skutch Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Guys, I was just looking at the newly published version of the CRL. http://www.501stlegion.org/crl/index.php Shouldn't Heavy Weapons Trooper be in the Stormtrooper category? I personally don't want it lobbed in with us. Anything we can do about that? skutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skutch Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 BTW, I posted something over at: http://www.501stforums.com/forum/viewtopic...p=439426#439426 Feel free to chime in over there if you agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD-1536 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Not happy. The CRL as it pertains to the TD has been totally rail-roaded. They (Mark? The counsel?) completely threw out everything we submitted last year and re-wrote it with zero respect to "Deployed" standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caomhanach Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Not happy. The CRL as it pertains to the TD has been totally rail-roaded. They (Mark? The counsel?) completely threw out everything we submitted last year and re-wrote it with zero respect to "Deployed" standards. Please remember that the CRL is the minimum requirements to be accepted into the Legion and not the minimum for Deployment, both should be seperate... I don't want to see anyone railroading the Deployed/Lancer/Elite requirements into the CRL as that is not what it is meant for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD0923 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I can understand all the work that went into it and it not really being used. I do agree with Caomhanach about those being minimum standards. That is what it very much seems to be happening and I would imagine that is the way things are going to go with all the costumes to join Legion with basic/minimum standards. It helps get numbers into the Legion but at the cost of having a completely uniform movie type look. MEPD deployed would be "Elite" type status. Just my 2 pennies worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Kav - I think it's clear that it's supposed to be the 501st standard, not the MEPD standard. MEPD (Mike and I) submitted something for both - the idea that the 501st is "must have" and the MEPD is "should have". This is what was asked for. And I remember seeing what we posted on both GML and DL areas. However what got re-written and approved by LC is neither. It seems IMHO lacking on both counts. In fact, it seems worse than what we had when you and I first started 4 years ago. To wit: having drop boxes is a minor detail but they are excluded (like MEPD excludes them). Having neither a pack nor BFG seems a more obvious detail and seems a greater lapse. With regards to the HWT I'm pretty confused. I was under the impression they were TK's with "stuff", but the way the CRL is written they are more like full MEPD troopers with no dirt. What really are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skutch Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 With regards to the HWT I'm pretty confused. I was under the impression they were TK's with "stuff", but the way the CRL is written they are more like full MEPD troopers with no dirt. What really are they? From what I understand. HWT is a TK with a pauldron and BFG. They absolutely have dots instead of changed ab plates. Basically, some artist was trying to draw a sandie and didn't know the difference. He wa also clean. But since everything LFL approves is "gospel", then the HWT was born. There are TK's in A New Hope with big guns, but the pauldron is what supposedly gives them the HWT designation. Someone feel free to correct me if my knowledge of this is wrong. My belief, although this clearly isn't the Legions, is that if it isn't good enough for a detachment, then it shouldn't get that ID. I actually deleted my last post from the 501st forum, because I didn't want you to think any of my anger toward the HWT costume was directed at you, Daetrin. make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 From what I understand. HWT is a TK with a pauldron and BFG. They absolutely have dots instead of changed ab plates. Basically, some artist was trying to draw a sandie and didn't know the difference. He wa also clean. But since everything LFL approves is "gospel", then the HWT was born. There are TK's in A New Hope with big guns, but the pauldron is what supposedly gives them the HWT designation. Someone feel free to correct me if my knowledge of this is wrong. My belief, although this clearly isn't the Legions, is that if it isn't good enough for a detachment, then it shouldn't get that ID. I actually deleted my last post from the 501st forum, because I didn't want you to think any of my anger toward the HWT costume was directed at you, Daetrin. make sense? No worries bro. I'm just after consistency and clarity. The hard part is remembering that the people who "cleaned it up" probably did too, but maybe made errors. Heck - I make them all the time - this is what proof-readers are for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteCommandoV2 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 CRLs are the best! I lost my TC designation since I had seams on my thighs... and Torment told a squad leader in my Garrison "I would not approve that guy" and they listened... SOOOOO Crappy! Remember when half the clones were Glover clones with seams and rivets? Oh wait... that is still half of the clone corps. Seriously... CRLs suck big fatties. Soon, it will be OK for TDs... FX suits will become required for consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td7603 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 wait. you mean to tell me you HAVE to go seamless to get your clone approved these days? WTF, over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchy Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Afer reading the CRL and especially the part of the HWT it made me realise that as stated by a lot of you above, all the work Mike and Daetrin did to create a definition for a TD was thrown overboard if not re-written and adjusted. So where does this lead us to then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Christley Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 HWT's were designated as TXs by Thomas in 2006 and we've pressed with the specs. Dunno where they got confused with TD's, but I'm trying to work out a solution with Daetrin because IMHO, they should probably reside at the FISD unless they are adamantly against them belonging there. Refer to this original MEPD thread when they were first debated: http://forum.mepd.net/lofiversion/index.php?t1345.html Original Legion thread: http://www.501stforums.com/forum/viewtopic...ron&start=0 I'll have to review the spec, but in most cases, the TX HWT is not a "clean" TD - there are differences. Kev TX Det Lead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 HWT's were designated as TXs by Thomas in 2006 and we've pressed with the specs. Dunno where they got confused with TD's, but I'm trying to work out a solution with Daetrin because IMHO, they should probably reside at the FISD unless they are adamantly against them belonging there. Refer to this original MEPD thread when they were first debated: http://forum.mepd.net/lofiversion/index.php?t1345.html Original Legion thread: http://www.501stforums.com/forum/viewtopic...ron&start=0 I'll have to review the spec, but in most cases, the TX HWT is not a "clean" TD - there are differences. Kev TX Det Lead Thanks Kevin for clarifying this - apparently I'm not the only one who forgot that HWT was still under the SpecOps umbrella and it was an oversight not pinging you first to get some situational awareness before making a presumption. I think some of us (or perhaps just me) are still a little raw at the whole CRL issue and it's colored our thought processes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Christley Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Agreed. The CRL process has not transitioned smoothly and the DLs definitely are not happy with their submitted and voted upon specs being changed willy-nilly. The good thing is it is not a finalized process. The Spec Ops Det (TXs) is more than willing to work with the MEPD and FISD to get this sorted out. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Yup - for those that don't know Kevin I can say he's been super easy to work with and has always worked hard to ensure smooth relationships between detachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skutch Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Kev, aren't you the guy that sells the fans for helmet? If so, you rule. I love those fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfive Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 HWT's were designated as TXs by Thomas in 2006 and we've pressed with the specs. Dunno where they got confused with TD's, but I'm trying to work out a solution with Daetrin because IMHO, they should probably reside at the FISD unless they are adamantly against them belonging there. Refer to this original MEPD thread when they were first debated: http://forum.mepd.net/lofiversion/index.php?t1345.html Original Legion thread: http://www.501stforums.com/forum/viewtopic...ron&start=0 I'll have to review the spec, but in most cases, the TX HWT is not a "clean" TD - there are differences. Kev TX Det Lead Kev, While the HWT is "run " by the tx det if I remember correctly it is given a TD designation. When this orriginally was introduced the MEPD as a whole wanted nothing to do with them. Spec Ops steped up and as usual adopted the unwanted orphan, but Thomas said it would be listed under TD due to the similarities to the rest of the TDs so as not to confuse people. Ernie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Christley Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Kev, aren't you the guy that sells the fans for helmet? If so, you rule. I love those fans. Yup, that's me. As for the TD designation, I argued against that as it would lead to confusion with the true TDs, the proud "Dirty Boys" of the MEPD. I thought the confusion was over, but I'll work with Thomas Spanos (new LMO) to get it clarified. As it stood in the CRL I submitted, to become a HWT just took a clean TK with pauldron, ammo pouches, BFG and a backpack (all unweathered). It did not take the significant effort, intestinal fortitude and commitment of modding the ab and knees, as well as getting dirty. The deployed MEPD members should always be commended for going that extra step above and beyond in setting forth what I always considered to be the very first true CRL entry pre-2004. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td7603 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 but Thomas said it would be listed under TD due to the similarities to the rest of the TDs so as not to confuse people. yeah....THAT makes sence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td7603 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 apparently the HWT has been a TX since 2006, which is news to me. in other words i no longer think they are our problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Christley Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Here's what I had to say in the DL forums to Albin and Thomas... "Hopefully we can get the HWT issue worked out so there's no confusing it with the MEPD's TD efforts. They work very hard to stand apart from the crowd and to lump the HWT under their TD banner (even though it's a TX) does them a great disservice." Kev Spec Ops DL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I believe the reason they are TD is using the logic that costume designations are families of costumes and are not specific to detachments at all. This is seen where SL is covered by two detachments. Kevin – thanks for the heads up that the HTW is the base TK armor with accessories. With that information I would agree that FISD is a more proper home than MEPD for sure, and perhaps better suited than SpecOps. I believe it’s best to keep a separate costume designation as there is a big difference between a TK with one or two accessories and one with *all* accessories. At the least it codifies the difference between a canon and EU TK. So…I’m open to receiving the costume if you are OK in letting it go, but I’d not want to take it unless you are 100% on board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td7603 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 well, its a TX officially for the last few years. so just by designation, shouldn't it be a Spec Ops? just askin.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daetrin Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 well, its a TX officially for the last few years. so just by designation, shouldn't it be a Spec Ops? just askin.... No, it's a TD. It's a TD in SpecOps. Again - costume designations and detachments aren't a 1:1 match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
td7603 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 ok, than THIS confuses me... And the Heavy Weapons Trooper (HWT) is a TX and NOT a TD belonging to the MEPD. It's NOT a clean TD - there are differences documented by the EU comic captures. They've been a TX since 2006, but I'm working with Daetrin to see if the FISD wants them instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.