I don't see it catching on either, repaint/retool/etc are too ingrained, but if you take partial and meaning literally partial design then it's pretty self explanatory. But then as you and I have both pointed out in this discussion, people don't use the words correctly anyway (yes, I'm one of those people that tends to correct others when they call a rehead as "just a repaint" because it isn't). Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, but I still think it's a better option than what we currently have. Case in point against calling a new head a repaint is Selects Rotorstorm. What was initially shown off was just a repaint because it still had Spinisters head. The second time they showed it off it had a new head, making it a retool, which to some is "just a repaint" despite the new tooling

They are, yet people use them wrong all the time by calling a retool just a repaint/redeco

 

Well in a case like Rotorstorm's, a retool can also be a repaint, but not every repaint is a retool (if that makes sense).

 

It does make sense, but isn't it more accurate to just call Rotorstorm what he is, which is a retool, rather than calling him "just a repaint" and causing the conversation to dovetail into a debate about the proper use of the terms (similar to what is going on now  )

 

It's only a repaint when the original head was on it. The updated one to be released, has a retooled head or a new head. So, it's not a repaint anymore.. Better to just call it a partial from Spinister.

 

I just call that a head remold. Thats completely accurate to the difference between Spinister and Rotorstorm. We don't need to deviate that Rotorstorm is also a repaint of Spinister, because that's a given and we all know that he is.

 

That's the deal, people don't usually express that difference, and the simplest way to say what they are referring to is just to say it's a "partial".

 

Exactly

 

I'm aware. But the body is, in fact, a repaint, so if someone calls it a repaint then they're still half right and that's close enough for government work. And close enough that people ought to just let it go once in awhile without the need for correction because it's an internet post not a legal contract. That would be the simplest solution to the problem, far simpler than trying to instill new terms into the lingo.

 

The simplest solution would actually be using the right word in the first place, but its whatever at this point  

 

That's why "partial" covers it... It's partly a repaint and partly a new head.

 

Or rather, it shares a partial design with Spinister, but not the whole design

 

I guess... I prefer specificity. I can't think of better language to use that is concise but (IMO) 'partial' loses a lot of information when it's applied on anything that is not a straight up repaint.

For example, all of the following can be called a "partial":

Rotorstorm- headswap of Spinister.
Bumblebee- headswap of Cliffjumper with changes to alt-mode chassis.
Ratchet- headswap of Ironhide with changes to robot-mode body.
ER Optimus- Partial use of Siege Optimus' legs, that's it. Everything else is brand new.

I mean, yeah, let's call both Rotorstorm and ER Optimus a "partial" mold because that's an accurate term to use but really isn't helpful in describing the degree of changes to the designs. It's accurate but not very descriptive and can actually confuse/mislead folks (IMO).

 

But that's the thing. In casual conversation there is no need for quantitative specificity. In fact it's exactly that specificity that derails threads when people don't use the more specific terms properly (like calling a retool a repaint because the only new tooling is a head).

At this point this conversation is really going in circles though so maybe it's best moved to it's own thread or just dropped altogether, because at this rate nobody is going to agree

 

And it will, which is what I've been saying. That's the problem when you try to make something simpler but in the end make it more complicated, with like trying to use new terms for conformity when most people won't have any idea what you mean and you'll still end up spending more time trying to explain what you meant by "partial" or whatever rather than actually talking about the toy itself.

But remember, in actual real life casual conversation, people don't usually get caught up on others having used a specific term incorrectly or then feel the need to derail the conversation to have to correct others for a slight error in the first place. That only happens around here.

 

I was under the impression that conversation here was what was being discussed

 

Someone who might not want to spend money on just a redeco but will on a retool: "Is this a redeco or a retool?"
tfw2005 forums: "Ya it's a partial."
Someone: "okay, but does it have any new physical details or is it just a different color?"
tfw2005 forums: "Can't tell you, we're only allowed to call it a partial".

 

And when people incorrectly say it’s just a redeco/repaint and then get pissy when they get corrected?

 

Hasbro has been stretching the bounds between what is a retool and a repaint for a while now. studio series 01 bumblebee has so much retooled parts when compared to TLK, Siege Ratchet has an entirely reworked sculpt when you compare him with Ironhide, and ER Prime is regarded as being a brand new mold as it uses brand new runners despite the half of the parts being completely identical to his Siege version with wheels reused from SS Prime. At this rate, I’d just call it CAD fuckery for the sake of simplicity.

 

But those folks will always get upset regardless if you use the word "partial" or "retool" or "remold" or whatever. New vocabulary won't change people's behaviors. We know some fans are stubborn and will stick to their own internal ideas on what constitutes a repaint versus anything else, regardless of how much they are educated.

Introducing "partial" just further muddies the water (IMO) because it's not really any different then saying "retool/remold", so you're stuck explaining a new term that doesn't add much. It's also vague, IMO.

We know that Hasbro loves to produce a lot of figures that are just headswaps of older molds, if you call these "partials" it sort of implies that more went into the design than a simple headswap. At least it does to me. Similarly, calling ER Prime a "partial" minimizes that amount of changes that went into the design. That's also a lousy way to convey info.

It goes back to specificity. This is a TF board and I would guess that if you are here, your preference is to have as much info as possible. We're fanatics, we enjoy the details. I enjoy when fans dissect a new figure for details on its mold- oftentimes I don't catch these things. Like when folks dissect the TR Broadside and its relationship to TR Alpha Trion.

 

It was, but you're playing the "let's not derail the thread" card, so maybe it's prudent to point out how these derailments tend to happen in the first place?

People don't get pissy just because you corrected them, they get pissy because it comes off that you felt you had to correct them and went out of your way just to do it.