So according to the rules, you can paint whatever not-offensive thing you want on your little ships but I was wondering: What physical differences are there between the TIE/FO and the TIE/ln to prevent someone just painting one to look like the other?
Not that I'd really care, but I am genuinely curious what differences there are between the two models.

The FO is slightly but noticeably smaller.

The dials and cardboard

Pretending to be a different ship is probably bad form if abused.

The FO is a little bit smaller, especially the wings.

The engines are positioned a little differently (so I am told)

The guns are a bit more pronounced

The greebles are different

The texture on the wings is different (the regular TIE has a pattern of lines on the panels, the FO has sort of a cross hatch grid)

I was worried about how hard it'd be to tell.

But even far away, I can easily tell the difference, and it ain't just the colors. The entire profile is finished.

The engines are oriented vertically instead of horizontally.

There's an asymmetric mount on the starboard wing spar that is supposed to mount an antenna (too small of a detail to add to the model)

Guns are longer

Other details as listed above. There's enough differences that it's not just a repaint. It's about the same level of differ we between the T-65 and T-70, just that the TIE Fighter is already a compact model so the differences weren't as apparent from the movie trailers.

Give me a few moments, I'll take side by side pictures of the Ln and the Fo and post them for you guys.

The inner spokes on the wing pylons of the TIE/FO have what appear to be strut supports or something. It makes the wing look like it's held on more securely. (Purely cosmetic.)

Aight here it is. As stated above, the differences are indeed subtle.

You can see the inside of the wings have a circle around them where the arms from the cockpit hold them, as well as the Fo appearing to have a slightly larger ball, with a larger hatch as well.

As stated above, the wings on the Fo have a cross-hatch pattern on them, while the Ln had straight lines, as well as the center black section appears larger too.

The back shot shows more differences, particularly on the cockpit and wing supports.

The /fo looks way better.

The engines are oriented vertically instead of horizontally.

Get ready. I'm a 40-year old Star Wars fan who remembers the roar of the Falcon in the theater in 1977. Plus I'm an engineer, and spent my youth geeking out to the blueprint drawings and callouts on my GIJoe toy inserts. Even spent most of high school inventing and drawing an entire sci-fi universe of ships and characters for my own comic series.

But...

Gulp.

I'm going to embarrass myself and ask this in public...

Because I truly have never known the answer...

Um...

Where exactly are the engines on a TIE fighter?

The /fo looks way better.

Lies!

The /fo looks like a toy - the changes to the 'greebles' really diminished it's sense of scale, no wear or use on it at all, all shiny and...plasticy.

Bleh.

TIE/ln 4LIF!

The engines are oriented vertically instead of horizontally.

Where exactly are the engines on a TIE fighter?

The little notches on the back, on either side of the rear window. IE., the red, glowy things, here:

That's a window????

That's a window????

Depends on your source. In the video games, it was definitely a window, and that reference is used in a few other places (odd novel or comic book here and there). In the old West End Games RPG, it's a "solar ionization reactor", which means...I've got no idea. I think there were even some toys back in the 80s that had that as a hatch for the pilot or something. So...YMMV.

Everyone agrees that the lights on either side of it are the actual engines, though.

Should also note the TIE/fo is one of 2 known TIEs(afaik) in the movie. The other is the Special Forces(TIE/sf?) that is the one shown everywhere since the trailer and that toy for the 6" figures at SDCC. The TIE/sf has the cogwheel/gear around the wing roots and has the red on the side of the ball. The TIE/sf is probably the 2-seater with the turret under the ball.

Gotta say, at least the TIE/FO model looks a bit more sturdy. Every time I handle my TIE/ln's I feel like I'm going to snap a wing off.

.....again.

I don't own a TIE/fo, but every picture I've seen still looks practically identical to the TIE/ln aside from the colors. I'm sure there are differences, but they could have easily just made a repaint and few would have even noticed.

The lasers on the 'fo are sort of double barreled. The outboard barrels are shorter. It's definitely a new sculpt.

Yea, even after all your descriptions and pictures the only difference I see is that the core of the FO is a little bulkier. I think you could use a paint job to pass one off as the other.
And LOL at the poster who said people would abuse this.

The First Order has definitely adopted the discipline of keeping their ships clean and polished.

It must be a canon requirement to FFG, because it's not like they don't like to bath their minis in a "grime" wash. One of my K-wings definitely looks like it flew thru a shitstorm.

The /fo looks way better.

Lies!

The /fo looks like a toy - the changes to the 'greebles' really diminished it's sense of scale, no wear or use on it at all, all shiny and...plasticy.

Bleh.

TIE/ln 4LIF!

Agreed, not buying into the whole Apple I-Fighter thing.

I don't own a TIE/fo, but every picture I've seen still looks practically identical to the TIE/ln aside from the colors. I'm sure there are differences, but they could have easily just made a repaint and few would have even noticed.

I don't know, I would have noticed instantly. And if that was the case why not just buy the original set which is more accurate to the films? The patterns and detailing are quite different, the silhouette is the only part that remains the same.

The /fo looks way better.

Lies!

The /fo looks like a toy - the changes to the 'greebles' really diminished it's sense of scale, no wear or use on it at all, all shiny and...plasticy.

Bleh.

TIE/ln 4LIF!

Agreed, not buying into the whole Apple I-Fighter thing.

Hah, yeah, that's exactly what it reminds me of.

It's a TIE iFighter!

No, it would be the Apple Fighter.

Just like how they dropped the iWatch to the Apple Watch, they wouldn't want anyone to abbreviate or shorten it where the iFighter could become the iFight, and thus drop the i and paste apple on the front.

Apple...

Can someone please make the iFighter? Or MacFighterPro?

I can totally see the 2 apple logos painted on the wings, and the little cockpit glass could be painted that rainbow spinny cursor of death!