I think im right. Its hard to tell, but I think its the personal upgrade type (not heavy weapon). It doesn't say replace just add and it becomes, presumably your unit leader turn into your spare normal trooper.

I assume that you could use the card on one unit leader with unit leader model and have the commander as well.

Its basically the addition action that snow troopers will get that makes this so good because they are harder to suppress. This makes it better than use a cheap second commander.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don't know I mean 3rd party heads are already available and paint jobs are an easy way to differentiate them. I kind of think part of the reason for choosing Gideon was that he's hard to confuse for the current trooper or fleet squad leader models. See also: them deciding not to use a stormtrooper officer for the imperials.

Yes, but you can take one officer as a Commander, and one as a unit upgrade. Nothing precludes such duplication per the rules. This issue also applies for non-upgraded units in general. Not everyone is comfortable with headswaps, and many people want to paint the models close to movie accurate. Hence why many people wanted a generic commander rather than customize/convert the named characters. At least that's the argument I've seen the most.

2 hours ago, Winter79 said:

I think im right. Its hard to tell, but I think its the personal upgrade type (not heavy weapon). It doesn't say replace just add and it becomes, presumably your unit leader turn into your spare normal trooper.

I assume that you could use the card on one unit leader with unit leader model and have the commander as well.

The upgrade is represented by the model, so you "have" to add the model (official events at least). The card says "Add one Imperial/Rebel officer mini" and Leader says "This mini is your unit Leader."

11 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, but you can take one officer as a Commander, and one as a unit upgrade. Nothing precludes such duplication per the rules. This issue also applies for non-upgraded units in general. Not everyone is comfortable with headswaps, and many people want to paint the models close to movie accurate. Hence why many people wanted a generic commander rather than customize/convert the named characters. At least that's the argument I've seen the most.

But these models aren't movie characters to be painted "right". The Imperial officer can at least be used twice, once in a black uniform, once in olive. Gideon can have any number of color of coats.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

But these models aren't movie characters to be painted "right". The Imperial officer can at least be used twice, once in a black uniform, once in olive. Gideon can have any number of color of coats.

Again, per the rules, no such distinction is required. Just like nothing in any of the rules precludes head swaps on any model, including characters. Gideon has a color palette that is also "right," between the official IA art, and as he is wearing the same style of jacket as General Dodonna.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Again, per the rules, no such distinction is required. Just like nothing in any of the rules precludes head swaps on any model, including characters. Gideon has a color palette that is also "right," between the official IA art, and as he is wearing the same style of jacket as General Dodonna.

My post went away, then came back, then went away... ignore/mods delete this one plzthxu.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Again, per the rules, no such distinction is required. Just like nothing in any of the rules precludes head swaps on any model, including characters. Gideon has a color palette that is also "right," between the official IA art, and as he is wearing the same style of jacket as General Dodonna.

I'm talking about the practicality, not legality, of telling which identical sculpt in your collection has which stats.

23 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

The whole thing is about the practicality, not legality, of telling which is which during games. What distinction are you indicating I think is required by the rules?

I was indicating a problem with the LACK of rules to differentiate. I am well aware of the possibility of using paint or swaps to make it easier, but some people may obfuscate on purpose, or by accident due to ignorance. So saying "a paint job fixes it" does not answer my concern of the rules allowing for a potentially confusing situation, as none of the rules require paint to be applied in the first place.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I was indicating a problem with the LACK of rules to differentiate. I am well aware of the possibility of using paint or swaps to make it easier, but some people may obfuscate on purpose, or by accident due to ignorance. So saying "a paint job fixes it" does not answer my concern of the rules allowing for a potentially confusing situation, as none of the rules require paint to be applied in the first place.

The overall rules do address a very similar issue, I imagine the pdf will be updated to fix this particular opportunity to cheat.

I think using multiple generic officers is no different than mixing up units/troopers that all look alike. My Stormtrooper leaders look different (arm pose and shoulder pad), but there will not be a good way to distinguish units other than a small cardboard counter and the different numbers I painted on my leader's base to tell them apart.

9 hours ago, Bohemian73 said:

I think using multiple generic officers is no different than mixing up units/troopers that all look alike. My Stormtrooper leaders look different (arm pose and shoulder pad), but there will not be a good way to distinguish units other than a small cardboard counter and the different numbers I painted on my leader's base to tell them apart.

Exactly. And as far as the blatant cheating aspect of his worry, there are way more effective and easy ways to cheat if a person was dead set on that.