Detaleader

I'll see if I can't do a breakdown of the essentials after work as for what has to be in there (and potentially even which level?). As for the left side sling swivel: You can see it near the muzzle during the training scene. My guess is that the guns had them, and at some point the attachment point broke off. Based on that, I would suggest making the front attachment point optional. The rear sling swivel is mounted under the buffer tube. As for the lots of tabs: Trust me, I feel ya! I think I have a couple dozen of pics for Aldhani by now. And those numbers are tame compared to my other folders haha.

Something to raise here: - On FISD's R1TK CRL, the Logo on the Hengstler doesn't become relevant until Level 2, Eagle Size isn't specified until Level 3. I feel like if we want to add these details, it should be consistent across different blasters. - I don't think I really like the wording on the stock section much. Sure, it's a 416C style stock, but the stock used comes most likely from a VFC Replica, not a real 416C (UK gun laws, accessibility to parts, cost, etc). I'm not sure if the brand should be specified here? Death Trooper CRL says "It is fitted with a HK416c retractable stock or similar". Once again, would it be preferable to have the same part be described consistently across multiple CRLs? - The additional detail on the Stock would be inconsistent with the Mudtrooper CRL. Should both have more detail or be more vague? It's the same stock, it should be consistent across the board in my opinion. If we are gonna be more specific we might as well add the following for Level 2: "Buttplate is smooth with a rectangular greeblie mounted on the plate" The detail piece on the buttplate is the same as on the Solo E-10: - FISD's R1TK CRL don't specify the Scope type until Level 2. Should be made consistent across both blasters, as they use the same scope imo. - Magazine detail isn't mentioned in Mudtrooper. Should this detail be added to both CRLs? It is present on both blasters. - In regards to power cylinders, again for consistency, FISD don't mention theirs until Level 2 and don't require them to be "Rogue One Style" until Level 3 even. - Rather than saying that it's a 4-Segment Rail, let's call it a 3-slot? I believe that this will make it easier for other folks to pick a rail for themselves (for dirt cheap on Aliexpress for example). This is based on how you'd usually refer to these types of rails. Ultimately, what I want to ask is: Do we currently have too many details in L1 that should be in L2? With all the additions, it starts to feel a little bloated for L1, at least for my taste. Now mind you, I think all of these are great details, and should all be in there, but if they are, I think they mostly should go to L2 Ohh, now we're talking! Good eye for details I mentioned some points above already, so don't mind me! A couple of small notes: - I don't think that there is an awful lot of deliberate changes. Chances are that the only real new piece would be the tube, which is just a (S&T) Sterling Barrel Shroud, but longer this time. Since the T-Tracks are different from the E-10 placement (no slider for bayonet), it is unlikely be the same I believe. - Good eye on the Serial Number on the scope! I love details like that. I would presume this is the same as the R1 scope? If so, I believe it's fair to assume that the entire Scope assembly (Scope, Mount, Bracket and Hengstler) all come as the same unit from the R1 E-11 and are then added to the new tube. - I don't believe that the stock adapter is from a 416. The 416 platform needs a buffer tube still, and while the C model has a shorter tube (it's the big blocky round shape that protrudes from the receiver), it is not mounted through a Picatinny rail, but rather mounted with a big nut. - 1913 basically refers to the standard that the picatinny rail is based around - The rail is a 3-slot MLOK rail. There is various makers, and I would be willing to bet that production used cheap Airsoft rails, rather than something built to real standard. I guess the vent holes on the Sterling shroud might be a decent enough fit? Couldn't tell you, in all fairness. My time with the S&T Sterling is very brief. Either way, some great observations!

I think it's good to proceed, yep.

I agree, it beats just "Imperial Blaster" or "Aldhani Trooper Blaster". Worst case, if there ever should be a more updated source, the name can be swapped. Like E-10B, E-11L, feel just as viable, but imo the only official name we have thus far is "E-10.5" I much prefer the wording on this! Leaves some flexibility and imo looks good to go.

Just to make sure: Do all the E-10.5 have a sling on there? Do we have any photo reference of any without slings? Just want to make sure before we make that a "mandatory" detail on there

The Mudtrooper blaster has a box with two spikes that can extend forward, in universe this is considered a bayonet. OxProps is the maker of the file, which is how I stumbled over this thing again That's where I bought my E-10.5 file for now. That's great insight, thank you! I can see the rectangular hole in the backside. How did these mount to your belt? Very interesting, I wonder if there's a difference between the boxes for the mains vs boxes for anybody else? Either way - I want to grab another set of boxes now! Thank you

Something I only realized today while scrolling through the OxProps Facebook page: A TK flashlight was designed for Rogue One, but apparently didn't make it into the movie. It did however make it into the Hot Toys figure for the Jedha Patrol trooper. Turns out Kimzi (the Radio operator) and a bunch of the soldiers that follow him end up using those exact flashlights! I figure this would make for a cool optional accessory, for both armored and non-armored versions. The flashlight is not mounted to the blasters and handheld:

@fb501 Mine is from Philo Props and measures roughly: 75mm tall, 50mm wide and 25mm deep, without the attachment hooks. CRL says approximately 2 inch (5,08 cm) by 3 inch (7,62 cm) by 1 inch (2,54 cm).

Oh dear, good luck @TeaJay! @Blackwatch Boots section looks good to me

Draft looks good! The answer to finding behind the scenes stuff easily is to be terminally online LOL

I agree with this. As far as I understand the TIE Reserve only exists as a CRL because they wanted it to be under JRS, when the Crewman costume was IOC, despite being essentially the same costume. Since here, the Aldhani troops of various armor level would still fall in the same detachment, I don't think they should be split up. Version 1: Soft Parts only + Hat Version 2: Armor + Hat Version 3: Armor + Helmet @Vanedor I can certainly see your reasoning, but I think a big part of that is legacy Legion politics from before the tabs option on costumes existed. If I look at this from a "production" standpoint - or at least how I imagine it would be - since so many parts are shared it might as well be one costume with accessories to "stretch" the available resources to look like more variety. As far as I care Hero/Stunt TK for example could be one CRL with variant tabs, based on the amount of exact parts reuse.

I agree - not visible when worn with the costume = we shouldn't really care for belt or suspenders. The jacket should overlap the pants enough at pretty much at all times for it not to matter. Bonus shot where you can nicely see the seams + a more natural light to show the uniform color And another behind the scenes shot I just found, for color consistency:

That's great insight, thank you! Out of curiosity, how common would you say the mismatched combinations were on folks?

@Blackwatch @TeaJay Thanks for elaborating folks! I must have missed it on the earlier pages Ultimately, I can totally see your perspective. I would just like to make sure that nobody is denied clearance on the costume if different soft parts don't match in color, since it is ultimately a common enough feature on the costume. This especially if a costumer chooses to mirror a character on screen. I think matching colors should be encouraged, but not required. I hope that makes sense. The fabric type should of course match. Again, well done on all the research so far and thanks for putting the work in to get this drafted up!

Hey folks! Great work on this draft so far everyone Just a quick thought on the Belt Grooves: It looks like some detachments make them L1 mandatory, while others make them L2. This seems a bit confusing in my opinion, particularly for new costumers. However, I think putting the groove in L2 is probably the better move. I think having the belt boxes be integrated to the belt part is a good thing, it's very much in line with how the R1 TIE CRL does it as well I think a point can be made that the grooves are part of the visual identity update that was done with Rogue One. So kind of like how some design elements were permanently updated for the "HD era", with that being the TKs, the rank bars and the belts, etc. Also I wanted to bring up something from earlier in the thread - sorry about that! I only looked into this costume starting very recently. I was looking around the show in regards to the mixed batches of dye on the uniform. I might have missed the post that made a final decision about this, sorry! I don't believe we should have any line about the hats, jackets and pants matching in color, as we have various examples of them not matching. The biggest offender is probably Skeen, a main character where the hat and the uniform are visibly different in color (hat being less saturated green). Skeen's hat matches Taramyn, but the Uniform matches Cassian. I do not think that this is a costuming error, like the TK with no tube stripes, but considering it is on a main character and a bunch of extras, I think it's a deliberate pattern. It goes to show the Aldhani group is not being supplied very well and the troops are in the middle of nowhere with no way to get to "nicer" uniforms.

@pm07 Looks like I still have a lot to learn! Thank you for breaking it down

Hey folks! As somebody who's new to the Legion (and not submitted my costume just yet) here is how I feel about Spec Ops vs separate Army Detachment: - In my head, when I hear Spec Ops, I don't exactly think "conscript grunt". The Muddies in Solo and the Troops in Andor don't exactly give me Spec Ops energy personally, there does not seem to be a high degree of Specialization or such. Not to mention the Legends version of the Army, which is really somewhat forgotten to many. - I feel like there is a point to be made about how the costumes are built and interact with another. As an example, the Imperial Ground Crew ended up with the Gunnery Corps, despite not strictly being a Gunner. However visual identity is a part of it, I'm sure. In the same sense, having an Army detachment would allow folks to easier get resources for costumes that are visually quite similar. I think making the costumes accessible should be a key priority to attract new members. Less digging through costumes that don't really match the identity of those costumes - Introducing a new detachment would allow more publicity, possibly directing new folks into a direction they previously hadn't considered (for example, I only signed up to this Forum out of interest of Andor) - A new detachment could also mean dedicated staff for those costumes, which imo is a plus. Having people highly specialized into one thing can they can go real in-depth with any detail. - It would also mean that a new detachment could get its own unique identity, rather than being tacked on because "nobody else wants it". I know that some on the thread here have expressed that's how they felt when those Troopers were first added to the detachment. However, with this new media bringing in new attention on the Imperial Army, I feel like it could be fair enough to let go of old things and form something new - New Prefix. TX? On an Army trooper? Eh? That's my two cents on why I think a new detachment is a good thing. I hope a fresh perspective is welcome and of course I hope this doesn't step on anyone's toes!