Preston's Lancers Recruiting
#141
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM
#142
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:06 PM
#143
Posted 15 August 2012 - 07:06 AM
Stalkerr, on 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
Great idea stalker, thanks for the effort.
#144
Posted 15 August 2012 - 07:37 AM
#145
Posted 17 August 2012 - 01:40 AM
Stalkerr, on 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
Quite a few of us are interested in this. I can't see any reason to say no and it's free to boot. Just to be clear: I can't speak for the whole unit, only Tenk (Howling Mad Murdock) can, but it's safe to assume we'd be delighted to have our own channel on the Liao TS server.
Thanks Stalkerr!
Edited by Balls of Steele, 17 August 2012 - 01:42 AM.
#146
Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:59 PM
#147
Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:17 PM
The Preston's Lancers channel is down at the bottom. I even added your logo as the channel icon. I'll give whoever your leadership is (tenk, et al) channel admin rights so you can create sub-channels. Just contact me.
#148
Posted 17 September 2012 - 03:48 AM
#149
Posted 18 September 2012 - 07:06 AM
#150
Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:08 AM
#151
Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:04 PM
NamesAreStupid, on 20 September 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:
It's a valid point, however there's almost no mention of Preston's Lancers anywhere else, aside from a listing on Regiment Deployment table in the '88 version of the House Liao Handbook and an appearance in the Succession Wars table top game (which itself featured several units that never appeared in any other source materials). That the unit is rarely touched upon and was never conclusively destroyed makes it ideal for "ressurection" as a player unit. These things pop up all the time in BT, nothing is ever really dead until it's really dead. And even then...
#152
Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:22 AM
NamesAreStupid, on 20 September 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:
not so. it was just the simpleist solution, considering how bad the CCAF was after the 4th succession war and there was no mention of us, it made sense to say we were destroyed. but alas we were not, we were just severely damaged.
#154
Posted 23 September 2012 - 05:15 AM
I'd maintain it, but it looks lonely enough as it is.
#157
Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:22 AM
On the status of our unit as "canon":- strictly speaking, yes, it is a canon unit. However its canonicity is so stupidly obscure as to be almost totally irrelevant, not to mention the fact its listed as destroyed. We are a resurrected version of the destroyed unit, it isn't hard to grasp.
#158
Posted 24 September 2012 - 08:32 AM
Edited by Metro, 25 September 2012 - 06:26 AM.
Offtopic
#159
Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:01 PM
Figured you would all take it better coming from me, than anyone else.
#160
Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:43 PM
Metro, on 24 September 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:
Figured you would all take it better coming from me, than anyone else.
how is it valid? we are a unit that will be playing under house liao, not under the mercenary flag? in fact we use the CCAF logo in our recruitment posters.
also included is
Hayden, on 21 May 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:
i can also point out that per the 3025 handbook liao none of the information was incorrect.
Would it be possible to tell us what the problem is that way we can fix it?
Edited by Ettibber, 24 September 2012 - 10:52 PM.
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users