Out of Retirement - The Rules

[Old Wombat]

And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple   

So, what drugs are you taking, again?

[Dizzyfugu]

Probably those banned under rule #7?

[TomZ]

Can the new operator be fictional, like a never existed mercenary air force or does it need to be a rw operator?

As this is a very respectable forum only doing real world topics, why would anyone want to do a fictional operator? 

Yes, as far as I am concerned fictional operators are fine.

TomZ

[Vorcha]

2. Quite simply your build must be of an aircraft/vehicle/ship/space craft/weapon etc that has been retired from active service and then for whatever reason brought back from retirement and put back into service. This can be in either the original or a modified state. If modified it should still be recognisable however when compared to the original. The build is not restricted to military types but includes both civil types and civilian users.

Finally if your choice of subject has more than one user and one of those has retired it, but the other ones have kept it in service, you are perfectly entitled to build a model of the type as brought back into service by that one user that retired it. As an example, when the R.A.F. retired the Harrier it remained in service with the U.S.M.C. and the Spanish A.F. Therefore for the purposes of this G.B. you could build a model of a Harrier brought back into service with the R.A.F. even though it had remained in use by the other services.

3. Models, drawings, artwork and stories are all eligible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but rule no. 2, as I read it, does not explicitly rule out that not only the second operator of the craft can be fictional, but also the craft and the first operator... the discussion in this thread seems to set these boundaries.
So does the first operator and the original retired craft itself have to be RW/ canon fiction/ canon sci-fi?

[tigercat]

Do Ghost ships or Ghost aircraft count as out of retirement ?

[TomZ]

After due deliberation among the exalted moderators (and the consumption of copious amounts of the elixer of wisdom, in my case whisky) the moderators have come up with the following clarifications:

• Tthe main idea behind the group build is the concept of "retired".
  This means a period of non activity. That is fundamentally something different than "Sold to".
  So WW2 Thunderbolts sold to let's say Holland in 1945 after the war and used there do not qualify. Because of the lack of retirement time but also because the US still had operational P-47s at the time.
  But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.
  But that straight away raises the question of how long something needs to be retired to count. A day in transit is clearly not enough. It should be "A significant amount of time."
  
• A retired prototype brought back for another purpose / user is OK. Again the defining factor is "retired".
• Both the original and/or the new operator can be fictional as long as there is a plausible back-story. A retired NCC-1701 is possible but as there is no real-world way to check the "retired" part, that needs a back-story that is consistent with the series time-lines and story line.
  This does require an existing(at least existing in movies, books or TV) craft. A completely fictional, scratch built aircraft retired from a fictional air force and brought back in another fictional air force is a step too far we think

Also: Remember rule 6!

TomZ

[TomZ]

Do Ghost ships or Ghost aircraft count as out of retirement ?

A ghost ship could as long as it is a one of a kind.
Ghost aircraft is more difficult as there would probably be more of the type remaining in service and so the type is not "retired"

TomZ

[PR19_Kit]

But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.

That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?

[TallEng]

But WW2 Thunderbolts retired from the USAF and sold in 1950 to South Korea would as they would have been inactive for a couple of years. It all boils down to the type having been taken out of service completely.

That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?

I think this rule answers that question kit?

Finally if your choice of subject has more than one user and one of those has retired it, but the other ones have kept it in service, you are perfectly entitled to build a model of the type as brought back into service by that one user that retired it. As an example, when the R.A.F. retired the Harrier it remained in service with the U.S.M.C. and the Spanish A.F. Therefore for the purposes of this G.B. you could build a model of a Harrier brought back into service with the R.A.F. even though it had remained in use by the other services.

It had better do or one of my ideas goes down in flames

regards
Keith

[TomZ]

That counts a 2019 RAF Harrier out then, as Harriers remained in service constantly with the USMC and Spanish Navy, right?

No it doesn't. The type was retired from the RAF/RN so they can be recalled to active service. Or ex RAF aircraft can be sold to Holland.
But ex RAF Harriers sold to supplement the USMC fleet would not be OK as they are still in service there.

So addendum to the post below:

It all boils down to EITHER:
- the type having been retired completely from the service it's coming back to
OR
- the type having been retired completely from one service and coming back to a service that never used it.


Does this make it more clear?

TomZ

[Dizzyfugu]

Hmm, that probably killed an idea here, too. That's quite tricky, also because it is more difficult to find evidence when a type was eventually retired - service introductions are more common knowledge!

[zenrat]

It's very simple.  If your proposed build doesn't fit the rules then tweak your back story until it does.   

And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple   

I'd better start thinking about the next one now...

It's in The Navy isn't it?  i think I am modding that one.
It'll be easy.

It has to be in a navy.  Full stop.  Period.  The end.   

[TomZ]

Hmm, that probably killed an idea here, too. That's quite tricky, also because it is more difficult to find evidence when a type was eventually retired - service introductions are more common knowledge!

Well, it is called out of RETIREMENT.
But if you send me the idea (can be done confidentially via PM if you don't want to disclose here) we can give an opinion on it.
Promise we won't disclose it to the rest. (unless they pay lots of money)

TomZ

[NARSES2]

It's in The Navy isn't it?  i think I am modding that one.
It'll be easy.

It has to be in a navy.  Full stop.  Period.  The end.   

That's what I thought until I actually had a think about it yesterday. Seriously, but the is not a subject for this board. if you want some early thoughts to mull over PM me.

[NARSES2]

And there was me thinking defining the rules for this GB would be relatively simple   

So, what drugs are you taking, again?

5 different ones at the moment. Just coming off the sixth