I think the key issue is an Interceptor is still an Interceptor regardless of the colour scheme. A TIE painted to look like a TIE/fo is NOT. Those two types have different characteristics, and the confusion caused would be unwarranted.

Personally, I think painting your regular TIEs to look like TIE/fos is an absolutely stupid thing to do, specifically because it's confusing for other players.

But there is no unwarranted confusion.

Is it unwarranted because the TIE and the TIE/FO look the same have different shield values? So do two X-Wings when one has a shield upgrade.

Is it unwarranted because the TIE and the TIE/FO look the same but can select different maneuvers? So can two YT-2400s when Kannan is riding in one of them. So can Cowell flying next to Jax. So can Juno flying next to Bren.

The game is designed to have players look at the tiles, and their opponents cards, to distinguish between ships. The models are not meant to be the distinguishing factor. So, while the feeble minded may find themselves confused, they will not be any more confused than they would be from just playing the game in general. This is why, even if we entertain allegations of confusion, that such confusion is not unwarranted.

is this a problem? has anybody done this??

Nope...all hypothetical at this point, which makes the arguing even funnier. I tend to agree with those saying it's a non-issue whether someone does it or not. If there are two T-65's on the board, I am going to have to ask my opponent which is Luke and which is Biggs when the game starts and likely during the game. I see a bunch of same painted ties, I am still asking who they are, which tells me if they are ties or tie/fo's. Some of this arguing sounds like people play without ever talking to their opponent.

Having run several small tournaments for X-Wing; I personally would handle the situation like this:

Player A: I cant tell player B's TIE/FO and TIE fighters apart.

Me to player B: do you have a (some) non painted TIE for your standard TIE (s)?

Player B answers yes and I ask for this match could he use them

Player B answers no I grab x numbef of my unpainted TIEs and ask him to sub them in.

I understand the possible complaint but doubt anyone is painting them up out of malice.

But what about FFG themselves giving us the exact same ship (Interceptor) in two different schemes. And you can use whichever you want for whichever pilot you want?

Does that cause confusion and therefore not be legal?

For me it's the same situation. And I'd rectify it in the same way: Check with my opponent at the start of the game.

No, it's absolutely not the same situation. Regardless of whatever paint you think he should use based om some bit of EU fluff, that has no bearing on the game.

Fel flies an Interceptor. Whether it's pink, red striped of stamped with fluffy bunnies, the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

...the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

But you are ok with someone flying Backstabber with a shield upgrade next to Howlrunner with mkII engine? They have different stats and movement and are identical models.

Be serious people. Distinguishing between ships with the same models is part of the game. This is why the designers put names on the tiles.

Yes, of course I'm okay with that (if using ID tokens). But is it allowed to alter the appearance of a model so it resembles another?

This is of course an enormous fringe case.

"My regular TIEs are using the dark side of the number token, my TIE/fos are using the light side."

"My regular TIEs are even numbers, my TIE/fos are odd."

"My regular TIEs are on one peg, my TIE/fos are on two."

It's not rocket science, people.

Yes, of course I'm okay with that (if using ID tokens). But is it allowed to alter the appearance of a model so it resembles another?

This is of course an enormous fringe case.

So, because that specific example doesn't happen that often, you don't think that it proves that the rules allow it? Isn't the fact that the rules allow it enough to prove to you that players should expect it to happen?

That specific example may be a fringe case, but playes constantly use identical ship models to represent ships with different rule.

Yes, of course I'm okay with that (if using ID tokens).

Come on. You are not thinking. ID tokens would not be required in that situation. The ID token rules are:

ID TOKENS

ID Tokens identify which ships in the play area correspond to which Ship card. If a player fields multiple copies of the same non-unique Ship card, he must assign a different set of ID tokens to each of those ships.

Again, this is all just pointless complaining about something that the rules require players to deal with all of the time.

But is it allowed to alter the appearance of a model so it resembles another?

If you mean by painting it, then yes. Unless you can put forward a reasonable argument that the potential for confusion from that is higher than the potential for confusion that exists under the current rules.

^Irrefutable logic. Nothing stops you from painting all of your ships a single, solid color.

... I am now tempted to paint an entire list completely black.

Call your fleet the Phantom Menace.

...the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

But you are ok with someone flying Backstabber with a shield upgrade next to Howlrunner with mkII engine? They have different stats and movement and are identical models.

Be serious people. Distinguishing between ships with the same models is part of the game. This is why the designers put names on the tiles.

Difference between adding shield upgrades, and Engine upgrades, is they are apparent, with clearly visible upgrade cards next to them. You see the fighter, and the upgrade card next to it, it tells you it has a special ability you need to be aware of. Putting a Epsilon Squadron Pilot, next to a Academy Pilot (especially if the opponent is covering the artwork with upgrade cards), you'd have to pick out and see the name, or notice the extra shield stat to see the difference. And since they are not 'technically' the same ship, rules dont require they be marked with ID tokens.

I'm not saying it happens *ALL THE TIME*, but the possibility is there.

But what about FFG themselves giving us the exact same ship (Interceptor) in two different schemes. And you can use whichever you want for whichever pilot you want?

Does that cause confusion and therefore not be legal?

For me it's the same situation. And I'd rectify it in the same way: Check with my opponent at the start of the game.

No, it's absolutely not the same situation. Regardless of whatever paint you think he should use based om some bit of EU fluff, that has no bearing on the game.

Fel flies an Interceptor. Whether it's pink, red striped of stamped with fluffy bunnies, the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

This is accurate. No matter what the paint job is, the maneuvers wont change, the stats wont change, unless you put those eye catching upgrade cards next to it.

TIE/fo fighters are distinctly different in shape. They're smaller with a different sculpt, bigger window from the front, different engine configuration from the back. They'd be distinguishable even if they were both matte black.

I painted a tie with the fo paint scheme when they first came out. I have been using it for Wampa. How is this more confusing than flying Kath and boba or brobots with stock paint?

...the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

But you are ok with someone flying Backstabber with a shield upgrade next to Howlrunner with mkII engine? They have different stats and movement and are identical models.

Be serious people. Distinguishing between ships with the same models is part of the game. This is why the designers put names on the tiles.

Difference between adding shield upgrades, and Engine upgrades, is they are apparent, with clearly visible upgrade cards next to them. You see the fighter, and the upgrade card next to it, it tells you it has a special ability you need to be aware of. Putting a Epsilon Squadron Pilot, next to a Academy Pilot (especially if the opponent is covering the artwork with upgrade cards), you'd have to pick out and see the name, or notice the extra shield stat to see the difference. And since they are not 'technically' the same ship, rules dont require they be marked with ID tokens.

I'm not saying it happens *ALL THE TIME*, but the possibility is there.

Wait. You are saying that the upgrade cards sitting across the table are sufficient to put players on notice of what special rules a model may be using, but that a ship card sitting across the table is not sufficient to put players on notice of what ship a model is? How is looking across the table at one card more difficult or confusing that looking across the table at another card?

How is this more confusing than flying Kath and boba or brobots with stock paint?

Because you're trying to make a ship look like another ship, I can look at a pair of brobots and know they're both IG-2000's, in your case however you have a ship painted to look like a different ship. It may not be hard to tell the two apart or may may be tricky.

What you think about it really doesn't matter in the least. What matters is what the other guy thinks and ultimately what the TO thinks if you're at a tournament.

If someone you play against even in a casual games gets confused often enough, he/she/they may refuse to play against you if you keep using that ship. Since you have no way of forcing them to play, then you may find issues finding anyone to play against.

But then again maybe no one will care and so it's a non-issue.

If you're at a tournament, the TO could even if no one else says anything tell you that you have to replace it with a unpainted TIE, and at that point you either do what they say or you may be removed from the tournament completely.

You (generic you) can argue all you like that it shouldn't be confusing and people can look at the ship token. But you don't get to tell the other person what to do, or what to think. So depending on how you deal with it, you run the risk of not having anyone to play with at all.

How is this more confusing than flying Kath and boba or brobots with stock paint?

Because you're trying to make a ship look like another ship, I can look at a pair of brobots and know they're both IG-2000's, in your case however you have a ship painted to look like a different ship. It may not be hard to tell the two apart or may may be tricky.

The answer in any situation, whether it is Wedge flying next to a Rookie Pilot or a TIE painted like a TIE/FO flying next to a TIE/FO, where their is any doubt regarding what is what on the table is to look at the base tokens. Telling two ships apart is as simple as looking an inch and a half below the model.

All players are allowed to review their opponent's list, so being on notice that identical or similar models are being used with different pilots is a non-issue.

I painted a tie with the fo paint scheme when they first came out. I have been using it for Wampa. How is this more confusing than flying Kath and boba or brobots with stock paint?

Can you take a picture of both your painted Tie, and your Fo, from about 2.5 to 3 feet away?

Also, the difference in both your cases is both ships are the same base ship, with the same maneuvers (especially if your using IG-2000 title).

...the stats are the same.

A TIE Fighter painted in the same scheme as a very similarly sculpted model, that has different in game stats and movement, will present more of a problem; the potential for confusion is much higher.

But you are ok with someone flying Backstabber with a shield upgrade next to Howlrunner with mkII engine? They have different stats and movement and are identical models.

Be serious people. Distinguishing between ships with the same models is part of the game. This is why the designers put names on the tiles.

Difference between adding shield upgrades, and Engine upgrades, is they are apparent, with clearly visible upgrade cards next to them. You see the fighter, and the upgrade card next to it, it tells you it has a special ability you need to be aware of. Putting a Epsilon Squadron Pilot, next to a Academy Pilot (especially if the opponent is covering the artwork with upgrade cards), you'd have to pick out and see the name, or notice the extra shield stat to see the difference. And since they are not 'technically' the same ship, rules dont require they be marked with ID tokens.

I'm not saying it happens *ALL THE TIME*, but the possibility is there.

Wait. You are saying that the upgrade cards sitting across the table are sufficient to put players on notice of what special rules a model may be using, but that a ship card sitting across the table is not sufficient to put players on notice of what ship a model is? How is looking across the table at one card more difficult or confusing that looking across the table at another card?

Upgrade cards, while (depending on how good your eyesight is) your unable to read what they are, it makes you aware that the ships has Some kind of upgrade attached to it, so you know it behaves differently than normal somehow.

Now, while obvious here, in large print, sitting across the table and upside down, they look kinda similar. Again, not saying everyone will confuse them, but you'd be ignorant to believe that the possibility Doesn't exist.

Meh.

If I fly against a small Tie swarm, each with it's own unique pilot - all the Ties are identical. The rules anticipate that sort of ambiguity, so they include unique, numbered markers to differentiate one ship from another similar ship.

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.

I think the local attitude for this kind of thing would be to insist the player uses the supplied numbered markers that exist for this purpose.

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.

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.

Difference between adding shield upgrades, and Engine upgrades, is they are apparent, with clearly visible upgrade cards next to them. You see the fighter, and the upgrade card next to it, it tells you it has a special ability you need to be aware of. Putting a Epsilon Squadron Pilot, next to a Academy Pilot (especially if the opponent is covering the artwork with upgrade cards), you'd have to pick out and see the name, or notice the extra shield stat to see the difference. And since they are not 'technically' the same ship, rules dont require they be marked with ID tokens.

I'm not saying it happens *ALL THE TIME*, but the possibility is there.

Wait. You are saying that the upgrade cards sitting across the table are sufficient to put players on notice of what special rules a model may be using, but that a ship card sitting across the table is not sufficient to put players on notice of what ship a model is? How is looking across the table at one card more difficult or confusing that looking across the table at another card?

Upgrade cards, while (depending on how good your eyesight is) your unable to read what they are, it makes you aware that the ships has Some kind of upgrade attached to it, so you know it behaves differently than normal somehow.

Now, while obvious here, in large print, sitting across the table and upside down, they look kinda similar. Again, not saying everyone will confuse them, but you'd be ignorant to believe that the possibility Doesn't exist.

You are saying that you, when looking at these two cards, rotated 180 degrees and three feet away, would not be able to notice that they are not identical? If so, that sounds like a rare issue and I recommend that you discuss it with your opponent before each match, not that you present it as a potential argument for placing restrictions on all other players.

Regardless, I am lost with this discussion of pilot cards. What does it have to do with the fact that the game was already designed with an identifier, the base token, that makes any complaint about different models being painted to look similar completely moot?

Except when you are not - which is most of the time.

You are expected to mark your ships with number tokens so people can tell them apart.

Except when you are not - which is most of the time.

This point, at least, can be answered by actual reference to the rules. See the tournament rules, under "Squad Deployment Procedure":

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.

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.

If the player still refused, I would eject him or her for unsportsmanlike conduct: at that point, the player has declined two opportunities to use legal, appropriate methods to distinguish similar ships from one another. That means it's evident that the sole purpose of the component modification is an attempt to confuse the opponent, which (at my sole discretion) represents a violation of the injunction to "play within the rules and not abuse them."

represents a violation of the injunction to "play within the rules and not abuse them."

I quite honestly don't understand why this thread is still going on.

The question has been asked and answered. The rules are extremely clear on the matter, and the TO has the final say. Painted ships are allowed, provided the TO is fine with it.

The head judge is the final authority on any component’s eligibility in the tournament. If a component is ruled ineligible and the player cannot locate a replacement for it, that player is disqualified from the tournament.

Those are the rules, period. If you bring a TIE Fighter, painted to look like a TIE/fo you may or may not be asked to replace it with a stock unpainted model. Or asked to mark it in some other way... If you can't or won't abide by the TO's decision you run the very real risk of being ejected from the tournament.

"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.

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.

That would be nothing more that you being a despot. You call that "legal," but the truth is that the rules only require players to use ID tokens when using truly identical ships (e.g. two Alpha Squadron Pilots). The solution to the non-existant problem that you are imposing on players is outside of the rules. While it would not be a big deal as compliance isn't a burden and is something that players should be prepared for anyway (due to mirror matches), lets not pretend that you are asking for something that should be expected.

Because that kind of attitude is bad for the game.

Q: Can the TO DQ me because I painted my X-Wing to look like Luke's?

A: Yes.

Q: Can the TO DQ me because I used a black marker to color in the open edges of my Imperial maneuver dials?

A: Yes.

Q: Can the TO DQ me because he says that the way that I breathe is unsportsmanlike conduct?

A: Yes.

The answer to all of the questions should be that, while the TO has discretion and could potentially DQ anyone for just about anything, that TOs are expected to think carefully about their any and all decisions and should be held to a reasonable standard for any and all decisions that they do make. Just like painting an X-Wing to look like Luke Skywalker's is not a reason to DQ a player because it results in no reasonable complaint of any impact on the game, painting a TIE Fighter to look like a TIE/FO is also no reason to DQ a player.

Fly Casual. That's my motto.

Custom painted ship? Does it have a middle finger, swears, derogatory terms, swastika (though this symbol has been perverted by the Nazi party and originally comes from the Buddhist tradition and refers to "unity"), or otherwise obscene image painted on it? No: You're good to go. Yes: What a mess, remove it or yourself.

If a player is flying a repaint with the intent of confusing their opponent they would also have to be hiding or obscuring the cardboard base the ship is mounted 1-2 pegs above and the pilot card. If anyone gets confused just ask the opponent. If they ignore you then call for a TO.

I find the concept of disqualifying a player because they refuse to assign ID tokens to a named ship (in the case of Wampa in a TIE/FO repaint per previous posters) absurd, an overreaction, and in stark contrast to the "Fly Casual" motto formerly mentioned. The TO, in this case, is making an assumption that the repaint has devious intent and is doubting the moral fortitude of the player in question.

There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. - Buddha Shakyamuni