Editing Talk:Roughneck

==In short==

Roughneck: https://mwomercs.com/roughneck

Non-canon Heavy Mech created by PGI for the MechWarrior Online.
 

==Discussion==

Thanks for writing article for this mech, [[User:Cyc|Cyc]] :) --[[User:ManganMan|ManganMan]] ([[User talk:ManganMan|talk]]) 15:09, 3 December 2016 (PST)

===Loader King?===
I am not familiar with the [[Loader King]] am I right in thinking that they have actually added two 'Mechs to the BTu in one fell swoop?--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (PST)
:Correct. [[Technical Readout: Vehicle Annex]] mentions Achernar make multiple IndustrialMechs and the naming format matches the [[Dig King]], but cannot locate it being specifically mentioned before.[[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 19:03, 3 December 2016 (PST)

===Model Designation===
Might want to keep an eye on the model prefix. While the lore article uses the "RGK" prefix, the [https://mwomercs.com/roughneck sale page] and [https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/240510-roughneck-faq/ FAQ] both use the "RGH" designation.

Also built them in Skunkwerks, and the 1A's cost comes to 5,209,573 c-bills. [[Special:Contributions/68.51.25.163|68.51.25.163]] 19:35, 3 December 2016 (PST)

===MechWarrior Online Picture===

Is there a specific rules here on Sarna to use MwO graphics? Or it's just a placeholder?--[[User:ManganMan|ManganMan]] ([[User talk:ManganMan|talk]]) 02:44, 4 December 2016 (PST)

===Non-Canon?===

I was under the impression that the Roughneck was specifically canon. With a blessing from Catalyst and even a potential appearance in the upcoming Battletech strategy game. Though admittedly, I can't seem the exact point where this was declared. Apparently at some point during MechCon 2017? --[[User:R0sshk|R0sshk]] ([[User talk:R0sshk|talk]]) 16:09, 8 December 2016 (PST)
: Many people have indicated this to be the case at panel with Randal and Alex, but cannot locate eveb video of it or any other written confirmation by CGL, thus Sarna erroring on the side of caution.[[User:Cyc|Cyc]] ([[User talk:Cyc|talk]]) 16:19, 8 December 2016 (PST)
:: Personally I am the opinion they should remain apocryphal until they ever appear (which sounds like a huge IF at this point) rather than pre-preemptively giving them 'canoncity' sections, right now I see no citation for things Randall has apparently said [[User:Thehawk|Thehawk]] ([[User talk:Thehawk|talk]]) 14:33, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
:::Randall's citations are on the main [[MechWarrior Online]] page. I found [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=59772.0 Ray Arrastia's recent statements] to Frabby on the CGL forum. My understanding is that fluff=canon, design=not canon, image=not canon.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 18:29, 22 March 2018 (EDT)

:::I recommend centralizing this discussion at [[Talk:MechWarrior_Online]] --[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 18:34, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Non-canon Heavy Mech created by PGI for the MechWarrior Online.
-:May be fully canonical; see below. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:32, 23 March 2018 (EDT)
@@ Line 33: / Line 31: @@
 :::I recommend centralizing this discussion at [[Talk:MechWarrior_Online]] --[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 18:34, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
-::::Agree. In the meantime, I've updated the Canonicity section (here and for the ''[[Sun Spider]]'' as well. Given that there doesn't seem to be user consensus as to wether or not these 'Mechs are canon after all, the default should be to tag them as apocryphal and explain the situation in the Canon section of the respective articles, so that users have all the facts and can decide for themselves. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:32, 23 March 2018 (EDT)