Advanced tactics for blasters

[CableGuy[TK]]

Hi blaster fans,

 

Much like armour has basic, EIB and Centurion, I was just wondering if the idea of a tiered clearance for blasters had been floated before?

 

Seeing the amazing lengths that some members are taking their blasters too, a recognition system could be quite rewarding, and possibly encourage new builders to reach that bit further.

 

I've not gone into too much thought but wondered if something along these lines might be handy:

 

Basic/Expert - off-the-shelf, meets basic criteria

Sharpshooter - kit or scratch build, medium upgrades and good screen accuracy

Marksman - heavily upgraded, realistic appearance, working parts, custom paint job

 

Just throwing ideas around, mainly after following some of the threads on here with ridiculous attention to detail. 

 

Best wishes,

Dan

Edited December 12, 2017 by CableGuy
was un-finished

[BaneLives85[TK]]

Hi blaster fans,
 
Much like armour has basic, EIB and Centurion, I was just wondering if the idea of a tiered clearance for blasters had been floated before?
 
Seeing the amazing lengths that some members are taking their blasters too, a recognition system could be quite rewarding, and possibly encourage new builders to reach that bit further.
 
I've not gone into too much thought but wondered if something along these lines might be handy:
 
Basic/Expert - off-the-shelf, meets basic criteria
Sharpshooter - kit or scratch build, medium upgrades and good screen accuracy
Marksman - heavily upgraded, realistic appearance, working parts, custom paint job
 
Just throwing ideas around, mainly after following some of the threads on here with ridiculous attention to detail. 
 
Best wishes,
Dan

Great idea! And I like the sound of "Sharpshooter"!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Daetrin[Admin]]

I have no issues with this.

[CableGuy[TK]]

Excellent. I'll have a think outside of work hours and come back with some initial thoughts. Hopefully we'll get some more feedback from the community and see if it looks like a workable idea. :-)

 

How exciting. 

[Dracotrooper]

Good on you Dan to take on visionary and administrative lead on this - this may very well be the thing that will motivate the next generation of blaster builders.

 

The average builder does have more resources at their grasp these days as a result of on-line purchasing, the growth of 'lower-end' hardware stores offering up cheaper yet adequate tools, high resolution photos captured from smart phones, and of course, access to in-depth WIPs posted right here on FISD. Most important of all, there are members that sincerely want to see others succeed in getting to their design and build goals.

 

Also, If you look also at what CHRIS (fieldmarshall) is doing in creating high quality replica E-11 Blaster parts, and the interest and momentum gained there, for purchase from his shop - these may very well fuel motivation for achieving the  'Marksman' category.

[jethroskull[501st]]

You've got the names a bit scrambled, I think. Marksman is lowest, then Sharpshooter, then Expert (at least in the US Army).

But I like the idea!

[CableGuy[TK]]

You've got the names a bit scrambled, I think. Marksman is lowest, then Sharpshooter, then Expert (at least in the US Army).
But I like the idea!

Doh!! I must learn how to read wiki. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jethroskull[501st]]

They show the medals in reverse order. Just go by the level of fancy... 

[CableGuy[TK]]

5 minutes ago, jethroskull said:

They show the medals in reverse order. Just go by the level of fancy... 

Super - cheers JC. :-)

[CableGuy[TK]]

55 minutes ago, Dracotrooper said:

Good on you Dan to take on visionary and administrative lead on this - this may very well be the thing that will motivate the next generation of blaster builders.

 

The average builder does have more resources at their grasp these days as a result of on-line purchasing, the growth of 'lower-end' hardware stores offering up cheaper yet adequate tools, high resolution photos captured from smart phones, and of course, access to in-depth WIPs posted right here on FISD. Most important of all, there are members that sincerely want to see others succeed in getting to their design and build goals.

 

Also, If you look also at what CHRIS (fieldmarshall) is doing in creating high quality replica E-11 Blaster parts, and the interest and momentum gained there, for purchase from his shop - these may very well fuel motivation for achieving the  'Marksman' category.

 

Good input, Jesse. 

 

You’re right about those building replica parts. That really is taking things beyond just an add-on to the TK armour - it becomes just as impressive in its own right.  

 

Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this. :-)

[Harbinger[IPM]]

Great idea, as it promotes blaster accuracy - and that is what these programs are about. My only concern would be costs/local laws which may prevent people from participating in the highest levels of accuracy.

 

Not sure of the interplay with CRLs, I would imagine this would be a seperate thing. Either way, I think modded Hasbro's and park blasters should be disqualified from the get-go - there is a reason they aren't allowed at Level 3. Base level here should be something like a Doopy's kit or Hyperfirm IMO.

 

I would also highly suggest coordinating this with Spec Ops/MEPD/etc. as there are other detachment CRLs that use E-11s/DLT-19's and it would be nice to have some consistency in this regard.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Harbinger

[Dracotrooper]

For fun, I took the liberty of taking a stab at an 'Expert Blaster' marksmanship badge :

 

 

This is a conceptual design, following after military badges as described on this Wikipedia page:  Marksmanship badges (United States)

Edited December 12, 2017 by Dracotrooper

[CableGuy[TK]]

Go Jesse!! Let’s hope this gets some traction. :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CableGuy[TK]]

So, how do we think the tiers would work? Based on appearance or user input?

By that, I mean this. As an example, if someone buys a ready made blaster of the highest quality, would that go to the top tier as it looks accurate (appearance), or would it be standard as it was pre-made (minimal user input)?

The armour grades are based on screen accuracy, regardless of whether the applicant made the suit or had it commissioned. In that sense, blasters could also be based upon screen accuracy, regardless of self built or pre made.

For those doing a self build (Doopy’s kit, for example), this can be simply glued and painted if a person so wanted. That could be basic clearance. On the other hand, these can be stripped down, screws replaced with real, functioning parts etc., as we have seen many times on the boards. In this example, I would imagine that to reach the highest level, Expert (thanks JC), one would have to replace all resin screws, functioning end cap, modified front sight, hollowed scope etc.

Lots to think about. Could add some inspiration to new builders. :-)

[Harbinger[IPM]]

I don't think it'd be fair to exclude people who don't have the time/skills, and just spend some money to have a finished, screen accurate blaster from the program. There's always the FISD recognition award if there's someone out there building them all, IMO.

[Dracotrooper]

With blaster grading following after armor grading - basing it on screen accuracy, the badges denote the level of screen accuracy, so I changed around the wordings to 'expert blaster' in my mock-up of the highest badge.

[CableGuy[TK]]

3 minutes ago, Harbinger said:

I don't think it'd be fair to exclude people who don't have the time/skills, and just spend some money to have a finished, screen accurate blaster from the program. There's always the FISD recognition award if there's someone out there building them all, IMO.

 

Cool. So, along the lines of screen accuracy regardless of supplier or user input - sounds good. This would mean that someone could buy a lovely, complete replica and achieve Expert, or could purchase a cheaper kit, build and modify, and reach Expert, as long as both achieve a level of screen accuracy. Sounds fair. Just gives people a nice choice of which route suits them better. :-)

 

1 minute ago, Dracotrooper said:

With blaster grading following after armor grading - basing it on screen accuracy, the badges denote the level of screen accuracy, so I changed around the wordings to 'expert blaster' in my mock-up of the highest badge.

 

10-4 Trooper. :-)

[justjoseph63[Staff]]

This exact subject was brought up back in June by Vern in the Attache HQ section.  There were varying opinions, including the fact that due to importation restrictions some Troopers in certain countries would not have access to particular parts, either replica or real.  There was also the matter of the additional cost being prohibitive.  We all realize that it costs more to reach EI and Centurion, but this is not a necessary step to get out and (pardon the pun) have a blast trooping.

Many of us "detail freaks" go the extra mile for authenticity when we build a prop or set of armor, and those who do should be proud of those accomplishments.

I am definitely in favor of this program, but it would require a small group of E-11 "experts" to be appointed, set the standards and approve the applications.  (FWIW I would nominate Tino (T-Jay).

 

Tim (Dark CMF) had some great thoughts on this subject:

 

"I think that depriving a lot of members who may want to be a part of this program from the opportunity to do so, simply to avoid hurting a few feelings is a bit extreme in many regards.  There are a lot of really, really skilled blaster builders within our ranks, why not let them shine the same way that our skilled armor builders do?  If we really do want to put the best product on the streets as widely as we can, we need to provide the right types and amount of incentive and motivation for people to do so.  This is the type of program (because we all know that if there is a program within any part of the Legion, that there will eventually be SWAG produced for it) that can help to do just that".

[CableGuy[TK]]

This exact subject was brought up back in June by Vern in the Attache HQ section.  There were varying opinions, including the fact that due to importation restrictions some Troopers in certain countries would not have access to particular parts, either replica or real.  There was also the matter of the additional cost being prohibitive.  We all realize that it costs more to reach EI and Centurion, but this is not a necessary step to get out and (pardon the pun) have a blast trooping.
Many of us "detail freaks" go the extra mile for authenticity when we build a prop or set of armor, and those who do should be proud of those accomplishments.
I am definitely in favor of this program, but it would require a small group of E-11 "experts" to be appointed, set the standards and approve the applications.  (FWIW I would nominate Tino (T-Jay).
 
Tim (Dark CMF) had some great thoughts on this subject:
 
"I think that depriving a lot of members who may want to be a part of this program from the opportunity to do so, simply to avoid hurting a few feelings is a bit extreme in many regards.  There are a lot of really, really skilled blaster builders within our ranks, why not let them shine the same way that our skilled armor builders do?  If we really do want to put the best product on the streets as widely as we can, we need to provide the right types and amount of incentive and motivation for people to do so.  This is the type of program (because we all know that if there is a program within any part of the Legion, that there will eventually be SWAG produced for it) that can help to do just that".

Hi Joseph,
Thank you for sharing that, and apologies for unintentionally bringing up an old topic.
Very interesting points from yourself and Tim. I see the point about possibly alienating those that can’t participate, however I guess that’s where basic clearance plays it’s roll. Those that want to go above and beyond can do so to a level they are comfortable with.
And yes, it would be wonderful to reward those talented blaster builders with an extra thumbs up. :-)
I’m pleased to hear that the topic is not off the table. Perhaps this latest round of discussions will raise new interest from members. :-)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[justjoseph63[Staff]]

8 minutes ago, CableGuy said:

 

Hi Joseph,
Thank you for sharing that, and apologies for unintentionally bringing up an old topic.
Very interesting points from yourself and Tim. I see the point about possibly alienating those that can’t participate, however I guess that’s where basic clearance plays it’s roll. Those that want to go above and beyond can do so to a level they are comfortable with.
And yes, it would be wonderful to reward those talented blaster builders with an extra thumbs up. :-)
I’m pleased to hear that the topic is not off the table. Perhaps this latest round of discussions will raise new interest from members. :-)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No apologies necessary, Dan.. I'm glad this came up again!  Paul has given it the official "thumbs up", so we can move forward.  I will post this subject in the Staff section and see how he wants to proceed and keep this thread updated with the results.

[themaninthesuitcase[Admin]]

I remember that thread, there were some strong options there.

 

There’s a fine line to thread. You’re essentially creating a CRL for the blasters, and so similar care and attention must be taken.

 

I suggest that before people get carried away with logos and program names that at least a starting point of structure and so on is established. No point in having a fancy logo if there’s no proper documentation and no one willing to adjudicate for example.

 

Edit:

For what it’s worth go for it but make it achievable. Don’t mandate above what’s reasonable and ensure what is mandated is what was seen on screen. A fieldmarshall build, whilst fantastic, is also above and beyond. As are movable parts, you never see a stock in use for example.

 

Also you’re committing to a rule set for EACH blaster. ANH, ESB and ROTJ are all different.

 

[CableGuy[TK]]

I remember that thread, there were some strong options there.
 
There’s a fine line to thread. You’re essentially creating a CRL for the blasters, and so similar care and attention must be taken.
 
I suggest that before people get carried away with logos and program names that at least a starting point of structure and so on is established. No point in having a fancy logo if there’s no proper documentation and no one willing to adjudicate for example.
 
Edit:
For what it’s worth go for it but make it achievable. Don’t mandate above what’s reasonable and ensure what is mandated is what was seen on screen. A fieldmarshall build, whilst fantastic, is also above and beyond. As are movable parts, you never see a stock in use for example.
 
Also you’re committing to a rule set for EACH blaster. ANH, ESB and ROTJ are all different.
 

Hi Chris.
Very good points. There would be a lot of work involved, and it would have to be handled with care.
I agree that it should reflect the appearance of screen used blasters, more so than the inclusion of working parts. Of course, if a screen accurate blaster also has nice, authentic working parts, great. That’s a nice perk.

Lots to ponder. :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[starsaber25[Admin]]

 I have voiced my concerns about this in Vern's thread.  I am not for this.  I just think this is a lot of work for many people that will go unseen.  In many countries you can barely carry a blaster.  So what would be the point to spend a ton of money to make a blaster super accurate to just sit in a display case in someones home?  Many people will probably not even be able to source the parts to achieve higher levels.  And also are we creating an environment for someone who builds an accurate blaster that looks a little "too real" where there is an issue in public with law enforcement?  Atleast with armor when you go the higher levels it is seen by everyone out there and everyone has the opportunity to achieve it.  I also mentioned that if we do this, then where does it stop?  Accurate pauldrons?  Accurate TK lightsabers?  Accurate Executioner ax?

 

I know there are a lot of people who are very passionate about blasters but I just think we shouldn't be creating higher levels of accuracy for them...

[Harbinger[IPM]]

Perhaps the best way to handle this is as a 'value add' to the current Centurion blaster requirements, then?

 

There's a pretty wide gap between a Hyperfirm and an E-11 with a functional trigger, folding stock and scope.

 

And FWIW, I also think those that go to 100% film accuracy (brackets, popper snaps, painted stunt buckets) should be rewarded as well.

[CableGuy[TK]]

24 minutes ago, starsaber25 said:

Sorry Everyone here is my take.  My take in prior discussions and my take now:

 

I have voiced my concerns about this in Vern's thread.  I am not for this.  I just think this is a lot of work for many people that will go unseen.  In many countries you can barely carry a blaster.  So what would be the point to spend a ton of money to make a blaster super accurate to just sit in a display case in someones home?  Many people will probably not even be able to source the parts to achieve higher levels.  And also are we creating an environment for someone who builds an accurate blaster that looks a little "too real" where there is an issue in public with law enforcement?  Atleast with armor when you go the higher levels it is seen by everyone out there and everyone has the opportunity to achieve it.  I also mentioned that if we do this, then where does it stop?  Accurate pauldrons?  Accurate TK lightsabers?  Accurate Executioner ax?

 

I know there are a lot of people who are very passionate about blasters but I just think we shouldn't be creating higher levels of accuracy for them...

 

Hi Steve,

Appreciate your honest input. It’s good to hear both sides of the subject. :-)