bobafret[TK] Posted February 22, 2018 Report Posted February 22, 2018 Good morning all, Not really sure to put this but I have a recommendation around the CRL that I wanted to get some feedback on. The current CRL lists this statement at level three certification (Centurion): "Overlap construction is not allowed" I understand the history, that some kits like early MonCal were moulded to emulate the cover strips and meant to be constructed using an overlap construction method for thighs, shins, forearms and biceps. The problem now is that most of the kits produced are not moulded to be overlap construction, and yet I am continually getting into a semantic argument (even with tenured members) about cover strip requirement. I'd like to see a simple statement in the CRL that says "Overlap construction only allowed for kits molded with cover strips included - kits intended to constructed with cover strips (i.e., Anovos, AP, WTF and others) MUST be constructed using butt-join and cover strip method." I know the CRL can't address everything, but the language used seems to imply that overlap construction is acceptable for anything under Level Three. It's enough of an issue that I'd love to see the above simple statement added just to eliminate these arguments. In the end, I tell the applicants not everything can be addressed in the CRL and I do require the cover strips, but I've had some really chippy arguments, including one with former command staff who insists the semantics of this CRL allow for overlap at Basic even on Anovos. Would be interested in thoughts from others. I'd really LOVE to see this addition to the CRL to clear up the confusion about overlap construction. Thanks!
Harbinger[IPM] Posted February 22, 2018 Report Posted February 22, 2018 Don't forget the ROTJ wrinkle where overlap construction is required, though.
bobafret[TK] Posted February 22, 2018 Author Report Posted February 22, 2018 Sorry yes this was only regarding ANH Stunt
Harbinger[IPM] Posted February 22, 2018 Report Posted February 22, 2018 Hero and ESB would apply as well though. Honestly if its an issue of people using overlap construction just move the distinction to Basic approval IMO.
Ripper_L[Admin] Posted February 22, 2018 Report Posted February 22, 2018 if you move it to basic you will exclude all FX armors. And there are a lot out there. Like freakin' intimidating lot. You gotta know that the old FX armor was once the backbone of the legion.
Harbinger[IPM] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 Only for new approvals though, right? Or are you worried about second-hand FX armor? If so you have a point, in which case some additional clarification is probably a good idea as Dave mentions.
Ripper_L[Admin] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 It would also be a problem for inactive members that want to be active again. They would have to buy a new armor.
magni[TK] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 All FX armor should be piled up and burned! I know it's off topic but IMHO there should be a time limit for that armor. The helmet had a shelf life expire. So should the body. Time to put it with Rubie out to pasture. Carry on with your coverstrips! 1
Daetrin[Admin] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 FWIW, this is in the queue to be fixed. It's been a bit busy what with elections and all. I'm still getting caught up. 1
justjoseph63[Staff] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 The overlap construction was not used in ANH, and for screen accuracy purposes I feel that they should not be permitted at level 2. Those who currently have FX could upgrade if they wish to achieve EI or Centurion, but after all it is an elective and not a requirement . I had to replace my old AM chest, back and kidney for ANH-S level 3 and when the CRLs for HWT changed I replaced the ammo packs to reflect the new requirements. I was already approved at Centurion level HWT, so was "grandfathered in" with the older style, but things change and we must adapt. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of the higher levels and not down on anyone's armor (well, except Rubie's or recasts), but there comes a time when we have to move forward. Back in the day, FX was the armor of choice due to availability, but now there are many other quality options that are closer to screen accuracy. 1
Harbinger[IPM] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) I agree, move it to L2. Edited February 23, 2018 by Harbinger
bobafret[TK] Posted February 23, 2018 Author Report Posted February 23, 2018 What I'm proposing would NOT ban FX armor (or moncal or any other that was MEANT to be constructed as overlap) at Basic. I think I'm being misunderstood. What I'm saying is that the current CRL seems to allow for let's say an Anovos kit to be built with overlap construction at Basic. This is my only issue. The kits that are SUPPOSED to be constructed with cover strips should be required to be constructed that way AT ALL LEVELS. What I'm proposing is actually not a change to how any GML should be reviewing TK right now, it's just not spelled out. I'm simply saying we need verbiage in the CRL that somehow states that you can't construct an Anovos or AP or WTF or any other kit that is SUPPOSED to have cover strips with an overlap construction. People try to do overlap on Anovos and then use the CRL to justify that overlap is "allowed" at Basic and L2. It's actually ONLY allowed for FX and MonCal and other kits that have the cover strips moulded in. So I'm proposing language that somehow just reinforces the fact that you can't construct an Anovos kit with overlap construction at ANY level and be approved. FX and MonCal and others with cover strips in the mold would not apply. That's why I tried to word it very specifically. I think Paul gets it and says it's in the works so we're good to go. This is just a clarification to how we are enforcing builds but where the CRL could use a clarification so there is no misunderstanding. Thanks! 1
ukswrath[Staff] Posted February 23, 2018 Report Posted February 23, 2018 Coming from someone who took early overlap AM/FX armor and custom built a SWAT Cantina Captain here's my thoughts. The fact remains a few years ago we removed the FX helmet from the approval equation for a very obvious reason. The FX armor itself does not have the same issue as the helmet IMO. There's armor out with very soft details, do we ban them next? All out ban on FX at basic is a NO in my book because as Danny mentioned if any expired members want to rejoin the fold it shouldn't cost them another arm and leg. That said it's time for "overlap construction" to be excluded from anything above basic (outside of ROTJ). As for armor intending to be built a specific way I believe it should fall under the same reasoning as the Kidney notch. If it was produced to have a specific component then it must have it. 3
themaninthesuitcase[Admin] Posted February 26, 2018 Report Posted February 26, 2018 Just seen this pop up on a new build so good to see its in hand. Just to throw in my two penneth, I'd like to see overlap gone period. There's no real reason for it anymore and any vendor worth their salt wouldn't supply armour like it. That said above some fair points are made, how much do you penalise some one for either old armour or a bad choice when purchasing.
starsaber25[Admin] Posted February 27, 2018 Report Posted February 27, 2018 This thread has been moved to a public section of the board.
starsaber25[Admin] Posted February 27, 2018 Report Posted February 27, 2018 Please continue this conversation in this thread https://www.whitearmor.net/forum/topic/44227-march-2018-reqeust-for-crl-updates-thread/
Recommended Posts