Proposal: The Expansion of blaster variants for FISD First Order CRL's

[Sly11[Admin]]

PLEASE READ BEFORE PLACING YOUR VOTE

 

Detailed explanation and criteria

 

We (FISD staff) have had a long-running discussion regarding Stormtrooper Blaster variants as seen across the sequel trilogy, and how best this might be integrated into those CRL's.

The last thing we want to do is make an over bloated section for each of those CRL's with too much information, after all, blasters are not a requirement for 501st membership.

We don't want to make it overly confusing for GML's or Deployment officers, which could have the potential to create more delays than necessary on approval times.

 

So how do we propose to move forward?

I have broken this down into what will stay, and what could change.

 

The current Blaster requirement for EI and centurion will stay as is.

These are the most common seen on screen versions for each of the films. This is the basis on how all our CRL's are formed top to bottom. It gives everyone the chance to look as much the same as possible, the ideal garrison of Troopers.

 

What would change is the ability to build a blaster with the identical layout of one seen on screen in the specific movie for the costume.

The driver for this is to add some fun for the individual.

 

Now it would be pointless to move on this without some form of guide as to what might be permissible and what may not, so we have looked at a set of conditions that would need to apply.

 

Acceptable references

1. Blaster must be a production asset seen on screen, or from openly available to all, behind the scene references, including Disney+ specials. This keeps us aligned with how all legion CRL's are formed but gives some bandwidth.

This keeps it fair for all members, clears speculation, and has photo evidence to back it up. No hearsay, or anecdotal info will be accepted.

 

2. No clearly damaged or taped together blasters, we don't allow on the go gaffer tape patch ups on costumes, this would extend to the blasters we want to look our best after all.

 

3. The blaster must be appropriate for the film the costume belongs to. If the specific layout is seen across multiple films, that should not be an issue, but additional references would be required to prove so. (Images of said blaster in both films)

 

4. Blaster must be built to some of the benchmark Centurion level items, such as foldable forward grip and working lights, no visible print lines.

We expect that those looking to go this route would build their blasters with a higher degree of accuracy and want the bells and whistles that make them stand out.

 

How would the process work, when would a member need to submit a request or references?

 

If it is so desired by a member to build their blaster under this change, it would make sense to alert your GML and Detachment Deployment office to the CRL and the version you wish to build before you complete your costume.

 

 

The member will be required to produce at least 2 separate readily available visual references of the same version they wish to build in advance of submitting for approval. A final decision will be determined by the Deployment officer staff. Refer to the above list of what is considered acceptable references.
 

This would reduce the chances of added delays to an approval, give both the GML and DO's a chance to discuss with the member what is satisfactory and what may not be. This also prevents the potential for disappointment at the last moment.

 

If you believe this could be a beneficial change, add an element of fun, and a low level of individualism, then please vote for or against.

 

Footnote:  We would be starting with the First order version to trial how this may work.

If this Poll recognises merit, we will work to install it with additional text to the specific CRL's and seek LMO approvals.

If down the track this proves successful, and without excessive issues, I would hope the expansion of a similar treatment to other CRL's under the FISD purview would take place.

[gmrhodes13[Staff]]

A sound idea to me, giving a member a screen accurate BUT custom item to their specific costume, what's not to like

 

[equuspolo[TK]]

I vote yea 

[justjoseph63[Staff]]

Voted!

[MissionTrooper[TK]]

Voted!

 

[revlimiter[Staff]]

 

[MaskedVengeance[Staff]]

Pew pew!

[TheRascalKing[TK]]

Before I vote, I'd appreciate clarification. This statement:

 

On 10/27/2023 at 9:03 PM, Sly11 said:

What would change is the ability to build a blaster with the identical layout of one seen on screen in the specific movie for the costume.

 

Seems to me to be at odds with this statement:

 

On 10/27/2023 at 9:03 PM, Sly11 said:

4. Blaster must be built to some of the benchmark Centurion level items, such as foldable forward grip and working lights, no visible print lines.

We expect that those looking to go this route would build their blasters with a higher degree of accuracy and want the bells and whistles that make them stand out.

 

I recently noted from the reference shared over here posted by Heritage Auctions:

 

 

...that not all blasters used on screen for FOTKs had a movable front handle, and many did not have lights. This (and many other) blasters were made by production for use on screen and did not have these features, so I am of the strong opinion that they should be optional and not required at any level. This isn't a Mr. No Stripes situation where a one-off escaped scrutiny - these were intentionally made and used without moving handles.

 

So... can I submit a blaster with a fixed handle for L3 approval and CRL amendment using the clear reference above?

 

Or if we're still going to claim only Hero blasters have validity in CRL consideration, what's the point of this proposal?

 

CRLs should not be about having 'the bells and whistles that make [costumes] stand out", but rather accuracy to what was used on screen, tempered with consideration for what is practical for trooping, and achievable with the resources and materials currently available.

Edited November 2, 2023 by TheRascalKing

[equuspolo[TK]]

1 hour ago, TheRascalKing said:

Before I vote, I'd appreciate clarification. This statement:

 

 

Seems to me to be at odds with this statement:

 

 

I recently noted from the reference shared over here posted by Heritage Auctions:

 

 

That not all blasters used on screen for FOTKs had a folding stock or lights, and we can clearly see that this handle is not movable.

 

Can I submit a blaster for L3 approval and CRL amendment using the clear reference above?

 

Or if we're still going to claim only Hero blasters have validity in CRL consideration, what's the point of this?

 

That’s a great point Justin.  These are stunt blasters 

[Sly11[Admin]]

At basic levels it's not a problem, you don't need the moving parts, at higher levels the bells and whistles are what set us apart for those.

As I mentioned in the other post, we always aim for the Hero blasters for CRL's, all detachments do, if you don't have those or the intricacies for higher levels, you give nothing for members to aspire to.

 

This exercise is not about dropping current standards, and as mentioned the current EI and centurion sections will remain as is, this simply gives the ability for some more options and a bit of fun. If it looks like we would need to drop standards, this just wouldn't go any further.

How that looks in the end, we don't know yet

So to be completely simple, there is a place for rubber blasters, it is at basic level where we allow less, at centurion and EI as optional levels, all detachments reserve the right to maintain a standard they see fit. We would do the same.

 

This is only a proposal, not the CRL change itself, ultimately nothing may come of it, and what is written in the proposal is not the language that will go into the CRL that would be refined for the best clarity possible.

It could contain info stating the rubber stunt blaster or only give a list of parts allowable, we are not there yet. This is only the gauging interest phase.

 

Thanks for your questions.

 

 

[TheRascalKing[TK]]

TL;DR: "So here's a screen used blaster, can I build one like this *for Centurion?"

FISD: "No."

Then I don't see the value in this proposal if the DL has final say in what references are valid, but I welcome actual meaningful change to the FOTK CRLs.

 

In the nearly full year since the last update, we have had.... exactly zero new submissions other than @equuspolo for any of the 3 FOTK CRLs, and Ardeshir was vocal about his concerns regarding the unrealistic standards and level of scrutiny during his review (especially of his blaster). Other than him, @TKSpartan (a Deployment Officer team member) has been the only other recipient of a L2 or L3 award for the FOTK in three years, yet we keep making the CRLs... harder? And this is supposed to be... fun?

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by TheRascalKing

[Sly11[Admin]]

It's not as popular as the OT armour, let's not forget, but obviously there are more reasons one wouldn't build a specific costume than just a CRL, so let's not leave that small detail out.

6 hours ago, TheRascalKing said:

TL;DR: "So here's a screen used blaster, can I build one like this?"

FISD: "No."
 

Sorry Justin, that's not actually correct. You can have it at basic level, clearly you might have missed that point. Never been excluded, nor do I feel it should be. It's not about the material the blaster is made of, it's about the bells, whistles and embellishments for a higher level.

Don't forget, this is not about uprooting the entire blaster section of the CRL, this is a proposal to go to a trial and if the LMO's agree then we will trial it.

If it works, that's great, if members see merit, even better. If it doesn't work, the CRL's still have intact the blasters basic, EI and Centurion levels there.

Not everything will be meaningful to everyone, we are all different, but if you don't see this might be a little fun for some, then that's ok too.

 

6 hours ago, TheRascalKing said:

In the nearly full year since the last update, we have had.... exactly zero new submissions other than @equuspolo for any of the 3 FOTK CRLs, and Ardeshir was vocal about his concerns regarding the unrealistic standards and level of scrutiny during his review (especially of his blaster). Other than him, @TKSpartan (a Deployment Officer team member) has been the only other recipient of a L2 or L3 award for the FOTK in three years, yet we keep making the CRLs... harder? And this is supposed to be... fun?

 

 

Well, this is not a factual statement in the sum of all its parts. We haven't made the CRL's more difficult for any member to achieve 501st approval. That level is still very much the same, aside from some minor tweaks to errors.

Lvl 2 and 3 is up to the detachment to set the standard, and we do, as all the other detachments do.

 

The reason we are even considering this is to expand on what is allowable and keeping with the standards. This has never been, nor should it be, everyone wins a participation prize.

Strive like others, and you are rewarded, no one is forced to take on the higher levels of approval, nor should they be.

 

@equuspolo absolutely is a great example of how darn good these costumes can look, and he stepped up to the plate and some!

His concerns are another reason we are here with this proposal, but we aren't going to throw the baby out with the bathwater in taking a backwards step on the standards we currently have. Enhancing this is the idea, and who knows how that will look in the future. At minimum, this offers a starting.

 

 

 

There won't be a perfect solution that makes everyone happy, it would be delusional to think one could, and I am a realist. A middle ground is generally the best way forward, and this is what we are attempting to achieve.  

We are not a prop replication club, and in saying this, there are other Detachments with far harder to achieve standards than the FISD.

I've heard from other legion staff that we strike a pretty good balance or middle ground on how we go about our CRL's and higher awards.  That is something for every member to be proud of.

 

FISD, very much like all other detachments, take the stand-out differences that give some form of separation between costumes. For us, we have very similar costumes across the genres, more than most, well aside from the CTD (Clone Trooper Detachment) lol, that's insane how many they have, but we need to identify those difference and make them "stand out", so we have the number of CRL's we do.

 

If this proposal is not for you, vote how you see fit, it's all we expect from everyone who wishes to partake.

 

 

 

[Sly11[Admin]]

This Poll is now closed.

Thank you to everyone who participated.

The majority of votes were a positive to make changes allowing some more flexibility with First Order blasters per the descriptor explanation at the top of this thread.

 

This will be taken into consideration and further discussions had regarding the potential changes.