Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rodzaju

How strict are tournaments about models?

Recommended Posts

For example, if I presented a TIE/SF pilot on a TIE/SF baseplate with a TIE/FO or standard TIE/LN ship model, would this cause problems?

Or a T-65 pilot & baseplate on a T-70 model?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rodzaju said:

For example, if I presented a TIE/SF pilot on a TIE/SF baseplate with a TIE/FO or standard TIE/LN ship model, would this cause problems?

Or a T-65 pilot & baseplate on a T-70 model?

 

I'm not sure they'd let you do that. I could see them letting you use Scum or Rebel Z-95s interchangeably, same with Y-Wings. And the various Falcons might be allowed interchangeably with Scum, Rebels, and Resistance. 

But, never hurts to ask the people running the event, worst case scenario they tell you 'no'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For TIE-fighters and TIE/FO's at least, if you repaint them then nobody is going to be able to tell them apart. Then mix and match away, just make sure that your pilot cards/ship bases/dials all match up. I think the main thing is that you're not trying to confuse people, but since everything is becoming its own faction now, it's going to be pretty hard to confuse people even if you're trying. If I'm flying an Imperial list nobody is going to assume my TIEs are TIE/FOs, or Sabine's TIE, or Mining Guild TIEs, because those are all separate factions.

I suspect FFG will rule that you have to use the correct model with the correct faction, but I also suspect that in practice its going to be pretty hard to enforce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the problem with T-65 / T-70 as they are actually different sculpts.

But the TIE's are effectively repaints.

I am considering using LNs for generic pilots & FO / SF for named pilots.

In a similar vein to how the Aces packs gave repaints for Defenders & Interceptors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1.0 rules stated it's OK as long as it doesn't cause confusion. IMO that would make T-65 - T-70 and TIE/ln - TIE/sf all right, as they're different factions now so pretty hard to confuse them, unless you have a hard time remembering what faction you're playing against.. TIE/fo - TIE/sf not so much though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pretty casual player, but just starting to act as TO in an occasional event.

The big no-no is confusing your opponents. If they complain that they thought your ship had a rear arc but it doesn't, or vice versa, you just forfeited the game.

Don't try it in an official tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 6:35 PM, Rodzaju said:

For example, if I presented a TIE/SF pilot on a TIE/SF baseplate with a TIE/FO or standard TIE/LN ship model, would this cause problems?

Or a T-65 pilot & baseplate on a T-70 model?

 

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/90/4d/904d698a-1067-4751-b524-cdf9e52d84cd/swx_tournament_regulations_v32_text_version.pdf

 

page 7,

Multiple Faction Ships
All pilot cards and ship tokens in a player’s squad must belong to the same faction. If a player’s ship has different versions in more than one faction, he or she may use any version of that ship’s model and dial in his or her squad.


Multiple Ship Example: Scott is fielding a Scum & Villainy squad consisting of four Z-95 Headhunters and one Firespray. His Firespray model and dial are from the Imperial Firespray expansion, two of his Z-95 Headhunter models and dials are from the Rebel Z-95 expansion, and the final two of his Z-95 Headhunter models and dials are from the Scum & Villainy Most Wanted expansion. However, all of his pilot cards and ship tokens are from the Scum & Villainy faction

 

The T-70 is a different Model (size and shape) then the T65, that would be a no go but like the z95 example that’s no problem because the model is a same molding just a diffence on the symbols on the wings. I think the scum and imperial Firespray are the same model maybe fresh paint.

The F/O T/F and F/O S/F are different models because of the center antenna, I personally would not care if judging a torny but you can be DQ-Ed or asked to change your ship.

Edited by Cubanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 7:08 PM, Rodzaju said:

I can see the problem with T-65 / T-70 as they are actually different sculpts.

But the TIE's are effectively repaints.

I am considering using LNs for generic pilots & FO / SF for named pilots.

In a similar vein to how the Aces packs gave repaints for Defenders & Interceptors.

FOs are new sculpts too. 

Look closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 3:19 AM, Gilarius said:

I'm a pretty casual player, but just starting to act as TO in an occasional event.

The big no-no is confusing your opponents. If they complain that they thought your ship had a rear arc but it doesn't, or vice versa, you just forfeited the game.

Don't try it in an official tournament.

It’s only a forfeit if the player can’t then produce the correct model for play. 

 

Come on, TO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nikk whyte said:

It’s only a forfeit if the player can’t then produce the correct model for play. 

 

Come on, TO. 

I disagree. If the offending player has already caused confusion that has affected a game, then they have now lost that game. If, on the other hand, the game hasn't been affected (eg play hasn't started, or the other player merely raises the issue as a possible problem), then they can simply play without a model at all if they don't have the correct one available.

As I said before, I'm pretty casual as a player - but it's not fair to the opponents to use a TIE/sf as a normal TIE/ln. Likewise, using a T70 to represent a T65 if all the X-Wings are T65s is fine in my opinion, but not if there is also an actual T70 in the list.

There are many modified models that don't cause confusion - if the OP wants certain ships to look distinctive, there are lots of ways to achieve that without using a confusing model. Deliberately using a confusing model falls under the 'being an **** rule'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gilarius said:

I disagree. If the offending player has already caused confusion that has affected a game, then they have now lost that game. If, on the other hand, the game hasn't been affected (eg play hasn't started, or the other player merely raises the issue as a possible problem), then they can simply play without a model at all if they don't have the correct one available.

As I said before, I'm pretty casual as a player - but it's not fair to the opponents to use a TIE/sf as a normal TIE/ln. Likewise, using a T70 to represent a T65 if all the X-Wings are T65s is fine in my opinion, but not if there is also an actual T70 in the list.

There are many modified models that don't cause confusion - if the OP wants certain ships to look distinctive, there are lots of ways to achieve that without using a confusing model. Deliberately using a confusing model falls under the 'being an **** rule'.

“Causing confusion” isn’t grounds an immediate loss. 

Any TO worth his weight in judgement calls will issue a warning for the first infraction of anything remotely close to an issue. The warning just means that the TO officially knows about the issue, then, if the player decides to continue the problem, that’s when a loss/DQ occurs. 

 

If you roll up and start shotgunning losses at people no one will come to your tournaments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is not my intention to cause confusion.

Quite the opposite.

In a 2.0 Imperial list, there are no TIE/FO or TIE/SF.

So using these variant models to differentiate the various pilots in a list looked like relatively good idea.

If people aren't happy with that, I have enough TIE/LN models to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nikk whyte said:

“Causing confusion” isn’t grounds an immediate loss. 

Any TO worth his weight in judgement calls will issue a warning for the first infraction of anything remotely close to an issue. The warning just means that the TO officially knows about the issue, then, if the player decides to continue the problem, that’s when a loss/DQ occurs. 

 

If you roll up and start shotgunning losses at people no one will come to your tournaments. 

Despite the hyperbole, I suspect we are not far apart in the way we would actually rule matters:

Scenario 1) Player A explains to his opponent that he'd like to use a TIE sf to represent Howlrunner and a normal TIE for Quickdraw. Player B, reluctantly agrees (probably to avoid looking like a jerk) but during the match he forgets which ship is which and parks Vader behind what he thinks is Howlrunner, ready to blast her to pieces. Instead, Vader explodes to QD's double-tap.

In this situation, I would not impose any game loss; a warning, and seeing if the game position can be rolled back to when dials were set the previous turn is fine.

Scenario 2) Player A does not explain what they are wanting to do; Player B drops Vader neatly into position to behind Howlrunner and discovers that it's actually Quickdraw.

This is not an innocent mistake, this is deliberate cheating - Player B has no reason to carefully inspect the ship tokens to see which pilot is which, and Player A has failed to point out what they have done. You could go with a warning in a casual event - but what do you think any audience to a streamed top cut match in a Regional would say?

 

But, let's go back to Scenario A: who has benefited and who has been put in a poor situation? Player A is now told to not use the models they wanted; and Player B might now have lost an important ship; and the TO has to make a ruling which might annoy one or both players. Was the situation avoidable in the first place?

The rules are there to help players and TOs. If you stick to them, when a player turns up and asks if they can use the wrong model, it's better all round if you say no. No confusion, no bad experiences for any player due to this, and playing without a model at all works if necessary.

34 minutes ago, Rodzaju said:

It certainly is not my intention to cause confusion.

Quite the opposite.

In a 2.0 Imperial list, there are no TIE/FO or TIE/SF.

So using these variant models to differentiate the various pilots in a list looked like relatively good idea.

If people aren't happy with that, I have enough TIE/LN models to avoid it.

This is a sign of good intentions. However, there are a lot of players currently used to facing a mix of LN, SF, and FO ships in games. How do you account for people who plan their dials and movements to avoid a non-existent rear arc? You can't know how much this will put people off their game.

Paint (avoid just a blob of red in critical locations on the models!) or adding eg lego pilots holding onto the stand  work well to differentiate the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

 

This is a sign of good intentions. However, there are a lot of players currently used to facing a mix of LN, SF, and FO ships in games. How do you account for people who plan their dials and movements to avoid a non-existent rear arc? You can't know how much this will put people off their game.

Paint (avoid just a blob of red in critical locations on the models!) or adding eg lego pilots holding onto the stand  work well to differentiate the ships.

IMO, rembering that the Empire no longer has a TIE/sf shouldn't be any harder than remembering any other thing that has changed in 2.0.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...