trekcc.org

Hi all, and welcome to your next Friday Question! This one was inspired by one of my local players, admiralgary (Gary Jackling). Gary has a love of history, touring the UK with work and visiting the wonderful ancient buildings we have here, so historical accuracy is very important to him.

A few weeks ago, Gary asked me a question about the U.S.S. Hood. For reference, here is the lore:

Registry number NCC-42296. Named for the 20th century admiral, Sir Horace Hood. Commanded by Captain Robert DeSoto.

Except, that isn’t who the naval based Hoods are named after. The Royal Navy has had three ships named H.M.S. Hood, and their namesake is Admiral Samuel Hood.

Clearly, in writing the lore for the Premiere U.S.S. Hood, Decipher named the 24th century version after a different Hood. Was that a deliberate decision, or a mistake? Now, by the 24th century, ships could be named for different namesakes of course. But that leads me to this week’s question:

Should we errata lore to correct what we might deem to be historical inaccuracies?

Is it disrespectful to the long-standing military history of ships called Hood to change their namesake? Or are we allowed to take a little creative license with these things?

Let us know your views!

I am not sure why Sir Horace Hood is commonly mistaken as the namesake as he did die in Battle at Jutland. The trek universe named the Excelsior Hood after the Admiral class battlecruiser that met her end at the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Although there where 4 Admiral class planned, all named after 18th century admirals, only one was built named after Admiral Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood, Sir Horace Hood's ancestor....

I'd say no to errata of lore like this unless it directly contradicts history or established Trek canon. Just because the real life Hoods were named after Admiral Samuel Hood doesn't necessarily mean the starship wasn't named after Sir Horace Hood, even if it's hard to understand the reason why it would be.

Plus, given that this would have no gameplay effect, there are lore errata that I think would be more of a priority, such as the old cards that modern naming rules cause to refer to cards that don't and probably never will exist.

Fictional timeline, fictional history.

Unless I missed the Eugenics Wars in my teens?

Eugenics wars is actually the culture wars, it was renamed in 2250s...

Nah. I think correcting things like this is a waste of time and adds no value to the game. Time is precious, use it wisely.

If we were also doing other changes to the Hood, say removing the “Captain” prefix from Robert DeSoto (cough broken link cough), what would you say then?

Not asking for changes, just a correction, Can I also point out that other cards have been eratta for less...

KazonPADD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:01 pm If we were also doing other changes to the Hood, say removing the “Captain” prefix from Robert DeSoto (cough broken link cough), what would you say then?

I think it still suffers the problem of "imposing real-world history on a fictional TV show".

If it was correcting something that the TV shows had later established, such as some detail that happened in DS9/VOY after premiere was printed... sure.

But I don't know that I love the idea of correcting it to something that we don't know is true in universe.

Related question... are there any 1E cards out there with lore that was correct at the time (as far as we knew) but incorrect now due to retcons by shows set in the "past" like Enterprise and Discovery?

Like how the computer knew Scotty wasn't asking for a holographic recreation of the NX-01 in "Relics" or the "Which Enterprise? They've been five." "Six." exchange in "Trials and Tribbleations".

KazonPADD wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:01 pm If we were also doing other changes to the Hood, say removing the “Captain” prefix from Robert DeSoto (cough broken link cough), what would you say then?

Barely broken - for DeSoto himself establishes the matching commander link.

On a larger note - if we're going to go down the rabbit hole, the first place to start is with Klingon ships - fixing all the IKC prefixes. For I don't recall IKC ever being mentioned in the show, but I heard IKS all the time in the latter half of Deep Space 9.

jrch5618 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:41 pmOn a larger note - if we're going to go down the rabbit hole, the first place to start is with Klingon ships - fixing all the IKC prefixes. For I don't recall IKC ever being mentioned in the show, but I heard IKS all the time in the latter half of Deep Space 9.

To be fair, Memory Alpha reports:

The designation "IKS" and full meaning, "Imperial Klingon Ship", were both introduced in "Sons of Mogh". Prior to this use, it had been established, primarily by Michael Okuda in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, that the standard Klingon starship prefix was "IKC". This belief was based on the translation of communications chatter in Star Trek: The Motion Picture that identifies the lead vessel in the assault on V'ger as the Imperial Klingon Cruiser Amar.

...and of course the game premiered several years before "Sons of Mogh" aired.

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that there is a behind-the-scenes policy to fix IKC/IKS prefixes if an IKC ship is being reprinted for some other reason. Fixing the prefix is not in itself sufficient reason for an erratum, but, if we're going to do a VP, we're going to print it right.

Without knowing specifically what's on Paddy's mind, I think that's the spirit in which this 1EFQ is intended: if we're already reprinting a certain card, how aggressive should we be about tidying up lore? This is a fairly extreme case of it: there's nothing in it that affects gameplay, or could even remotely arguably affect it in the future, and it's arguably justifiable in-universe... but it still looks like it's just factually wrong.

(I don't have a strong opinion on this one. Good FQ!)

Boffo97 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:23 pm Related question... are there any 1E cards out there with lore that was correct at the time (as far as we knew) but incorrect now due to retcons by shows set in the "past" like Enterprise and Discovery?

Well...

BCSWowbagger wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:48 pm

Boffo97 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:23 pm Related question... are there any 1E cards out there with lore that was correct at the time (as far as we knew) but incorrect now due to retcons by shows set in the "past" like Enterprise and Discovery?

Well...

Aw, man, Charlie’s gonna hate me if I want to errata a Borderless Promo!

In truth I would say not to bother. There are plenty of corrections that should happen long before anything that might be historically inaccurate. Especially since we can't exactly prove it's even true in Trek.