 years. He felt for a long time that what he and Dave Arneson came up with was the ONLY canon. Eventually, he had to bend, and accept that other people could come up with good ideas. Canon sometimes changes, and sometimes must change to keep up with the times.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Real World events after the 'canon' start-of-war date of 1996 are completely irrelevant to the Twilight: 2000 game.

Arguement can be successfully made to include any real world equipment that was available by 1996 but wasn't included in the books so things like the Russian APS underwater assault rifle are perfectly acceptable. However by the gameworld history as set down by GDW, Germany was still divided up until 1996 and so the G36 should not be included as the G11 was going to be the next rifle for German forces.

If anybody needs a list of what is actual 'canon' material, visit Far Future Enterprises website and see what's on the CD-ROMs for Twilight 1st edition and 2nd edition... anything else is not canon

I agree with the first part (or 1985 if you are playing V1) -- to a point. See my previous post.

As for the second part -- a good amount of weapons programs would have been accelerated as the storm clouds gathered, and during the war, previously overlooked or passed-over projects might have been put into limited production. World War 2 is a good example of this, though I'll grant you that they didn't have to contend with global nuclear strikes. On top of this, we are still finding out about weapons programs the Soviets were working on during the cold war, and after the Wall fell, we discovered a lot of surprising stuff they had. The details of my ideas on this would make too long a post; if anyone wants to know more of my thoughts, email or PM me.

As for the third part -- again, see my previous post.

T2K (not T2K13) is in a way a "dead" system -- no one is publishing anything new for it. WE (and other T2K forums and sites) are now the makers of canon. We are the means by which the T2K progresses. If GDW hadn't gone under, or if Marc Miller had decided to continue the T2K saga, our ideas might have been the driving force behind published T2K. Now, we T2K enthusiasts are the only driving force.

[Mohoender]

Nothing to debate anymore. Paul said it all.

Thanks Paul.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I understand your points but I respectfully disagree. 'Canon' is the material created by the original authors.
If they choose to alter that (such as Twilight 1st edition to 2nd edition), that is their right as the originators of the material.
I am not saying canon doesn't change nor am I saying it should never change.
What I am saying is that if you are not the original author of the material or you do not have the approval of the original author, then you are not producing material that is canon
Whether anyone likes it or not, the people from 93 Games Studio have every right to regard their work as canon material for a third edition of Twilight: 2000 because they actually obtained permission to do so from the people who hold the intellectual property rights.

As I alluded to before, any equipment programmes that originated before the end of 1996 (I must confess that I have never paid much attention to 1st edition as I was introduced to the game through 2nd edition) are all perfectly feasible for inclusion if they fit into the gameworld as described in 'canon'. Anything from after the war was finishing is not really suitable because the world has lost most of its research/development and manufacturing abilities let alone the transportation and organizational ability required to obtain the necessary resources.
Again going to the example of the G36, it was designed in the mid 1990s as a replacement for the failed project to replace the G3 with the G11. By the 'canon' timeline, the G11 was accepted because the events in the gameworld did not replicate events in the real world. Therefore the reasons for creating the G36 do not actually exist within the gameworld.
This is exactly why 'canon' can only compose the original material produced by the author or material that is authorised by the author. Anything else, no matter how fitting or appropriate, is a supplement.

Lets forget about any talk of legal definitions or intellectual property rights here, we are talking about a fundemental principle of acknowledging who produced the original material and exactly what that material is irrespective of if we set about modifying to suit our own tastes.
I cannot simply change the Mona Lisa because I think the painting isn't suitable for modern tastes because her clothes are out of date and then pass it off as the author's original work and as such WE, because we are not the original authors of Twilight: 2000, are not now the makers of canon simply because the timeline is outdated or doesn't fit modern history or because the company who produced it no longer exists.
The Twilight: 2000 canon has already been established by the originators of the material, anything we produce now is a supplement or an alternative and that remains constant regardless of the game being a dead system or not. To claim that something we produce now is canon simply because the game is no longer produced is perilously close to claiming we are the makers of the original product.

[Legbreaker]

Stainless, you have summed up my position and the truth of the matter beautifully!

Canon, plain and simple is what's been produced by the originators, the writers, the designers and publishers. By definition, such works as City of Angels and Twilightcycle: 2000 are not canon (especially the latter), but are still certainly useful additions to any collection.

The same goes for anything we produce. It's not canon, but from what I've seen we've got some damn fine and talented writers and researchers amongst us and nobody should stop doing what they've been doing.

All I ask is that canon be recognised for what it is - the foundation everything else is built upon. As much as we individuals and groups may not like what's been given to us, as a foundation it cannot change, it can only be built upon.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Time for me to don my asbestos pants and dangle my arse over the parapet for some flaming. I missed out on the majority of this argument for a variety of reasons, mostly lack of PC time at the minute. I've always felt that we had a civilised forum here, free of the pissing contests that mark most other forums. I'd like to see a return to that. As far as canon goes I don't think I've ever played a strictly canon game of anything. Every GM changes something to suit their style of game or players. If you don't you'll end up not having fun, and for me anyway fun is what the game is all about. Do what suits your game, but don't piss and moan about what others do with theirs. I would love to have the time and abilities to devote to rewriting everything that I don't agree with, but I don't. I do have a huge amount of respect for others who do, and I will cherry pick ideas as they suit me. I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to peoples expectations, but please don't take this as me taking sides. There are a lot of great parts to the canon, there is also a lot of great homebrew stuff out there. I'll continue to use what I like and what suits my game, end of story. Sorry if I'm pissing on peoples cornflakes, but that's the way I see it. Can we just please get over this, move away from personal attacks and get back to what we do best - fragging marauders, brigands, bandits and dodging those places that glow in the dark. Kato did a great job setting this place up when the old forum shit on us and I feel personally appalled that he felt he could no longer be involved his forum. Let's tone it down and see if we can get the big guy back again. At the end of the day its only a game.

Now feel free to toast me to a crisp

[Targan]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

Now feel free to toast me to a crisp

Can't do it, too great was the wisdom in your words. You spake true.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

Time for me to don my asbestos pants and dangle my arse over the parapet for some flaming. I missed out on the majority of this argument for a variety of reasons, mostly lack of PC time at the minute. I've always felt that we had a civilised forum here, free of the pissing contests that mark most other forums. I'd like to see a return to that. As far as canon goes I don't think I've ever played a strictly canon game of anything. Every GM changes something to suit their style of game or players. If you don't you'll end up not having fun, and for me anyway fun is what the game is all about. Do what suits your game, but don't piss and moan about what others do with theirs. I would love to have the time and abilities to devote to rewriting everything that I don't agree with, but I don't. I do have a huge amount of respect for others who do, and I will cherry pick ideas as they suit me. I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to peoples expectations, but please don't take this as me taking sides. There are a lot of great parts to the canon, there is also a lot of great homebrew stuff out there. I'll continue to use what I like and what suits my game, end of story. Sorry if I'm pissing on peoples cornflakes, but that's the way I see it. Can we just please get over this, move away from personal attacks and get back to what we do best - fragging marauders, brigands, bandits and dodging those places that glow in the dark. Kato did a great job setting this place up when the old forum shit on us and I feel personally appalled that he felt he could no longer be involved his forum. Let's tone it down and see if we can get the big guy back again. At the end of the day its only a game.

Now feel free to toast me to a crisp

Then stop posting in this thread



Text is such a bad medium for trying to be humorous

[Mohoender]

Well this getting beyond the Australia discussion Mohender.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Here you are forgetting about boomers and aircrafts. Then, in the game (always v2.2) the four Russian SS-18 bases were targeted and destroyed and there is no point to do that if the missiles are already launched (especially as no one hits any target anywere). That alone would explain why US wasn't hit by SS-18.

I doubt bombers would used in a first strike by either America or Russia, particularly against each other. Although boomers may be used in conjunction with land based ICBMs.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Two things make me think that most of this comes from insufficient knowledge from the original T2K team (they didn't have internet and many informations were unavailable). Out of the 7 other bases destroyed in USSR, 3 are SS-26 (actual Iskander) and 1 is SS-27 (commissioned only after 1998). There is also no reason for them to have forgotten the 2 bases in Kazakhstan and especially/only these ones.

Probably right here.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

So to answer your question:
- All ICBM bases are not listed as destroyed but if two SS-18 bases remain why not use any of them (104) against US/Canada and their highly strategic targets?

They may use some, but there are other targets (Australia) that need to be hit as well.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

- To retaliate the soviets still have boomers and aircrafts+mobile ICBM fire units (about 300 SS-25).

I think they would be largely used against American and NATO targets closer to the USSR.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

- If the soviets starts, it is possible that they don't send SS-18 in the first place. However, I would agree that it is highly unlikely. On the other hand, again, why leaving about 80 SS-18 in their Silos while they are the best suited weapons to take out NORAD, the US ICBM bases and even Washington DC?

Well they dont really need to use the SS-18 (R-36M2) to hit the US as other ICBM's have the range, but to cause the most damage they would be well suited.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

In addition, according to the game text (again v2.2), both sides refrain from targetting the other side's ICBM land base for quite some times. At last, they do: All 4 US bases are taken out (Forks, Malmstrom, Minot & Warren +Vandenberg) and almost all Soviets bases in Russia with the base in others republics not accounted for (most likely forgotten). Then, they are two possibilities: All missiles are destroyed before being launched or they are launched before the bases are destroyed and, then, SS-18 should be accounted for all over (there are none/according to your own account most Satan were equipped with 20Mt warheads, they would have been used). I grant you that the Mt listed are highly questionable and can be open to debate (but that will become endless)

I don't think we will ever know will we.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

For my parts (I mean in my game), I use several SS-18 but only on highly strategic targets. They are not used extensively because the first strike is successful in decapitating the US ICBM force. Then, in turn, the Soviets' ICBM force (silo only) is decapitated by strikes from SLBM.

If the Soviets launched a first strike on the US I think its highly probable that most if not all of the US silo based ICBMs would be launched before they were destroyed by the incoming Soviet missiles.

[Mohoender]

With Kato not around to split threads when needed I do as I can. Leg, sorry to appear in your thread but I think that my answers will be perfectly relevant to it. Thanks for having started it.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Well this getting beyond the Australia discussion Mohender.

Not really but we have to make something clear. I'm thinking in game terms not in real life term. What you describe sounds to me as an all out nuclear attack. It could be but that is not what T2K is all about (IMO and according to what the authors say). Then, if that's what you use to play it, your point is perfectly good and it is entirely legitimate. I chose to answer here because if I desagree with Leg into my approach on cannon (sorry to bring you into this again), I perfectly agree with him on two things: it is a great game and I love the atmosphere of cannon. As a result, I don't modify it because I find it bad but because there are plenty of empty spaces into it.

In the meantime when I share ideas it's not because I'm right, it is simply because I hope to inspire others as I have been inspired by so many people from this forum (I would not have gone anywhere without everyone else).

To get back a bit on Australia and nukes, I modified my initial point because of everyone else ideas (including yours, RN7, on Pine Gap...). However, I didn't go as far as you simply because it doesn't fit in (IMO) with the atmosphere of T2K. If the Soviets eradicate Australia, they are in turn eradicated by the USA who are in turn eradicated by the Soviets (GAME OVER). The Soviets would not hesitate to sacrifice one or two of their allies if they think it useful to preserve Na Rodinia (Mother Russia). However, from what I have seen and what I have experienced of US, Americans are not like that. If anyone, obliterate one of their allies to the point you destroy Australia, they will not stop until full revenge is achieved (I would say that it is culutural to the religious point). If USSR sends 20-30 SS-18 carrying 20Mt warheads on Australia, US (IMO) will answer with a full scale attackon the Soviets...

Therefore, I agree with you if you talk of an all out attack but if that's not the case, they might indeed try to use SLBMs but they will forget about their ICBMs. I finally included that idea but I simply chose to make them fail because it helped my purpose.

You also included New Zealand, but New Zealand is no asset at all. Unlike Australia, they have no significant weapon industries.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I doubt bombers would used in a first strike by either America or Russia, particularly against each other. Although boomers may be used in conjunction with land based ICBMs.

- They are (in T2K) as both sides start with tactical and deep tactical strikes (SRBM, cruise missiles and aircraft nukes).
- IRL, you are right in theory. However as no war is ever fought as theory envisions it, you have 90% chance to be wrong (and I have 90% chance to be wrong). We will never know and I doubt that we ever came close to know.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

They may use some, but there are other targets (Australia) that need to be hit as well.

As you noted, they had 308 SS-18 Satan, they need at most 30 on Australia (again only the 20Mt version can reach it for sure)+2 on New Zealand and a few on Brazil, Spanish speaking Latin America and South Africa (probably 50). They are not going to sit on the 200 remaining ones.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I think they would be largely used against American and NATO targets closer to the USSR.

SS-25 have a range of 10500 km, they are not intended for close targets. They were introduced mostly because they are less vulnerable (mobile), being the last line of defense in the case the silos are wiped out.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Well they dont really need to use the SS-18 (R-36M2) to hit the US as other ICBM's have the range, but to cause the most damage they would be well suited.

That's what I mean and every serious source states that a good part of them were targeted at the US. As you say because they are the best suited to do the most damages.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I don't think we will ever know will we.

We do (with reasonable doubts). I'm talking of T2K (again v2.2) and from what you read, you can make a reasonable guess and say that if ICBMs were used it was only on a limited scale (might be different with v1.0 but I don't know as I never read it carefully and never will). SLBM were used on a larger scales but according to game, all boomers were destroyed outside of the Barikada and its three remaining missiles (may be the French too). Also according to game, all ICBM bases are destroyed and given the assumption that ICBMs were only used on a limited scale, there are none left. Obviously, there still are nuclear warheads but attached to either mobile systems (SS-25, SS-20, Pershing), aircrafts (bomb and cruise missiles) or artillery shells.
IRL, you are right indeed.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

If the Soviets launched a first strike on the US I think its highly probable that most if not all of the US silo based ICBMs would be launched before they were destroyed by the incoming Soviet missiles.

Right in the case of an all out attack. Again this is not what happens in T2K. They get to a limited exchange (a fairly descent one nonetheless) and they might simply have sacrificed their ICBMs. Of course, if you go by the "little nuke book" you are right. But obviously, the author (and again in v2.2) don't go in that direction.
At last, IRL, things never go by the whatever "little rule book" you have.

To get back to your first question, the all out attack may be what happens in your approach to the game. Then, your view is perfectly legitimate and your are right (for yourself). In addition, thank you for your thoughts and for the elements given as they have been useful (very useful) but there is no point to discuss it anyfurther. First I don't have that approach. Second if I was focusing on an all out attack I agree with you entirely.