1 minute ago, BigBadAndy said:

This is very different than the ATRT - which is always an ATRT regardless of which weapon it carries and not likely to be confused with an airspeeder.

Yes, but which of the three AT-RTs in the force is it? Is the flamethrower on the one with 2 damage, the one with no damage, or the one with 4 damage? Which is the one you need to focus on? Does that airspeeder have a harpoon gun, or a ground buzzer, or does the other one? The main importance is ease of identification, whether through accurate modelling, paint scheme, or tokens.

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, but which of the three AT-RTs in the force is it? Is the flamethrower on the one with 2 damage, the one with no damage, or the one with 4 damage? Which is the one you need to focus on? Does that airspeeder have a harpoon gun, or a ground buzzer, or does the other one? The main importance is ease of identification, whether through accurate modelling, paint scheme, or tokens.

If you have two flamethrower ATRTs and they both have the flamethrower model attached you still need a way to know which one is damaged. This is irrelevant to the discussion. (And don’t you put the damage tokens on the playing surface next to the mini anyway?)

As I said in my edit to the earlier post, I totally agree with your larger point. It’s about making sure everyone can tell what’s going on. But FFG put this in the rule book and it’s clearly not intended to mean the vehicles have to be WYSIWYG. So what is it for? Beats me, but I think the intention is clearly to prevent BS not force everyone to buy 9 ATRTS and 6 ATSTs if they like glued together models.

The rule book says you can’t “modify” a mini in a way that would confuse it’s identity. I see a self evident difference between fielding an ATRT with the flame thrower attached and not using the flamethrower upgrade and chopping the DLT-19 off the DLT-19 stormtrooper and giving him an E-11. If you don’t then don’t know what to say to you.

If someone drops an ATRT with a glued in flamethrower on the table and says “I am actually using the laser cannon upgrade for this” I would be very hard pressed to imagine a judge saying his mini has been “modified” in a way that causes confusion whereas if a guy drops in a stormtrooper unit where the DLT trooper is missing his gun I have a very hard time imagining a judge ruling that it hasn’t been “modified” in a way that causes confusion.

Just as a side note - this is the kind of stuff that makes me NOT want to play in a tournament. There’s always some guy wanting to manipulate the rules for advantage. Obviously you shouldn’t be able to plonk down three ATRTs, each with a different gun and reassign them all. But if someone is the type of person who is going to sit across the tournament table from a guy who glued the mortar to his ATST but wants to run a list without the mortar upgrade and argue that he has “modified” his mini to be confusing then they just... suck.

10 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

If you have two flamethrower ATRTs and they both have the flamethrower model attached you still need a way to know which one is damaged. This is irrelevant to the discussion. (And don’t you put the damage tokens on the playing surface next to the mini anyway?)

The issue is when there is only one AT-RT with the flamethrower upgrade card, but it is identical to the other two models on the field, neither of which has a flamethrower upgrade. I agree that switching the DLT-19 to an E-11 is purposefully obfuscating and definitely against the Tournament rules, but this situation is more akin to representing the DLT-19 with the HH-12 model in one squad, but the other squads have the HH-12 upgrade and the HH-12 model. Or using the same third party/kitbashed custom model for different Heavy weapon upgrades in your core units. In these two instances, you are representing an upgrade through modeling, similar to how you represent weapons on an AT-RT.

19 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

If someone drops an ATRT with a glued in flamethrower on the table and says “I am actually using the laser cannon upgrade for this” I would be very hard pressed to imagine a judge saying his mini has been “modified” in a way that causes confusion whereas if a guy drops in a stormtrooper unit where the DLT trooper is missing his gun I have a very hard time imagining a judge ruling that it hasn’t been “modified” in a way that causes confusion.

Just as a side note - this is the kind of stuff that makes me NOT want to play in a tournament. There’s always some guy wanting to manipulate the rules for advantage. Obviously you shouldn’t be able to plonk down three ATRTs, each with a different gun and reassign them all. But if someone is the type of person who is going to sit across the tournament table from a guy who glued the mortar to his ATST but wants to run a list without the mortar upgrade and argue that he has “modified” his mini to be confusing then they just... suck

In a single AT-RT list I agree with you. But as has been discussed previously, besides the applying the tournament "confusion modeling" rule, nothing actually prevents the situation where all of your opponent's AT-RT models are glued with weapons different than their upgrades. So it's up to TOs to enforce what they consider reasonable. Of course, if someone is being enough of a jerk to try an AT-RT complete mixup, then they're also likely to complain to the TO when their opponent tries the reasonable "This single AT-RT in my list has a flamethrower despite not being glued as such." I imagine some TOs would respond by asking them leave (and they wouldn't be getting much of a sportsmanship score if the tournament includes one).

In a single AT-ST list, the mortar being glued on doesn't bother me so long as my opponent tells me the actual armament. In a double AT-ST list, as we both agree, just mark it somehow. Most people in small tournaments are perfectly reasonable, I have heard "horror" stories about people at bigger tournaments though.

1 hour ago, BigBadAndy said:

The rule book says you can’t “modify” a mini in a way that would confuse it’s identity. I see a self evident difference between fielding an ATRT with the flame thrower attached and not using the flamethrower upgrade and chopping the DLT-19 off the DLT-19 stormtrooper and giving him an E-11. If you don’t then don’t know what to say to you.

If someone drops an ATRT with a glued in flamethrower on the table and says “I am actually using the laser cannon upgrade for this” I would be very hard pressed to imagine a judge saying his mini has been “modified” in a way that causes confusion whereas if a guy drops in a stormtrooper unit where the DLT trooper is missing his gun I have a very hard time imagining a judge ruling that it hasn’t been “modified” in a way that causes confusion.

So, you're saying that these aren't tournament legal?

In effect you're saying that the presence or absence of a backpack (in the case of stormtroopers) or a mustachioed human face (in the case of rebels) is a more important visual and identifying element than the GIANT and prominent heavy weapon that exists on the model.

5 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

 I agree that switching the DLT-19 to an E-11 is pu  rposefully obfuscating and definitely against the Tournament rules, but this situation is more akin to representing the DLT-19 with the HH-12 model in one squad, but th  e other squads have the HH-12 upgrade and the HH-12    model.

As always, the key word is reasonable. While it’s formally possible, it’s hard for me to see a reasonable explanation for using the HH12 model for the DLT-19 trooper, whereas I do see a reasonable explanation for needing to field an ATRT representing a different upgrade than the one glued on. If you have three ATRT models and all three you glue in the flamethrower and then you want to run a three ATRT list with all three weapons represented then I might start to think you’re an idiot - seems more likely you’d see someone with three models each with a different weapon but wants to run two flamethrowers and a naked ATRT, but any of those scenarios still seems more understandable than swapping out a trooper mini. Just because gluing the ATRT together seems reasonable but making your DLT trooper unrecognizable doesn’t.

I had a terrible time competing in the SW CCG years ago with people just hyperventilating over the rules and being unpleasant and unwelcoming. Went to two tournaments (one at GenCon and one local). Both were horrible but the local was actually worse - a guy made me turn all my card sleeves around in case somehow the laser engraved dot was ‘marked’ on one and then made fun of me for playing a theme deck instead of using some broken trash meta deck. My more recent experience with X-Wing was really good though - I think partly because there’s never been a game of X-Wing where people didn’t bump a ship out of place and hey that’s just life. I would hope the Legion community would be more like X-Wing but you never know. And it only takes one jerk to ruin your day.

1 minute ago, Zrob314 said:

So, you're saying that these aren't tournament legal?

In effect you're saying that the presence or absence of a backpack (in the case of stormtroopers) or a mustachioed human face (in the case of rebels) is a more important visual and identifying element than the GIANT and prominent heavy weapon that exists on the model.

Huh? I’m not sure where you are getting that from anything I said. I said cutting off the gun but still using the mini as the DLT trooper. If the guy holding the gun is the upgrade unit that goes with the gun then that’s not confusing.

11 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

While it’s formally possible, it’s hard for me to see a reasonable explanation for using the HH12 model for the DLT-19 trooper ,  whereas I do see a reasonable explanation for needing to field an ATRT representing a different upgrade than the one glued on.

9 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

So, you're saying that these aren't tournament legal?

I don't think that this is where problem may arise. I have played games where an inexperienced player removed models from a unit and took the heavy by accident and then they got them confused with others who also didn't have a heavy and were unmarked. I think that those models would be tournament legal as they are representative of what the unit has.

On a side note, I love what you did with the HH-12

4 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

As always, the key word is reasonable. While it’s formally possible, it’s hard for me to see a reasonable explanation for using the HH12 model for the DLT-19 trooper.

I can: if someone's DLT-19s came with horribly bent barrels and they broke while trying to fix it and are waiting for a replacement from FFG.

5 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

If you have three ATRT models and all three you glue in the flamethrower and then you want to run a three ATRT list with all three weapons represented then I might start to think you’re an idiot - seems more likely you’d see someone with three models each with a different weapon.

And again, if you don't HAVE to accurately represent the weapons on the vehicles (and I agree the rules do not specify), nothing stops someone from fielding their glued flamethrower as a cannon, glued cannon as a rotary, and glued rotary as a flamethrower. Will many people want to play with this person in future? Probably not.

1 minute ago, Zrob314 said:

Debatably the weapon is what makes it a HH12 model or a DT-12 model, not the torso. Which I guess is a similar argument for what "type of AT-RT" it is.

1 minute ago, thepopemobile100 said:

On a side note, I love what you did with the HH-12

Thank you

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

I can: if someone's DLT-19s came with horribly bent barrels and they broke while trying to fix it and are waiting for a replacement from FFG.

And again, if you don't HAVE to accurately represent the weapons on the vehicles (and I agree the rules do not specify), nothing stops someone from fielding their glued flamethrower as a cannon, glued cannon as a rotary, and glued rotary as a flamethrower. Will many people want to play with this person in future? Probably not.

Debatably the weapon is what makes it a HH12 model or a DT-12 model, not the torso. Which I guess is a similar argument for what "type of AT-RT" it is.

Which is why in that case, I default to the cards being operative on a vehicle.

Just now, Zrob314 said:

Which is why in that case, I default to the cards being operative on a vehicle.

Yes, but without SOME easily spotted marker besides the weapons (color, tokens, etc) it is very easy to forget you HAVE to check your opponent's cards.

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, but without SOME easily spotted marker besides the weapons (color, tokens, etc) it is very easy to forget you HAVE to check your opponent's cards.

How is that different from all of the invisible upgrades?

8 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

That’s a pretty radical misinterpretation of the quote. This was in a response to a scenario where someone fielded three HH12s but wanted to say “this one here is a DLT trooper.” I said I couldn’t see why you would want to field the HH12 model as a DLT trooper not “I don’t think you can modify the DLT trooper to give him he HH12 gun.” Nothing mentioned about modification at all.

11 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

28 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

If you have three ATRT models and all three you glue in the flamethrower and then you want to run a three ATRT list with all three weapons represented then I might start to think you’re an idiot - seems more likely you’d see someone with three models each with a different weapon.

And again, if you don't HAVE to accurately represent the  weapons on the vehicles (and I agree the rules do not specify), nothing stops someone from fielding their glue  d flamethrower as a cannon, glued cannon as a rotary, and glued rotary as a flamethrower. Will many people  want to play with this person in future? Probably not. 

I hate this though, because it suggests that the printed rules are sacred and there is no room for interpretation or intent. I think trying to switch up your weapons on ATRTs when you can clearly field accurate models can’t be justified in any reasonable way other than trying to obfuscate. And it shouldn’t be allowed.

In any case we don’t need to sort every “what if” scenario. The rules are that the vehicle models are not WYSIWYG.

22 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

How is that different from all of the invisible upgrades?

Well, for one thing because there is a visual mismatch between the game state and the physical representation, so when tired or rushed one is more likely to just look quick instead of trying to see across the table. I also think the different squads should be identifiable for that reason.

13 minutes ago, BigBadAndy said:

I hate this though, because it suggests that the printed rules are sacred and there is no room for interpretation or intent. I think trying to switch up your weapons on ATRTs when you can clearly field accurate models can’t be justified in any reasonable way other than trying to obfuscate. And it shouldn’t be allowed.

In any case we don’t need to sort every “what if” scenario. The rules are that the vehicle models are not WYSIWYG.

The issue with RAI vs RAW, is RAI are open to interpretation. The "Intent" of the rule can be interpreted different ways leading to inconsistent ruling. Everyone "can" field accurate models, the opportunity is there when they first open the box, or to buy new ones when they change the army list.

And this is an example of RAI vs RAW. You wrote "can field accurate models" intending that if you own glued together models with a particular weapon, you should use that model to represent that weapon, if you include it. But as the models come with all three weapons in the box, everyone CAN glue/magnetize/putty/etc their models to accurately represent their army. These are different interpretations of the same words.

3 hours ago, BigBadAndy said:

That’s a pretty radical misinterpretation of the quote. This was in a response to a scenario where someone fielded three HH12s but wanted to say “this one here is a DLT trooper.” I said I couldn’t see why you would want to field the HH12 model as a DLT trooper not “I don’t think you can modify the DLT trooper to give him he HH12 gun.” Nothing mentioned about modification at all.

Forgive me, but in the context of your earlier posts you were discussing modification specifically and cutting up the models. You then switched to discussing physically replacing all of model a with all of model b but made no distinction of that.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Well, for one thing because there is a visual mismatch between the game state and the physical representation, so when tired or rushed one is more likely to just look quick instead of trying to see across the table. I also think the different squads should be identifiable for that reason.

It seems to me that you have decided on a solution (you obviosuly have a preference for WYSIWYG and want FFG to implement it in the game) and are seeking a problem to justify that.

All of the other Star Wars license minis games have done just fine with upgrade cards for standardized models. I think we can handle it here as well.

3 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Everyone  "can" field accurate models, the opportunity is there when th  ey first open the  box, or to buy new ones when they change the army lis  t

No, I’m not talking about what everyone can theoretically do if they were to go back in time and take a series of different actions leading up to that moment. I’m talking about what they are able to do at the time of the decision. They guy fielding one ATRT with each weapon type but trying to have each one represent a different weapon type and abusing the fact that the models are not required to visually represent the upgrade cards can immediately stop being a jackass and assign each ATRT the corresponding upgrade that matches its model.

Its not a hardship, it’s not going to force him to leave the tournament. This is VERY different than a guy who shows up with an AT AT with a mortar glued on. It’s obvious why this is different and why the second case is the reason for the lack of WYSIWYG and the first case is just a guy griefing and shouldn’t be allowed.

Would any of you guys recommend a guide/tutorial to magnetising weapons?

I would not know where to find proper magnets in first instance. ?

https://www.amazon.com/Magnet-Refrigerators-Whiteboard-Personalized-Multi-Use/dp/B07BHF3X86/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534788075&sr=8-1&keywords=rare+earth+magnets+2mm+x+1mm

And available in many, many other sizes.

You can find "rare earth magnets" in some stores (hardware, hobby). I drill a hole in the miniature/base for the size of the magnet. I will be a tight fit, and I still add glue to hold the magnet in place. When using two magnets, I often mark one side of the second magnet to know its orientation when I glue it to the second part (i.e. weapons on the AT-RT). It is best to use the same orientation if possible on miniatures, otherwise you will have miniatures jumping together when the magnets on their bases are different polarities (bases stick together).

There are other options as well, such as a magnetic base in a tray (think of a magnetic sheet instead of metal), then glue washers to the bottom of the bases. Others glue magnetic strips to the bottom of miniature bases.

This remains the dumbest argument on these forums. Don’t be an ******* and you won’t have any problems with this subject, whether you are the one bringing mismatched ATRT’s or the one confused by ATRT’s.

I hate to resurrect this thread, but has there been any official answer to this question? I bought into this game by picking up some pre-assembled squads second-hand, including 3 AT-RTs, one of which has its gun glued on and two others without any weapon at all. Do I need to find a way to un-glue that gun if I want to switch it out, and what can I do for the other two walkers since I don't have any weapons for their models at all. I was thinking I could identify what they are using with some sort of decal or sticker on the base. (like a fireball on the base of the one with a flamethrower, etc)

19 hours ago, Nobler said:

I hate to resurrect this thread, but has there been any official answer to this question? I bought into this game by picking up some pre-assembled squads second-hand, including 3 AT-RTs, one of which has its gun glued on and two others without any weapon at all. Do I need to find a way to un-glue that gun if I want to switch it out, and what can I do for the other two walkers since I don't have any weapons for their models at all. I was thinking I could identify what they are using with some sort of decal or sticker on the base. (like a fireball on the base of the one with a flamethrower, etc)

Its not a big deal. People use different AT-RT guns all the time. Honestly I hardly look at the tiny plastic thing on the front to identify it. I just double check with my opponent when measuring range.

I am a personal fan of WYSIWYG, but it's not something I would actively enforce. It's an OCD thing for my army though, I wouldn't want to field Grievous with his Blaster, unless he is using his Blaster. That's just me though, my opponent can do what he wants. You wanna field a rocket launcher Stormtrooper, but call him a DLT trooper. You do you.

Just my perspective...

If I'm playing in a tournament, I expect my opponent to have the right guns fielded on his models and for the weapon (model) to match the weapon (card).

I expect the same of, and will conduct myself in the same manner.

Furthermore, I paint my models in a manner that will limit confusion. For example, if I have 4 squads of troopers painted (which I do, for both rebels and imperials), I have some sort of color coordination on all the models of a given squad, unique to that squad, so that there can be no confusion about which squad a given trooper belongs to. (The bands of all my rebel troopers "caps" are painted in unique color to that squad). Thus, if during gameplay the minis get mushed up together for some reason, there's no problem sorting out who is with who.

None of this comes from a "dickish" or WAAC or pedantic attitude, mind you. I just feel I owe it to my opponent to make confusion as least likely as possible, and, in a perfect world, I'd like to see such courtesy reciprocated. Thus, in my opinion, in a tourney, if you're going to be participating at that level, you should have your list worked out in advance and have the right guns on.