Tie Fighter in FO paint: Legality

[DanDoulogos 753]

 

If we are expected (by rules already built into the game) to "live with that" for ships that look identical, we should be able to live with that for ships that are merely "similar" by way of a (what would have to be an impressively accurate) paint job.

But the rules are quite clear on all points.

You are expected to mark your ships with number tokens so people can tell them apart. The rules are also quite clear that any modification to the basic model is not allowed. They're also clear that the TO has the final say on if a paint job is acceptable or not.

 

I refer you to the current X-Wing tournament rules, on page 4 under the heading, Component Modifications, where you will find the following beginning in the third paragraph:

 

Players are welcome and encouraged to personalize their squads according to the following rules:

• players may paint their ship models. they cannot modify the size and shape of a ship model in any way.

 

While the rules are clear that you cannot modify the size and shape of the model, they are equally clear that painting your model is perfectly acceptable.

 

You're follow up points after this, for this reason, are ... less than compelling.

 

 

The bottom line is, that a player has no power to decide if a paint job or other modification is acceptable or not, the TO and the TO alone has that power.

You can argue what you think other people should think, what you can't do is actually make them think that, and as long as the game has two sides you have to consider what other people think, not just what you think they should think.

Myself I'd be rather surprised if a TO ever told someone they couldn't use a Tie/ln painted like a /fo as long as it marked someway. But that doesn't mean it can't happen, or that the TO can't make that decision.

edit: I agree that a TO has the authority to rule that painted miniatures will not be allowed,  but I can't imagine any reputable TO failing to make a rule like that known before people show up with otherwise perfectly legal, painted builds. 

 

I wouldn't suggest that a TO couldn't make that kind of call on the fly - I mean they are invested with that kind of power - but it would be as arbitrary as saying, "no Imperial fleets are legal for this tournament" - those who showed up with imperial fleets would have had a reasonable expectation that their ships were legal.  In the same way, anyone showing up with painted miniatures has a reasonable expectation (given they are officially sanctioned under the current X-Wing Tournament Rules) that they will be allowed to play them.  The TO can still say "No" - but such a person would not be held in high regard by most players without a horse in the race.

Edited March 2, 2016 by DanDoulogos

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

Both players reveal all components in their squads and assign ID tokens to any ships that have a duplicate on the same team. If both players fielded squads from the same faction, ID tokens are assigned to all ships (see “Mirror Matches” on page 3). One player must display only the white numerals of his ID tokens; the other player must display only the black numerals.

"Duplicate" could mean I only assign ID tokens if I'm running two identical Academy Pilots, but in context it's more likely that it means if I'm running any two X-wings, they get ID tokens. Furthermore, since almost no tournament participant can rule out mirror matches, as a practical matter all ships should be assigned ID tokens.

 

"Ship" is a defined term, sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It includes all of the components that make up what you eventually push around the board - including the base token. So, not all ships should be assigned ID tokens.

How you are ensuring that you will never face a mirror match? Unless you're the only player with a list from your faction, you have to have ID tokens ready. You could decide that you'll only put them on for a mirror match and then you'll take them right back out again, but that would just further substantiates the hypothesis that you're deliberately trying to manipulate and confuse your opponent.

If I were the TO at a tournament where someone had painted a TIE/ln and TIE/fo identically and refused to assign them ID tokens, I would refer him or her to that section of the tournament rules. If he or she still refused, I would indicate that the section on "Component Modifications" gives the head judge the final decision on whether modified components are legal, and would ask the player again to either provide ID tokens or replace the components with unmodified (i.e., unpainted) ones.

Hopefully that player would direct you to the other rules that reference ID tokens and what constitutes a duplicate ship. At that point, you should be satisfied.

 

If you felt the need to indicate that you were given full authority to abuse the discretion that the rules give you as TO in order to resolve a situation where someone fabricated some silly complaint about the potential for confusion because they are too lazy to look at a base token - which sits in almost the exact same spot as an ID token - to be sure that a ship is what they think it is, then hopefully the players in attendance would respond by pressuring you to be more thoughtful.

So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

And furthermore, you're saying you'd bring two ships that you had deliberately made difficult to tell apart, and then refuse multiple prompts from the TO to clearly distinguish them from one another (presumably in response to a complaint from another player, since the TO has been called in). At that point, you'd expect "the players in attendance" to rise in support of your right to deliberately abuse the rules in order to play mind games with your opponent.

Yeah, I'm done here.

[Rapture 499]

 

 

 

"Ship" is a defined term, sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It includes all of the components that make up what you eventually push around the board - including the base token. So, not all ships should be assigned ID tokens.

 

How you are ensuring that you will never face a mirror match? Unless you're the only player with a list from your faction, you have to have ID tokens ready. You could decide that you'll only put them on for a mirror match and then you'll take them right back out again, but that would just further substantiates the hypothesis that you're deliberately trying to manipulate and confuse your opponent.

 

 

Why does it matter? The fact that ID tokens may become necessary does not mean that you, even as the big bad TO who feels that he can DQ anyone for anything that he does not like, should be demanding that one particular player, or even every player, use the ID tokens when the rules do not require that they do.

 

 

 

If I were the TO at a tournament where someone had painted a TIE/ln and TIE/fo identically and refused to assign them ID tokens, I would refer him or her to that section of the tournament rules. If he or she still refused, I would indicate that the section on "Component Modifications" gives the head judge the final decision on whether modified components are legal, and would ask the player again to either provide ID tokens or replace the components with unmodified (i.e., unpainted) ones.

Hopefully that player would direct you to the other rules that reference ID tokens and what constitutes a duplicate ship. At that point, you should be satisfied.
 
If you felt the need to indicate that you were given full authority to abuse the discretion that the rules give you as TO in order to resolve a situation where someone fabricated some silly complaint about the potential for confusion because they are too lazy to look at a base token - which sits in almost the exact same spot as an ID token - to be sure that a ship is what they think it is, then hopefully the players in attendance would respond by pressuring you to be more thoughtful.

 

So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

 

When the TO is doing it to resolve a ridiculous claim of potential confusion that creates no more potential for confusion than the rules already allow and account for? Yes. I am.

 

I am also saying that any TO who would do that is an idiot who should not be trusted with a modicum of discretion.

 

 

 

If I were the TO at a tournament where someone had painted a TIE/ln and TIE/fo identically and refused to assign them ID tokens, I would refer him or her to that section of the tournament rules. If he or she still refused, I would indicate that the section on "Component Modifications" gives the head judge the final decision on whether modified components are legal, and would ask the player again to either provide ID tokens or replace the components with unmodified (i.e., unpainted) ones.

Hopefully that player would direct you to the other rules that reference ID tokens and what constitutes a duplicate ship. At that point, you should be satisfied.
 
If you felt the need to indicate that you were given full authority to abuse the discretion that the rules give you as TO in order to resolve a situation where someone fabricated some silly complaint about the potential for confusion because they are too lazy to look at a base token - which sits in almost the exact same spot as an ID token - to be sure that a ship is what they think it is, then hopefully the players in attendance would respond by pressuring you to be more thoughtful.

 

So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

And furthermore, you're saying you'd bring two ships that you had deliberately made difficult to tell apart, and then refuse multiple prompts from the TO to clearly distinguish them from one another (presumably in response to a complaint from another player, since the TO has been called in). At that point, you'd expect "the players in attendance" to rise in support of your right to deliberately abuse the rules in order to play mind games with your opponent.

Yeah, I'm done here.

 

 

My position is that, if the rules do not require it, a TO demanding that a single player add ID tokes to their ships is an abuse of discretion.

 

I regularly bring two ships that are literally identical - I would even risk stating that the vast majority of X-Wing players have done this and will continue to do this. Have you never see someone fly Poe and Asty? Wedge and Luke? Vader and Eclipse?

 

Do you see confusion disrupting games when the pilots listed above are flown together? FFG apparently did not, because its game designers are, and I am speculating here, under the impression that a model sitting about a piece of cardboard that lists the ship type and pilot name is sufficient to prevent such confusion.

 

What if a TO prompted me to put my pilot cards on my opponent's side of the table? What if a TO prompted me to keep my maneuver templates perfectly nested and aligned when not in use? What if a TO prompted me to list the pilot name, pilot skill, and remaining hull for each ship before I took an action with it? What if a TO prompted me to stand on one foot for ten seconds?

 

A TO prompting me to do something that the rules do not require me to do is a huge red flag and I would imagine that very few players at the tournaments that you TO would be happy with you imposing requirements to solve problems that do not actually exist no matter how benign your requirements are.

 

 

       
     So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

Yeah, I'm done here.

 

 

You just asked a question and now you are leaving. What was the point of the question?

[VanorDM 11,599]

While the rules are clear that you cannot modify the size and shape of the model, they are equally clear that painting your model is perfectly acceptable.

Yes they are provided the TO doesn't find some reason to reject them.

 

I can't imagine any reputable TO failing to make a rule like that known before people show up with otherwise perfectly legal, painted builds.

It's not a 'no painted miniatures' rule we're talking about here it's the TO saying that in this case that one painted miniature isn't going to be allowed.

It also doesn't matter if you agree with the TO on it or not, it's his or her call. It's like arguing with the Ref or a Cop... Even if you're right, you'll still lose.

Bottom line is quite simple. You bring a custom painted miniature to a tournament you run a risk of having that miniature rejected. The risk may be very small perhaps even nearly non-existent, but it does exist.

The greater the change you make to the ship, the greater the risk becomes. If you paint it so it looks like a different type of ship, like a ln looking like a fo, the risk is even greater. But there's also a very easy answer to this, bring a unmodified model and you can swap them out if it ever becomes an issue.

Yeah, I'm done here.

I see that Rapture is again more interested in winning a point in an argument then actually contributing to the discussion at hand. Not being able to see his posts has done a lot to reduce the single to noise around here.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

My position is that, if the rules do not require it, a TO demanding that a single player add ID tokes to their ships is an abuse of discretion.

 

I regularly bring two ships that are literally identical - I would even risk stating that the vast majority of X-Wing players have done this and will continue to do this. Have you never see someone fly Poe and Asty? Wedge and Luke? Vader and Eclipse?

Do you see confusion disrupting games when the pilots listed above are flown together?

I'm dyslexic. I have a lifetime of strategies for working around it, along with a near-photographic memory, and between the two I can cope with a lot. But there is nothing I can do that will allow me to process relatively small, stylized text that's upside-down, at an angle, and as far as four feet away. I can't make my brain even treat it as language.

ID tokens are fine, though: the print is larger, the contrast is higher, and they're right-side-up and facing me. So in the unusual cases where I've been paired with players who don't use ID tokens on similar ships, I've simply asked my opponent to assign a token to at least one of them to help me tell them apart. No one has ever refused.

 

What if a TO prompted me to put my pilot cards on my opponent's side of the table? What if a TO prompted me to keep my maneuver templates perfectly nested and aligned when not in use? What if a TO prompted me to list the pilot name, pilot skill, and remaining hull for each ship before I took an action with it? What if a TO prompted me to stand on one foot for ten seconds?

A TO prompting me to do something that the rules do not require me to do is a huge red flag...

Those things would all be entirely unreasonable, of course.

But the TO would be perfectly in line if he or she asked you to:

• Organize your ship and upgrade cards, in such a way that it's clear which upgrades are attached to which ship
• Separate your shield tokens into rows instead of keeping them in a stack, because stacks make it difficult to tell at a glance how many shields are remaining
• Collect your templates to one side of the mat, rather than leaving them scattered across the play area
• Either roll your dice gently, or allow your opponent to roll for you (after several game-delaying hunts for dice under the table, and one stray die knocking over a ship at an adjacent table)

I have seen every one of those things happen at a tournament. None of those TOs' actions are explicitly in the rules, but all of them fall fairly clearly into the rubric of "expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them."

Your proposed tantrum at being asked to do something considerate and reasonable to accommodate an opponent's request is what doesn't belong here.

 

...I would imagine that very few players at the tournaments that you TO would be happy with you imposing requirements to solve problems that do not actually exist no matter how benign your requirements are.

You're assuming it's a problem that doesn't actually exist, because it doesn't exist for you. That assumption is selfish, thoughtless, and wrong: there are players (and I'm one of them) who may find it legitimately difficult to read ship tokens. I managed to mostly ignore you the first time this thread came around, but for some reason you're still flogging it.

 

So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

Yeah, I'm done here.

 

You just asked a question and now you are leaving. What was the point of the question?

I'll outsource this portion of my response to the Wikipedia entry on rhetorical questions.

I came back to the thread because, after a bit more thought, I realized it's probably not clear to you why it's so bothersome that you insist no one could possibly have difficulty reading or interpreting ship tokens--it's an assumption you haven't questioned, and maybe you aren't even aware of it. Hopefully actually pointing it out to you will change that.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Vorpal Sword

[VanorDM 11,599]

there are players (and I'm one of them) who may find it legitimately difficult to read ship tokens.

Anyone who doesn't make reasonable steps to make sure that the other player has a easy time keeping track of their ships, upgrades, health, ect... is at the minimum guilty of poor sportsmanship.

Edited March 2, 2016 by VanorDM

[Firespray-32 5,424]

This thread is ridiculous. If this were a game of "spot the repainted TIE amongst the TIE/fos where's wally" then I'd understand, but X-Wing constantly reminds you who's who every round.

 

Say a player is running three TIE/fos and a Backstabber they've painted white. Let's assume that a player does somehow see Backstabber as a /fo model despite the /fo models next to it being distinctly physically smaller.

 

Setup. You look at what your opponent has in their squad. It's three /fos and Backstabber.

 

They have four white TIEs. One of them is Backstabber. Are you telling me in this situation that you don't check which ship is which?

Say you don't, you have doubts as to which ship is which and for some reason you don't check. Then comes the first activation phase. You hit PS6, the opponent declares Backstabber activates and a white TIE moves. Are you telling me you still don't know Backstabber's in a white TIE?

 

Telling a repainted TIE fighter apart from a TIE/fo is easier than telling Night Beast and Dark Curse apart, and I see nobody suggesting running those two is bad sportsmanship.

[Rapture 499]

Welcome back.

 

 

My position is that, if the rules do not require it, a TO demanding that a single player add ID tokes to their ships is an abuse of discretion.
 
I regularly bring two ships that are literally identical - I would even risk stating that the vast majority of X-Wing players have done this and will continue to do this. Have you never see someone fly Poe and Asty? Wedge and Luke? Vader and Eclipse?

Do you see confusion disrupting games when the pilots listed above are flown together?

I'm dyslexic. I have a lifetime of strategies for working around it, along with a near-photographic memory, and between the two I can cope with a lot. But there is nothing I can do that will allow me to process relatively small, stylized text that's upside-down, at an angle, and as far as four feet away. I can't make my brain even treat it as language.

ID tokens are fine, though: the print is larger, the contrast is higher, and they're right-side-up and facing me. So in the unusual cases where I've been paired with players who don't use ID tokens on similar ships, I've simply asked my opponent to assign a token to at least one of them to help me tell them apart. No one has ever refused.
 

 

You just changed the discussion. This isn't about whether a accommodations should be made for individuals with disabilities, this is about whether there is enough information on, considering the entire ship, a TIE Fighter painted like a TIE/FO to distinguish it from a TIE/FO next to it. You personal situation doesn't apply here because it calls for action in excess of the rules in any situation where identical or similar models are being used but ID tokens would not be required, like flying Vader and Eclipse.

 

Why would they refuse? But, that isn't what you said before - that players should consent to reasonable and courteous requests from an opponent with a disability. What you said is that TOs should use their discretion to DQ players who refuse to follow the TO's own standards relating to marking a TIE Fighter painted like a TIE/FO.

 

 

What if a TO prompted me to put my pilot cards on my opponent's side of the table? What if a TO prompted me to keep my maneuver templates perfectly nested and aligned when not in use? What if a TO prompted me to list the pilot name, pilot skill, and remaining hull for each ship before I took an action with it? What if a TO prompted me to stand on one foot for ten seconds?

A TO prompting me to do something that the rules do not require me to do is a huge red flag...

Those things would all be entirely unreasonable, of course.

But the TO would be perfectly in line if he or she asked you to:

• Organize your ship and upgrade cards, in such a way that it's clear which upgrades are attached to which ship <to make information accessible
• Separate your shield tokens into rows instead of keeping them in a stack, because stacks make it difficult to tell at a glance how many shields are remaining <to prevent mistake regarding information that is only available across the table
• Collect your templates to one side of the mat, rather than leaving them scattered across the play area <to keep the play area clear
• Either roll your dice gently, or allow your opponent to roll for you (after several game-delaying hunts for dice under the table, and one stray die knocking over a ship at an adjacent table)

I have seen every one of those things happen at a tournament. None of those TOs' actions are explicitly in the rules, but all of them fall fairly clearly into the rubric of "expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them."

 

The examples that you presented are all solutions to actual problems. "TIE Fighters painted like TIE/FOs are too difficult to distinguish from each other" is not an actual problem. Note that it isn't even the problem that you cited in your personal story, which is that some players can't read base tokens. Therefore, a TO imposing their own rules in the situation that we were discussing is totally inappropriate.

 

 

 

So, just to be clear, your position is that a TO asking a player to add ID tokens to his or her ships is an abuse of discretion?

Yeah, I'm done here.

 
You just asked a question and now you are leaving. What was the point of the question?

 

I'll outsource this portion of my response to the Wikipedia entry on rhetorical questions.

I came back to the thread because, after a bit more thought, I realized it's probably not clear to you why it's so bothersome that you insist no one could possibly have difficulty reading or interpreting ship tokens--it's an assumption you haven't questioned, and maybe you aren't even aware of it. Hopefully actually pointing it out to you will change that.

 

 

I guess that I just though that it would be childish to rhetorically ask someone to clarify their view in the middle of a discussion and then make a scene about no longer being involved in the discussion. Now I know for next time.

 

 

 

Telling a repainted TIE fighter apart from a TIE/fo is easier than telling Night Beast and Dark Curse apart, and I see nobody suggesting running those two is bad sportsmanship.

 

Because they are already committed. They choose their conclusion before they thought though the problem and now we are suffering the consequences. Now they have to try to re-frame the discussion, which is always painful to watch someone resort to.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rapture

[VanorDM 11,599]

This thread is ridiculous.

Yes it is, when you have someone claiming he'd lead the players in some sort of popular uprising against the repressive TO like some sort of slave revolt lead by spartacus because the TO dared to ask him to put a ID token on his ship...

Yes it's completely ridiculous.

The rules are once more quite simple.

You can put a custom paint job on your ship, however the TO/Head Judge has the final say on if a component is eligible or not. So if it's decided a ship isn't legal for whatever reason you have exactly three options. You can use a different model, change the TO's mind, or you can leave the tournament.

Why that ship should or shouldn't be legal, if the TO is being fair, ect... None of that matters in the least.

But again, if you won't take reasonable steps to make sure that it's clear what you have on the table, then you are being a poor sport.

[Vorpal Sword 14,685]

I'm dyslexic.

You just changed the discussion. This isn't about whether a accommodations should be made for individuals with disabilities... that isn't what you said before - that players should consent to reasonable and courteous requests from an opponent with a disability. What you said is that TOs should use their discretion to DQ players who refuse to follow the TO's own standards relating to marking a TIE Fighter painted like a TIE/FO.

It's not about a disability. (I also strongly prefer "neuroatypical" to "disabled".) I've never had to patiently explain to an opponent why it's hard for me to tell his ships apart--I just say "hey, could you put an ID token on one of your X-wings?"

And moreover, I shouldn't have to explain my medical and neurological history to a stranger in order to get him to stop trying to screw with my head. Because the game has a solid system for telling ships apart, and if you deliberately make two different ships look more like one another and then refuse to implement the clearest and easiest way to distinguish them, that's pretty clear prima facie evidence that you're trying to abuse the rules.

And since it's immensely clear at this point that you have no interest in rethinking (or even identifying) the assumptions that lead you to believe that you can and should be allowed to abuse the rules, I really am done interacting with you.

This thread is ridiculous. If this were a game of "spot the repainted TIE amongst the TIE/fos where's wally" then I'd understand, but X-Wing constantly reminds you who's who every round.

 

Say a player is running three TIE/fos and a Backstabber they've painted white. Let's assume that a player does somehow see Backstabber as a /fo model despite the /fo models next to it being distinctly physically smaller.

 

Setup. You look at what your opponent has in their squad. It's three /fos and Backstabber.

 

They have four white TIEs. One of them is Backstabber. Are you telling me in this situation that you don't check which ship is which?

Say you don't, you have doubts as to which ship is which and for some reason you don't check. Then comes the first activation phase. You hit PS6, the opponent declares Backstabber activates and a white TIE moves. Are you telling me you still don't know Backstabber's in a white TIE?

 

Telling a repainted TIE fighter apart from a TIE/fo is easier than telling Night Beast and Dark Curse apart, and I see nobody suggesting running those two is bad sportsmanship.

Of course you attempt to be sure you know which ship is which. And you're right that it can be difficult to tell any two ships of the same type apart: that's why the game has ID tokens, ship tokens, and pilot cards. It's a multiply redundant system designed to make sure both players have equal access to the information representing the game state.

The question is whether there's a loophole in that system. Rapture is claiming that not only is there no provision in the to stop him from deliberately making it more difficult to distinguish ships from one another, but that a TO would be completely out of line to require literally any action that would make them easier to tell apart.

[VanorDM 11,599]

It's not about a disability.

Honestly disabilities doesn't even need to factor into it. Why it's unclear simply doesn't factor in at all. If something about your list is unclear to the other person, you should be willing to take reasonable actions to fix that.

Such as putting a # token on the ship's base. Refusing to do something that simple makes you at best a poor sport, and most likely some sort of WAAC jerk, because you are trying to deliberately confuse your opponent in the attempt to gain an advantage.

If you refuse to take such a reasonable action when the TO tells you too, then you deserve to not only be ejected from the tournament but banned from the store as well, because you are clearly not someone anyone else should have to put up with.

Again, we're talking about simply putting a # token on the ship's base and not even going as far as swapping the model out.

Edited March 2, 2016 by VanorDM

[Rapture 499]

 

 

And moreover, I shouldn't have to explain my medical and neurological history to a stranger in order to get him to stop trying to screw with my head.
 

 

I don't recall saying that you had to explain yourself when asking your opponent to mark a ship for you, but you can quote me. I also don't recall anyone stating that they would be attempting to screw with your head or the head of anyone else. I get that it felt like a nice lead in, but I don't see how that is relevant.

 

 

 

I'm dyslexic.

You just changed the discussion. This isn't about whether a accommodations should be made for individuals with disabilities... that isn't what you said before - that players should consent to reasonable and courteous requests from an opponent with a disability. What you said is that TOs should use their discretion to DQ players who refuse to follow the TO's own standards relating to marking a TIE Fighter painted like a TIE/FO.

 

Because the game has a solid system for telling ships apart, and if you deliberately make two different ships look more like one another and then refuse to implement the clearest and easiest way to distinguish them, that's pretty clear prima facie evidence that you're trying to abuse the rules.
 

 

It is not an abuse of the rules. Players are explicitly given permission to paint their ships. The fact that you consider painting similar models with matching color schemes inappropriate does not make it an abuse.

 

The game does have a very clear system for distinguishing which model is which. The base of the system is the base token. It is a necessary component and provides all information to distinguish one ship from another. The system also includes another level of differentiation, which comes into play when duplicate ships, meaning entirely identical (so including the base token) exist or may exists. The developers found this system to be adequate. You do not. That is fine, but that is no reason to advocate that TOs should start instilling their own new requirements for Players with TIE Fighters painted like TIE/FOs.

 

Finally, the clearest way to distinguish one ship from another is already present otherwise the game cannot be played. It is the base token. Again, I get that you do not like that - but you did not design the game.

 

 

It's a multiply redundant system designed to make sure both players have equal access to the information representing the game state.

 

 

Except that you are misrepresenting it. The system is generally not multiply redundant. As a matter of fact, what you believe to be redundancy is not necessarily redundant at all. Go read all the rules for ID tokens. They only come into play in mirror matches and cases where ships are identical. If ships are identical, then the ID token is not redundant because the base tokens do not provide any means to distinguish the identical ships. The game designers at least believe that, in all other instances except for mirror matches and where base tokens are identical, the base token is sufficient to provide both players with equal access to information representing the game state.

 

 

The question is whether there's a loophole in that system. 

 

 

The question is not whether there is a loophole (there is not - your suggested "loophole" happens every time someone flies Poe next to Asty or Jax next to Fel). That is what you want the question to be, but changing the question after starting a discussion and without ending it is disingenuous. The question is whether painting a TIE Fighter to look like a TIE/FO creates a reasonable potential for confusion. The game designers do not think so and neither do I. This is because any potential for confusion is already accounted for by the existence of base tiles, as evidenced by the fact that Fel and Jax can fly side-by-side without ID tokens being required. What do you think, Vorpal Sword - painting a TIE Fighter to look like a TIE/FO creates a reasonable potential for confusion?

 

 

Rapture is claiming that not only is there no provision in the to stop him from deliberately making it more difficult to distinguish ships from one another, but that a TO would be completely out of line to require literally any action that would make them easier to tell apart.

 

 

Please quote me where I said that there is no "provision in the [rules] to stop [me] from deliberately making it more difficult to distinguish ships from one another." I completely forgot that I said that. Or, maybe I did not, and you are just getting desperate. But, I will begrudgingly admit that I did when you provide the quote.

 

 

    And since it's immensely clear at this point that you have no interest in rethinking (or even identifying) the assumptions that lead you to believe that you can and should be allowed to abuse the rules, I really am done interacting with you.

 

You are wrong there as well. When you posted about having a legitimate reason for not being about to read base tokens, I really didn't know what to say. I considered it seriously, despite the unnecessary brag about having a photographic memory, and I was ready to shrug and move on with my life as opposing to keeping this discussion going. But, then I realize that (a) you were changing the subject and (b) that your reason creates the same issue in unambiguously acceptable circumstances, such as flying Jax and Fel.

 

If you want to stop talking about this, then that is fine. But, don't make a show out of it and stamp your feet on the way out.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rapture

[Firespray-32 5,424]

This is ridiculous premise versus ridiculous premise. Nobody's going to geniunely be unable to deal with a white TIE, and nobody is realistically going to refuse to put the little number tokens on their ships if someone asks them nicely, and they're definitely not going to challenge a TO on such a minor request.

[DraconPyrothayan 6,107]

If I were ever to go to a high-end tourney, I'm getting each of my ships painted with highlights of each of the primary colors, and the backs of the dials to match.

Not for my opponents; its for my own stupid self's sake.

 

I may switch the base tokens of ships between models between matches, though, particularly if my opponent watched me play before.

[VanorDM 11,599]

and nobody is realistically going to refuse to put the little number tokens on their ships if someone asks them nicely, and they're definitely not going to challenge a TO on such a minor request.

Based on what I've seen other people say, that's exactly what Rapture is saying he'd do. *shrug*

[Firespray-32 5,424]

I think Rapture is saying he could do it. I doubt anyone would given they have to have the tokens with them in case they hit a mirror pilot. And even if they did refuse to number their ships and somehow got away with it that's going to make you so alert to it that there's even less chance of you mixing them up.

 

You're only realistically going to mix up ships when you're confident which is which and you're wrong. If you ask your opponent to number their ships  that means you aren't confident, and that means you're going to be alert and checking. Matched models are more a risk to their owner who's been using the same ships all day than the opponent that's just encountered them.

[Lyianx 1,434]

 

 

 

And moreover, I shouldn't have to explain my medical and neurological history to a stranger in order to get him to stop trying to screw with my head.

 

 

I don't recall saying that you had to explain yourself when asking your opponent to mark a ship for you, but you can quote me.

 

Here is your quote.

 

 

 

This isn't about whether a accommodations should be made for individuals with disabilities...

 

They wouldn't know unless he explained it. 

 

I, myself, haven't been tested for any neurological conditions, but what i do know is i have a very bad short-term memory. It is difficult for me to retain information unless  i focus and mentally "learn" that information repeatedly to get it to "stick". Does that mean im just flat "stupid" and shouldn't play, or that its my own fault that i cant remember that the Tie/Fn that is painted in Tie/Fo is not actually an FO? The fact that tournaments are timed puts pressure to not waste time always referencing cards. Now while im sure, most opponents wouldn't mind you constantly referencing their cards, its the pressure to assign the movement and "get the game moving" that makes me not want to constantly bother my opponent for that information, regardless weather they actually care. And i can just picture doing that against you, and you insulting me for "not remembering it the first time" and giving me **** for it. Which might even be a tactic you'd use so i wouldn't look again, and forget, and do a stupid maneuver or action i could have avoided had i known you could actually do that S-loop and are now up my ass with range 1 lasers. 

 

 

As i have said tho, its just a situation that could occur, and was looking for thoughts from others. (tho id still like to see the two side by side painted the same) 

[Rapture 499]

 

 

 

 

 

And moreover, I shouldn't have to explain my medical and neurological history to a stranger in order to get him to stop trying to screw with my head.
 

 

I don't recall saying that you had to explain yourself when asking your opponent to mark a ship for you, but you can quote me.

 

Here is your quote.

 

 

 

This isn't about whether a accommodations should be made for individuals with disabilities...

 

 

If that sentence alone, even though it still does not say what you are presenting it as saying, is unclear to you, perhaps consider the context? Me stating that this thread is not about whether accommodations should be made for people with disabilities cannot reasonably be interpreted as a statement that people with disabilities should have to explain those disabilities to other people.

 

 

I, myself, haven't been tested for any neurological conditions, but what i do know is i have a very bad short-term memory. It is difficult for me to retain information unless  i focus and mentally "learn" that information repeatedly to get it to "stick". Does that mean im just flat "stupid" and shouldn't play, or that its my own fault that i cant remember that the Tie/Fn that is painted in Tie/Fo is not actually an FO?

 

When you are playing against someone who is flying Wedge and a Red Squadron Pilot, how do you remember which one is which? The answer is that you do not have to - the base tokens tell you which one is which. This is why, according to the rules, ID tokens would not be required in that situation.

 

You invented a problem that already has an obvious solution.

 

 

And i can just picture doing that against you, and you insulting me for "not remembering it the first time" and giving me **** for it. Which might even be a tactic you'd use so i wouldn't look again, and forget, and do a stupid maneuver or action i could have avoided had i known you could actually do that S-loop and are now up my ass with range 1 lasers. 

 

 

Absolutely. Because I am such a meanie for not pandering to the fantasies of people who like to construct imaginary obstacles and then claim that others are inconsiderate for not being accommodating in response to their thoughtlessness.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Rapture

[Firespray-32 5,424]

Does that mean im just flat "stupid" and shouldn't play, or that its my own fault that i cant remember that the Tie/Fn that is painted in Tie/Fo is not actually an FO?

 

How do you tell between a TIE/fo and a TIE/fo? Or between Backstabber and Dark Curse?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Blue Five

[DailyRich 3,346]

When you are playing against someone who is flying Wedge and a Red Squadron Pilot, how do you remember which one is which? The answer is that you do not have to - the base tokens tell you which one is which. This is why, according to the rules, ID tokens would not be required in that situation.

 

Sure.  But it just seems a lot more easy and courteous -- and takes all of thirty seconds -- to put ID tokens on them and say, "Red Squadron is 10, Wedge is 22."  

[Rapture 499]

They can look at the base of the ship to check the number and then look across the table to match the number sitting on the pilot card or the can just look at the base and identify it from the base token. Whether it is easier or more courteouse to do something additional is a matter of opinion.

[DailyRich 3,346]

It's a lot easier to look at a vertical number than a horizontal tile.  And the numbers are much more readable from a distance than the tiny type on the pilot tile.  I do it all the time, even if they're not identical generics.  I mean, my opponent can just look over and see what upgrades I have, but I always run down everything I'm flying because it just feels like the right thing to do.

[Lyianx 1,434]

It's a lot easier to look at a vertical number than a horizontal tile.  And the numbers are much more readable from a distance than the tiny type on the pilot tile.  I do it all the time, even if they're not identical generics.  I mean, my opponent can just look over and see what upgrades I have, but I always run down everything I'm flying because it just feels like the right thing to do.

 

This. The most i can read at a glance on those bases is the pilot skill, because its in larger print. 

 

And as i said, i have a bad short-term memory. Hell i sometimes forget my Own upgrades and have to drill them into my head to remember that i should be using Advanced Sensors or whatever. Its cost me several games forgetting my own ability, let alone my opponents. 

 

All of this, by the way, i'm speaking in a tournament setting. Casually i dont feel the pressure of being in a time limit, and thus not feel like im burning needed time by constantly looking across the table referencing cards. 

 

 

Still, Id like to see an FO painted LN, next to a stock FO and see how they look next to each other. Bottom line is, at a casual glance, they can look the same.

[Rapture 499]

 

 

It's a lot easier to look at a vertical number than a horizontal tile.  And the numbers are much more readable from a distance than the tiny type on the pilot tile.  I do it all the time, even if they're not identical generics.  I mean, my opponent can just look over and see what upgrades I have, but I always run down everything I'm flying because it just feels like the right thing to do.

 

This. The most i can read at a glance on those bases is the pilot skill, because its in larger print. 

 

I can't see how it is easier to read a numbered token, match it with a numbered token sitting across the table, and then read that pilot card that the matched token is sitting on top of than it is to just read a base token. But, again, that depends on the person.

[ozmodon 535]

In a tournament setting after we set up we tend to take a walk around and look at each others set up and ask if we have any questions. In a non tournament setting we just ask if there are any crazy combo's that we may need to be concerned about.  Truly this game is as easy or hard as you wish to make it.