PDA

View Full Version : Armour and WYSIWYG



Anton
23-01-2009, 22:14
How harsh are people and tournaments when it comes to WYSIWYG and armour? For example, Empire characters can have light, heavy or full plate armour. How strict is it that the armour on the model looks the part?

And a related question - What are magical armours supposed to look like? I assume that they only need to follow WYSIWYG when their rules state that they belong to a certain category of armour, for example 'heavy armour' or 'shield'. Correct?

Thanks

BattleofLund
23-01-2009, 22:33
How harsh are people and tournaments when it comes to WYSIWYG and armour?

And a related question - What are magical armours supposed to look like?

1) Never heard of anyone getting kicked out for not having correct equipment on their characters. However, I personally prefer if chars' (mine and other's) equipment does not diverge too much from their models'.

2) Any way you like. It's special made, after all. Coverage of the model's body would ideally correspond roughly to it's protection, IMO. 1+ save = at least 75% covered, or something. 6+ = helmet and codpiece, or breastplate. Etc.

Necromancy Black
23-01-2009, 22:59
It's kinda hard to say, as magic armour is in it's nature magic and so it's impossible to say what it's meant to look like.

BattleofLund has a half decent guide and most models are actually models to follow this (knights have full plate mail, archers only have clothe). Though it doesn't always work as I can get a -1 save on an Old-Blood with just a shield and some shoulder pads for light armour, apart from which he's naked (love those scaley skin saves).

Griefbringer
24-01-2009, 08:50
Well, if people were really strict about WYSIWYG, then you probably could not use the current range of GW Empire greatsword models as greatswords, since they do not really wear full plate armour. OTOH there really is no chance of confusing them with other models in the range.

Anton
02-02-2009, 16:48
Does anyone have an opinion on any of this? Especially about magical armour.

theunwantedbeing
02-02-2009, 17:04
To follow WYSIWYG is quite easy.
1. Make sure all models are what they seem to be
2. If they aren't then make sure your opponent knows what they are equipt with
3. Magical properties can be kept hidden, physical ones cannot

eg.
A model of a hero on a barded steed with heavy armour a sheild and a lance.
You are using him as a hero on an unbarded steed, with light armour, no sheild and a magical lance.

Obviously not everything is WYSIWYG so you need to state the following:
-the mount is unbarded
-the armour is light and the sheild is not there
-he is carrying a lance (although you dont need to say if its magical or not)

Not sticking to WYSIWYG is fine, so long as you make sure your opponent knows what your stuff has, otherwise it gets confusing for them and it can be frustrating.

eg.
HE prince on what seems to be a barded steed, so I keep my chariots a good 16-17" away from him.
He charges out and hits them with his starlance....
Turns out his steed wasnt barded and he had a magical lance that wasnt on the model...that sort of thing just isnt fun to face.

Condottiere
02-02-2009, 17:05
Armour is tough to replace on a model - a breastplate could serve both as light and heavy armour.

Regarding character models, I think some leeway is definitely allowed; if you feel there can be some doubt on the opponent's mind, emphasize again that the model is wearing what armour.

Griefbringer
02-02-2009, 18:14
Gaming-wise, I would expect an enemy character to usually pack the heaviest mundane armour available to him, regardless of how the actual model looks like. There is usually little in-game benefit for taking a light armour if you have access to heavy armour. As for the appearance, there are no hard-and-fast rules for how exactly a given piece of armour should look like, and there is always the possibility that it is partially covered by the clothing anyway (eg. the character might be wearing gromril underwear beneath his fancy clothes).

Even more so for the magical armour - it might be even easier to conceal, and might be stronger than it looks like. Think about LotR and the mithril mail shirt that Frodo had concealed beneath his tunic.

As for barding, that would be one piece that would be nice to present properly, since it is usually pretty straightforward to tell whether a given mount is barded or not, and it has an effect on movement (and not just the armour save). Besides, by using blu-tac to attach the rider to a mount it is possible to alternate same character model between barded and unbarded mount should this be needed.

Similarly, a spare painted shield can always be kept and hand and attached with a bit of blu-tac to a model as necessary. Notice that it is preferably to remove the blu-tac after a game, should it be left on for too long time it can adhere so tightly that its removal can cause minor damage to the paintjob.

Anton
02-02-2009, 19:00
As for the appearance, there are no hard-and-fast rules for how exactly a given piece of armour should look like, and there is always the possibility that it is partially covered by the clothing anyway (eg. the character might be wearing gromril underwear beneath his fancy clothes).

Even more so for the magical armour - it might be even easier to conceal, and might be stronger than it looks like. Think about LotR and the mithril mail shirt that Frodo had concealed beneath his tunic.
That's what I'm getting at. I am not trying to cheat my opponent with underhanded tricks. It's all about looks for me. I want my characters to look cool, and I often have a very clear image of them in my mind.

For example, if I wanted to field a Captain or General with a distinct 'Witch Hunter' look. Say, something like this:
http://tehcrosshair.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/whnt_04.jpg
If I converted a model in that style, do you think I should stick to hand weapons and light armour, or would it be ok to give him a great weapon and full plate?

Asmodiseus
02-02-2009, 19:24
One of the things that absolutly ruined 40k for me is alot of players very strict WYSIWYG rule. Every model in a unit could be given different weapons so people wanted to see who had the plasma rife, who had the power fist etc. Since I refuse to buy 50 models to be able to field a 10 man unit with different combos I modeled all my minis with pin vised arms so I could switch their weapons in and out. This got old really fast.

Luckily in Fantasy I have yet to run into one person that is very anal about WYSIWYG. If you inform them of what your models have this is good enough in 99% of situations.

Veloxnex
02-02-2009, 23:40
Luckily in Fantasy I have yet to run into one person that is very anal about WYSIWYG. If you inform them of your your models have this is good enough in 99% of situations.

Pretty much my findings too, even with magic weapons, its not too bad to see a hero with a sword and wonder "wtf is that? should i be scared? is he bluffing?" , adds some edge.

there's wysiwyg and keeping there's a bit of mystery, a friend of mine played dodge the bloodthirster with his HE prince the other day and found out too late he'd got flaming attacks, which he was immune to with the ol' Dragon armour. a big firey blade would have been monster gone turn 1 or 2.

Chain
03-02-2009, 00:19
As long as wizard is a wizard and a lord is a lord I'm fine with that.
If he is equipped similar that's a bonus.

Else I should have a master with:

A Repeater Crossbow
A 2 Handed Weapon
A Halberd
A Whip
A Shield
A Sword
A 2 handed Axe
2 hand weapons
a Lance
Heavy Armor
Sea Dragon Cloak

And combination's of the above
and to add up there's the options of monster mounts, Cavalry mounts and on foot, That is a hell of a lot of characters

Drongol
03-02-2009, 17:36
To be honest, if you want to model a Witch Hunter captain as your Empire General, he had better be given light armor and a pistol. If he's on a horse and has a shield, noticeably heavy armor, and a lance, then I expect much the same.

You show me a Witch Hunter and tell me it's a guy in heavy plate with a great weapon, I'm going to look at you disdainfully. Telling me that your Dark Steed is, in fact, a Cold One (or worse, your Dark Pegasus is a Dragon) is going to get me calling a judge over.

If we're playing a friendly at someone's home, that might be different, but I put a lot of effort into making sure my army is painted and WYSIWYG, and I expect my opponents to do the same, especially when the rules state that such is required. You may disagree with the rules, but that doesn't invalidate them, nor does it make me a bad person for wanting to play by them.

Drongol

N810
03-02-2009, 18:03
In WHFB most equipment only has a one sentance description and no picture. :eek:
and varies greatily from army to army.
Most heros are solid metal with little or no choice in weapons and armor (model wize)
if they are not a solid piece.

usualy the only things available to easily change is:
shield or no shield
is the model on foot or mounted.

(notice I am talking about heros and lords)

innerwolf
03-02-2009, 18:23
To be honest, if you want to model a Witch Hunter captain as your Empire General, he had better be given light armor and a pistol. If he's on a horse and has a shield, noticeably heavy armor, and a lance, then I expect much the same.

You show me a Witch Hunter and tell me it's a guy in heavy plate with a great weapon, I'm going to look at you disdainfully.

Restricting your list ( and it's competitiveness) because of a chosen theme shouldn't be enforced into players.

You like how a Witch Hunter looks, but you want to have a list with a General which won't die to a small breeeze? Go with it and buy him full plate armour. or even better, a magic armour. If people complain, tell them he has enchanted leather clothes with warding spells, so he is as protected as if wearing full armour.

My Empire army has a XVII theme, so characters and heavy cavalry wear 3/4 armour, which is obviously not full plate armour. But in my fluff they are master crafted suits of armour, so thick they can winstand bullets, so they lightened them taking away unnecesary plates( more or less what happened in real life).
I simply won't accept complaints about it. It's my theme and I'm informing you about what is what. If people is going to be WYSYWYG nazis, they should look for gamers using stock, out of the box, boring armies so everthing is what it looks like.

Neckutter
03-02-2009, 19:07
To be honest, if you want to model a Witch Hunter captain as your Empire General, he had better be given light armor and a pistol. If he's on a horse and has a shield, noticeably heavy armor, and a lance, then I expect much the same.

You show me a Witch Hunter and tell me it's a guy in heavy plate with a great weapon, I'm going to look at you disdainfully. Telling me that your Dark Steed is, in fact, a Cold One (or worse, your Dark Pegasus is a Dragon) is going to get me calling a judge over.

Drongol

so i guess you would have a problem with me using the new plastic corsair models with handbows as dark elf crossbowman? how about my dark riders i made with the plastic goblin spiders, and dark elf torsos with handbows again used for crossbows?

Condottiere
04-02-2009, 00:52
The intent is so that your opponent won't be confused; outside of a tournament, most games are friendly, and leeway is usually given,; a note could be attached to the unit banner. Character models that aren't stereotypical do present a problem, and if WYSISYG isn't present, carefully explain what should be visible.

Asmodiseus
04-02-2009, 05:14
so i guess you would have a problem with me using the new plastic corsair models with handbows as dark elf crossbowman? how about my dark riders i made with the plastic goblin spiders, and dark elf torsos with handbows again used for crossbows?

Did you make a unit of Driders mate? If you did that would be fricken awesome and I'd love to see a pick of how they turned out.

Neckutter
04-02-2009, 06:44
yeah, i copied someone's idea here on warseer. dark riders=D Riders=Driders get it? :)
they were kinda hard to make and they definatly posed a problem in fitting into the standard Gw case along with the two hydras, but eventually i made it all work.

unfortunatly i dont have any pictures. my video camcorder broke one night(drunkenness) and i havent got the $400 together to buy a new one. maybe in a couple weeks. :)

but yeah, all my crossbows in the army are actually handbows taken from the corsairs. i havent had anyone complain yet about them. everyone likes the spiders. my lord is my fav since he is a metal dreadlord on CO, but his torso is that of a corsair(for the seadragon cloak) which i shaped with a lighter so it fits all neat on top of the cold one.

havoc626
04-02-2009, 06:58
As far as I know through the rules, armour doesn't have to be WYSIWYG, as it would be fairly difficult to make something like the TK skeletons have light armour, or a Skaven Warlord in Hv. armour. Weapons are different, as they state they need to be shown on the model, as are shields. If there isn't an alternative to the body (so the models that don't have a Lt and no armour version, for instance) then the player shouldn't be penalised because of that.

I really think that, so long as the model is on the right base/ mount, there shouldn't be any problem. If there are exeptions, so if the DE master is on a Cold One not a Dark Steed, then the other player should know.

I think that a lot of people (GW inclueded) are way too strict on WYSIWYG, especially when a player doesn't have a choice with what the model has. How is a Skaven Warlord meant to have a shield, without making the model look stupid? I know why they first made the rule, but it has really been taken too far now.

Anton
04-02-2009, 19:16
An interesting thing about armour is that the Pistoliers/Outriders models clearly wear heavy armour or full plate, yet in the game they only have light armour.

Neckutter
04-02-2009, 19:19
they are wearing crappy 18 gauge armor. :)

Condottiere
05-02-2009, 08:24
Manufacture was outsourced to Cathay.

Drongol
05-02-2009, 15:05
so i guess you would have a problem with me using the new plastic corsair models with handbows as dark elf crossbowman? how about my dark riders i made with the plastic goblin spiders, and dark elf torsos with handbows again used for crossbows?

Eh, not particularly, because they at least fit the "feel" of the models they're supposedly representing. I might poke fun at you for making Driders, but that's entirely a different kettle of fish.

However, should I decide I have a problem, that's my prerogative. WYSIWYG is the rule, and following it does not make a person bad.

If I can look at the model and at least know what it is supposed to be without asking, I'm not likely to have an issue with it. However, if the model is misleading (IE, no armor = full plate and shield), then I'm far more likely to have a problem.

Drongol

The SkaerKrow
05-02-2009, 15:14
There is no WYSIWYG on character equipment. The current range of models doesn't come close to covering all of the options in the game. Just clarify with your opponent before the match begins what your character is using, keeping in mind that magic items aren't revealed to be magical until used (So instead of declaring that they're using an Enchanted Shield, just call it a shield at that point).

Count Demandred
05-02-2009, 15:20
An interesting thing about armour is that the Pistoliers/Outriders models clearly wear heavy armour or full plate, yet in the game they only have light armour.

And Vlad's clearly covoured in Armour, yet doesn't even have ANY Armour in his description.

Coram_Boy
05-02-2009, 15:35
If it really makes you that annoyed, Drongol, you might want to try something different. if the model is on the right base, and you are told at the beginning of your game what the model is, and what mundane equipment he has, I don't think it matters that much.

Makaber
05-02-2009, 15:39
What about a monster that can be given different weapon options, like the Shaggoth?

A regiment needs its weapons represented on the models, a character can be armed with whatever. A monster is neither, would anyone have any huge objections if a Chaos player used a Shaggoth model armed with a great weapon, while its actually armed with two hand weapons?

Drongol
05-02-2009, 16:00
If it really makes you that annoyed, Drongol, you might want to try something different. if the model is on the right base, and you are told at the beginning of your game what the model is, and what mundane equipment he has, I don't think it matters that much.

I see. Following the rules as stated in the books doesn't matter, and if I feel that it does, I should be playing another game, in which the rules matter. Got it.

Any other rules I'm supposed to ignore when playing this game? ;)

Seriously, though, it's not a major sticking point unless it's egregious or done with what I perceive to be intent to confuse. If I can tell what a model is and what it has by looking at it, that's great. If I can't, then I definitely need a clarification, but if it's too far of a stretch, then there's going to be problems.

Drongol

Asmodiseus
05-02-2009, 16:23
I think people just misinterpreted what you originally stated Drongol. Warhammer is a very theme based game. People work hard to make there armies look good and have a theme that they can feel proud of. Due to lack of minature range, among other problems its impossible to model everything WYSIWYG. I think people took your first post to mean that you are a WYSIWYG nazi. Your last post reflects what most people have been saying in that you dont have a problem with something unless you believe it is modeled to intentionally deceive people, and if a model is modeled different than the equipment he is actually using the player needs to clarify it. I believe this is not only a reasonable request, but is required.

Griefbringer
05-02-2009, 17:13
A regiment needs its weapons represented on the models, a character can be armed with whatever. A monster is neither, would anyone have any huge objections if a Chaos player used a Shaggoth model armed with a great weapon, while its actually armed with two hand weapons?

Actually, going by the rulebook page 54, all units need to be appropriately armed (with a minority of models allowed to be differently armed, as long as this is not misleading). A lone character or lone monster is still a unit, and thus not excepted from the rule as such.

In practice, I think it is a bit picky to be too requiring on the armament and armour of characters, since these can anyway circumvent the WYSIWYG by taking magic items instead of mundane (after which you can model them with the Clown Suit of Pure Win and the horrifying Flaming Battle Carrot of Mighty Awesomeness without violating WYSIWYG).

As for the shaggoth, does the model even come with any other armament options than the great weapon? I guess it could be remodelled into wielding two hand weapons instead (with sufficient work) but I would think it a bit unreasonable to expect an enemy to be able to have multiple shaggoth models with different weapon options modelled.

Makaber
05-02-2009, 17:42
As for the shaggoth, does the model even come with any other armament options than the great weapon? I guess it could be remodelled into wielding two hand weapons instead (with sufficient work) but I would think it a bit unreasonable to expect an enemy to be able to have multiple shaggoth models with different weapon options modelled.

It was hypotetically because personally I don't give a rats. :p The model is supplied with great weapon only. It's easy enough to convert it to two hand weapons, but the model looks undeniably awkward with it. And, of course, it's hard to change back to great weapon.

Personally, I'm going with great weapon on mine; technically I think two hand weapons are superior, but I want the pleasure of wounding Treemen on 2+. :D

Griefbringer
05-02-2009, 17:59
The model is supplied with great weapon only. It's easy enough to convert it to two hand weapons, but the model looks undeniably awkward with it. And, of course, it's hard to change back to great weapon.


In theory, an eager modeller could try to use pinning or magnets to make for inter-changeable hands to vary the armament, but that might end up looking a bit awkward. And it would require getting a spare set of hands/arms from somewhere (perhaps the ones from the giant could work, since bits from MO are not an option).

That said, I think the shaggoth is a gorgeous model as it is, and I think it would be almost criminal to require somebody to mutilate such fine model for the sake of WYSIWYG.

Anton
05-02-2009, 20:19
Thanks for all the replies, people.

For my Witch Hunter, I intend to use this 40k Witch Hunter model:
http://www.paintingraven.com/images/Inquisitor2.jpg

I will do a bit of modelling, removing all futuristic elements and adding some of my own.

Game-wise, I will arm him with a pistol and a great weapon. Since he isn't carrying a shield, I could argue that the sword is a great weapon, should anyone point it out. For armour, he will probably have the Armour of Meteoric Iron, which doesn't have any WYSIWYG requirements.

That shouldn't cause any arguments, should it? What do you think, Drongol?

Drongol
05-02-2009, 21:27
That shouldn't cause any arguments, should it? What do you think, Drongol?

To be honest, meh. Ultimately it's a non-issue, because I highly doubt I'll ever get a game in against you, but personally, I don't like it.

Partially this is because of the "hand weapon = GW" thing and partly it's because of the Greatcoat of Meteoric Leather.

The other part is that if I saw that model, I'd be thinking Witch Hunter and low armor, high damage stuff, whereas you'd be using him as a tank with a pistol. Not my cup of tea, but like I said, it's not like I'd get a game in against you.

Keep in mind I'm the guy who's paying points to equip my Ogre Tyrant with heavy armor for no reason other than that the model looks like it should be wearing heavy armor. Admittedly, his Standa... erm, Tenderizer is a huge double-bladed polearm rather than a double-headed club, but he definitely comes across as having heavy armor and a great weapon, at the very least.

Your guy comes across as being in light armor with a hand weapon and pistol. That's not really what he is, and that's where I see it as misleading.

Really, it's no different than "the guy with the red boltgun has a lascannon."

Drongol

Anton
06-02-2009, 18:56
I see where you are coming from. But now it's down to you not liking it visually, not me breaking rules.

Since the armour is not defined as heavy, light or full plate armour, there is nothing forcing me to show it. The armour is magical, just like Frodo's thin mail shirt which saved his life when a huge cave troll thrust a large spear into his chest.

As for the weapon, I think one could argue that it's a great sword. It's not like it's a small weapon. And there's nothing saying that models must hold their great weapons in both hands.

Saying that the model doesn't represent his stats is like saying that dwarfs don't represent their stats. Realistically, creatures with such an anatomy would stand little chance against humans, elves, orcs and the like. But this is fantasy, where a dwarf can smack an orc thrice his size.

As I said, I can see where you're coming from. I'm just trying to explain my point of view, and how I think that theme and visuals are important, just as you think strict WYSIWYG is important. And I think it's very important to be tolerant of other people's opinions.