PDA

View Full Version : What weapons are "called" on points?



Bathawk
09-02-2009, 00:47
hey sorry if the title doesn't seem clear. But I was wondering, what weapons/upgrades, aren't WYSIWYG?

for instance extra armor on vehicles aren't represented on the vehicle, you just make note of it when adding your points

I also think the AoBR captain's sword can be "declared" a power weapon for 15pts. as there is nothing visible that allows you to tell the difference

so what else can you simply "declare"?

Raxmei
09-02-2009, 01:07
IIRC, you can say your men are carrying grenades in their pockets.

victorpofa
09-02-2009, 01:17
The wires on both sides of the AoBR Commander's sword indicate it is a power weapon.

acme2468
09-02-2009, 01:44
Personally I think 'Extra Armor' or related things Should be modeled somehow, Either some extra plating or trakk guards or something.
Mastercrafting is a good example of something that doesn't need specific modeling IMO

Victomorga
09-02-2009, 02:10
as long as the model isn't specifically misleading I don't think it's a big deal. if a marine is carrying a plasma gun, and then you mention half way through the game that he's equipped with a flamer, that isn't going to fly. but I don't expect every model to visibly have grenades, and as long as a power weapon is distinguished from a CCW up front, I'm fine with that.

Sir_Turalyon
09-02-2009, 02:14
Mandatory options are not WYSIWYG - your space marines all have bolt pistols and grenades even if you model them just with bolters (and if they are chaos marines they have concealed combat knives on top of that).

Sidstyler
09-02-2009, 03:41
Personally I think 'Extra Armor' or related things Should be modeled somehow, Either some extra plating or trakk guards or something.
Mastercrafting is a good example of something that doesn't need specific modeling IMO

What if you like the look of the stock tank and don't want to ruin a perfectly good model with plasticard or highly expensive FW addons? And why should I have to represent extra armor if you don't have to represent master crafted items? Couldn't one just say the armor is simply thicker or coated with something that makes it more resilient? I don't see how you can judge what options have to be represented and what others don't...

None of my tanks have any of the upgrades represented, except for weapons. I don't have disruption pods, decoy launchers, or even flechette dischargers. I'm aware FW makes the DLs and flechettes, but I'm not paying that much for them, and the decoys look awful at that. I also stuck grenades on all my fire warriors but never take them in my lists, and never really found myself using them even when I did.

ehlijen
09-02-2009, 04:35
With the Tau tank bits you can get away because they are not sufficiently explained in their looks anywhere official.

Extra armour has become one of those defacto not representable things as there just haven't been any models for it, ever. But really it should be easily representable with a few spare track pieces, some shield thingies or extra armour plates from different kits.

If the plates are 'thicker' shouldn't they look thicker? Usually armour is not extendable inside a vehicle, but has to bolted on to the outside.

What your gaming group expects may vary, but by the codex rules, any upgrade needs to be represented. And as it is a model driven game, if you don't want to 'ruin' the look of a model, you should be content with using it as it is shown: the factory default.
You don't like the look of some model or upgrade: don't use it and spend the points somehwere else.

Nakor
09-02-2009, 04:36
Mandatory options are not WYSIWYG - your space marines all have bolt pistols and grenades even if you model them just with bolters (and if they are chaos marines they have concealed combat knives on top of that).

as far as im aware standard imperial marine equipment includes a monomolecular edged knife.

librisrouge
09-02-2009, 04:41
They aren't trained to use that at the same time as the Bolt Pistol though apparently. Odd, considering that, in the new fluff, they are assault marines before tactical marines.

Bathawk
09-02-2009, 04:55
so wait...you DO have to represent "extra armor" somehow?

For this conversation I thought it interesting to note that in some cases a Tau bonding knife can simply have a picture of a knife painted on the model

IMHO extra armor is really misleading, it only applies if you roll a "crew stunned" result
rolling a 1,3,4,5,6, still has the normal effect

Born Again
09-02-2009, 05:10
Yes, extra armour has to be modeled on. At least, if your playing me I'd expect something that major to be obvious.

Personally I'd expect grenades to be shown on the model as pretty much all the plastic troop kits come with grenades on the sprues, it's hardly a modelling challenge. But if not, I wouldn't kick up a huge stink about it as it's nothing major, and it may be a minor change in the list to accomodate a new scenario or try out new tactics.

However, anything major (ie; weapons pistol sized or bigger, wargear more dangerous than a grenade, and vehicle upgrades) that aren't a part of the model's basic wargear, I would expect to see WYSIWYG. If you make exceptions, it kind of negates the point of WYSIWYG, doesn't it?

Bathawk
09-02-2009, 05:16
Yes, extra armour has to be modeled on. At least, if your playing me I'd expect something that major to be obvious.

Personally I'd expect grenades to be shown on the model as pretty much all the plastic troop kits come with grenades on the sprues, it's hardly a modelling challenge. But if not, I wouldn't kick up a huge stink about it as it's nothing major, and it may be a minor change in the list to accomodate a new scenario or try out new tactics.

However, anything major (ie; weapons pistol sized or bigger, wargear more dangerous than a grenade, and vehicle upgrades) that aren't a part of the model's basic wargear, I would expect to see WYSIWYG. If you make exceptions, it kind of negates the point of WYSIWYG, doesn't it?

well just mentioned in the "Cheap Predator" thread, is "extra armor really that major?

it simply turns "can't move and fire" to just "can't move"

but regardless, if extra armor was expected of WYSIWYG wouldn't GW have made something somewhere for at least on of thier models to represent it?

505
09-02-2009, 05:41
extra coat of paint= extra armor :D protects the plastic more

omgadinosaur
09-02-2009, 06:06
What would you all think of this example: (Not to distract, but it is related)

I was at a local gaming club and was going to watch a game between Tyranids and Tau. The Nid player had a flying tyrant and was using that super expensive flying tyrant model from forge world.

The FW Tyrant model only has 1 pair of Scything talons, the nid player said that he is equipped with two as is allowed per the rules. The Tau player said "WYSIWYG is supposed to be strict. How am I supposed to know what I'm running into just by looking at the model? You shouldn't be allowed to use it."

The Nid player stoped what he was doing and packed up all of his things and left saying "i refuse to play someone who can't suspend their disbelief when i tell them my model has another weapon which gives them an extra attack and they say i'm a cheater."

Now i've been pondering this as i have started to collect my own nid army and soon plan to make a winged tyrant using the top sockets for wings. Does this violate WYSISYG? Was the Tau player right? Wrong? A Jerk? An Idiot? A Martyr? Would the nid player be allowed to use his tyrant in a tournament?

sabre4190
09-02-2009, 06:19
What would you all think of this example: (Not to distract, but it is related)

I was at a local gaming club and was going to watch a game between Tyranids and Tau. The Nid player had a flying tyrant and was using that super expensive flying tyrant model from forge world.

The FW Tyrant model only has 1 pair of Scything talons, the nid player said that he is equipped with two as is allowed per the rules. The Tau player said "WYSIWYG is supposed to be strict. How am I supposed to know what I'm running into just by looking at the model? You shouldn't be allowed to use it."

The Nid player stoped what he was doing and packed up all of his things and left saying "i refuse to play someone who can't suspend their disbelief when i tell them my model has another weapon which gives them an extra attack and they say i'm a cheater."

Now i've been pondering this as i have started to collect my own nid army and soon plan to make a winged tyrant using the top sockets for wings. Does this violate WYSISYG? Was the Tau player right? Wrong? A Jerk? An Idiot? A Martyr? Would the nid player be allowed to use his tyrant in a tournament?

I wish I could meet this Nid player, just so I could shake his hand.

Anyway, what I would have said is that the wings are also scything talons. See those point things on the end? Those are actually talons, if the tau player took the time to know what a talon is. In this case, as long as there is something even remotely sharp, I would say he would have talons.

As I interpret things, as long as it isn't blatant, youre alright. Example: your flamer is actually a meltagun. Doesnt really work. As long as you have a half decent explanation as to why what you have is different, I'm alright with it.

Also, I don't ask players to model extra armor. GW doesnt make parts for it, doing so requires serious skill to make, I don't moan when they dont have it. As long as they tell me if I ask them, I'm fine. However, if youre missing something like smoke launchers, that might be a tiny bit trickier. Id be okay with it, but there is some legitimacy in that one.

Orktavius
09-02-2009, 06:19
I think the Tau guy was a jerk myself, long as I'm told before the game starts thats how it is it's no big deal to me.

Staurikosaurus
09-02-2009, 06:21
I understand the point of WYSIWIG but since lists, according to the rules, are open to the opponent there should not be a problem. If you have continual access to your opponent's list throughout the game - including before it starts - I don't see why there would ever be a problem.

Silverbullet5774
09-02-2009, 06:24
Couldnt you just get some "green stuff" and mold out some armor plates for your tanks. That seems like an easy way to represent extra armor.

Occulto
09-02-2009, 06:39
Couldnt you just get some "green stuff" and mold out some armor plates for your tanks. That seems like an easy way to represent extra armor.

Plasticard is cheaper and looks better. :D

Khornies & milk
09-02-2009, 06:41
Within my group EA is represented by the track guard pieces, and we've never had a comment, let alone a problem from any outsider about it.

Even at the new local indie store they're happy with it, so I suppose it comes down to whether or not your opponent has the right attitude or not...it's not like you haven't paid the points for it.

Isambard
09-02-2009, 06:50
How would you deal with this?:

A game is set up, the mission is rolled (but sides are not chosen). It turns out that the mission we play has 5 turns of night fight (special scenario). At that point the opponent says 'hey, I am x points under, I can put searchlights on all my vehicles' (note, none of the vehicles have searchlights).

Would you consider it bad sportsmanship to refuse him permission?

WildWeasel
09-02-2009, 07:02
How would you deal with this?:

A game is set up, the mission is rolled (but sides are not chosen). It turns out that the mission we play has 5 turns of night fight (special scenario). At that point the opponent says 'hey, I am x points under, I can put searchlights on all my vehicles' (note, none of the vehicles have searchlights).

Would you consider it bad sportsmanship to refuse him permission?

Nope. Part of rolling for missions is that you roll after you've put your list together. You either prepare for an eventuallity, realizing the points may be wasted, or you don''t, risking you may not be prepared. All part of the game.

Dangersaurus
09-02-2009, 07:12
How would you deal with this?:

A game is set up, the mission is rolled (but sides are not chosen). It turns out that the mission we play has 5 turns of night fight (special scenario). At that point the opponent says 'hey, I am x points under, I can put searchlights on all my vehicles' (note, none of the vehicles have searchlights).

Would you consider it bad sportsmanship to refuse him permission?

I would ask him what he was going to spend those points on if it wasn't a night fighting mission. Meltabombs if he was facing too many vehicles? Surveyor if there were too many infiltrators?

No. I'm not a big stickler for WYSIWYG, but this is really another matter entirely.

Shangrila
09-02-2009, 07:23
All my vehicles have stubbers,HKs and track guards plus extra but doesnt mean they have to paid for. But at the same time i always blanket what i use. IE all russes are trackguardless but have HKs.

the one upgrade i hate is deamonic posession everyone always forgets which tanks have it. to where i bring tape and tape the barrel of the majority with or without so no extra deamons get in there.

bosstroll
09-02-2009, 07:44
Wyisywyg when it comes to vehicles is problematic, since the same hull can have different armour values, just look at rhino vs predator, leman russ vs demolisher, chimera vs hellhound. In all 3 of these cases youve got the exact same hull, which due to a change in turret suddenly has a better armour value.

Having said that, i think my guard tanks look a lot better with ww2 german style 'schurzen' on the sides :)

Born Again
09-02-2009, 09:11
well just mentioned in the "Cheap Predator" thread, is "extra armor really that major?

it simply turns "can't move and fire" to just "can't move"

but regardless, if extra armor was expected of WYSIWYG wouldn't GW have made something somewhere for at least on of thier models to represent it?

There are all sorts of equipment and upgrade options that are not made by GW. It's not justification to make it invisible. And yes, the concept of attaching several extra layers of armour to the exterior of a vehicle would be considered "major".


What would you all think of this example: (Not to distract, but it is related)

I was at a local gaming club and was going to watch a game between Tyranids and Tau. The Nid player had a flying tyrant and was using that super expensive flying tyrant model from forge world.

The FW Tyrant model only has 1 pair of Scything talons, the nid player said that he is equipped with two as is allowed per the rules. The Tau player said "WYSIWYG is supposed to be strict. How am I supposed to know what I'm running into just by looking at the model? You shouldn't be allowed to use it."

The Nid player stoped what he was doing and packed up all of his things and left saying "i refuse to play someone who can't suspend their disbelief when i tell them my model has another weapon which gives them an extra attack and they say i'm a cheater."

Now i've been pondering this as i have started to collect my own nid army and soon plan to make a winged tyrant using the top sockets for wings. Does this violate WYSISYG? Was the Tau player right? Wrong? A Jerk? An Idiot? A Martyr? Would the nid player be allowed to use his tyrant in a tournament?

Hmm. I think I'm gonna get yelled at here.

I think I'm on the side of the Tau player. Ok, yes the claws on the wings could be scything talons, though really I'd like them extended/ accentuated a bit. I know it seems like I'm being anal, but really, if we're going to make exceptions for this, exceptions for that, what's the point of WYSIWYG? Just to refresh everyone, it stands for What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What You Get (and with this extensive list of exceptions and add ons that I haven't modelled on or got models for but want to use anyway despite confusion it may cause). Where do you draw the line? Either at the top or the bottom, not halfway through.

jeffersonian000
09-02-2009, 09:23
I use to build my models with every option I intend to use at some point already built into the model, then pay points as needed. All I had to do then was just note which items were being use for that model at that time. However, I've gotten the modeling bug recently, and I'm now magnetizing every option so that I can represent a given upgrade correctly. Of course, that’s just me.

Do I expect others to do the same? No. I'm just happy when my opponent bothers to actually paint their stuff, rather than showing up, look at what everyone is playing, make few purchases, and then throwing a bunch of bits together at the last minute to beat the hardest army present.

That being said, I understand the OP's concern on this issue. Can I just glue an ammo pouch on my Sister of Battle Canoness and just say that her Book of St. Lucius is in the pouch? Or do I have to scour heaven and earth to find a GW produced 28mm scaled book, or just greenstuff a book on my own? I like the "utility belt" way of getting out of dealing with tiny wargear, but will my opponent mind? Will my opponent get confused if I didn’t pay for those HK’s I have mounted on everything? Will I remember that I didn’t buy smoke launchers this time, even though they are represented on the model?

I like GW’s current trend of making smoke and lights standard, so you don’t have to pay points for them. And I’ve notice that with a lot of the newer upgrade sprues, there are enough pieces to represent extra armour if you so choose.

It's a good topic.

SJ

ankara halla
09-02-2009, 09:29
There are all sorts of equipment and upgrade options that are not made by GW. It's not justification to make it invisible. And yes, the concept of attaching several extra layers of armour to the exterior of a vehicle would be considered "major".

It could just as easily be represented by a higher quality alloy used in the construction of the vehicle. Comes from a different Forge World or something.

Heck, it could even be purity seals or scriptures painted on the hull to denote it's "blessed" by the Omnissiah...

It doesn't take much to suspends ones disbelife, it's up to each induvidual, but to try to dictate what another persons models should look like in your personal opinion, is a bit iffy IMO...

As long as it's made clear at the beginning of the game, what's the problem? And if it's not told, am I supposed to assume those pieces of extra tracks actually represent a vehicle upgrade and aren't there for purely asthetic reasons?




Hmm. I think I'm gonna get yelled at here.

I think I'm on the side of the Tau player. Ok, yes the claws on the wings could be scything talons, though really I'd like them extended/ accentuated a bit. I know it seems like I'm being anal, but really, if we're going to make exceptions for this, exceptions for that, what's the point of WYSIWYG? Just to refresh everyone, it stands for What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What You Get (and with this extensive list of exceptions and add ons that I haven't modelled on or got models for but want to use anyway despite confusion it may cause). Where do you draw the line? Either at the top or the bottom, not halfway through.

At max, there are two Tyrants in the list. If the player states which one has what (or if they are gameswise identical even if the models aren't), again, what's the problem? It's not like there's much room for confusion with just two models, at max, on the table.

This hobby is just as much about building awesome models as it is about gaming. It wouldn't cross *my* mind to demand another person change his models to accommodate my sense of asthetics.


Of course, allmost everything is open to abuse, and abuse naturally shouldn't be tolerated, but for example in the Nids vs. Tau scenario mentioned, this obviously wasn't the case.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-02-2009, 09:41
what's the point of WYSIWYG?

You know, that's a good question. I've been pondering that myself...
Joking aside, it's there to prevent confusion during the game. Are you honestly going to tell me that after being told you are going to be confused about what the only model of it's kind on the table is armed with? Really?
Especially something as simple as having one extra attack.

As long as you tell me up front and it's not going to be confusing (same weapon being different things in different squads for instance) I really don't care.

My last game against a Tyranid army was against a good friend using a 'comedy' list. It's exclusivly stealers, homagaunts and warriors. We don't have enough warriors armed with Talons/rending claws to actually represent all 18 (I think), so some of them do have various shooty weapons. However ever single warrior is identical so there isn't really room for confusion. So far no one have raised any objections about the army at all. It's not WYSIWYG, but it's hardly confusing.

Of course, you could refuse to play against it. The end result would then be that neither got to play a game, but likely sit in a corner and feel mad at each other instead. As long as it's clear, I just don't see the point of strick WYSIWYG.

precinctomega
09-02-2009, 11:45
As far as vehicle armour goes, if there's more than one identical vehicle on the table and one has extra armour and one doesn't, then that's not really on. If they all have EA then that's fine. If those with EA have it modelled, then that's the cat's pyjamas.

As far as the Tyranid/Tau spat described above goes, I'd say both players were somewhat in the wrong. You should always make the effort to make your army WYSIWYG as a courtesy to other players. If an opponent indicates that an element of his army is not WYSIWYG then it is courteous to accept that. However, if a player does not wish to accept an element of non-WYSIWYG that he feels is inappropriate or unsporting then the opposing player should also be courteous enough to accept that and adjust his list accordingly - if that leaves you short on points then it's your fault for not modelling your army to reflect your army list.

Ultimately, it's about manners and courtesy. Being confronted with a lack of manners or courtesy is not an excuse to abandon those standards yourself. On the contrary: by behaving in a courteous and polite manner even in the face of provocation, we shame and educate those whose own behaviour falls short.

R.

Demonrich
09-02-2009, 12:33
As far as vehicle armour goes, if there's more than one identical vehicle on the table and one has extra armour and one doesn't, then that's not really on. If they all have EA then that's fine. If those with EA have it modelled, then that's the cat's pyjamas.

As far as the Tyranid/Tau spat described above goes, I'd say both players were somewhat in the wrong. You should always make the effort to make your army WYSIWYG as a courtesy to other players. If an opponent indicates that an element of his army is not WYSIWYG then it is courteous to accept that. However, if a player does not wish to accept an element of non-WYSIWYG that he feels is inappropriate or unsporting then the opposing player should also be courteous enough to accept that and adjust his list accordingly - if that leaves you short on points then it's your fault for not modelling your army to reflect your army list.

Ultimately, it's about manners and courtesy. Being confronted with a lack of manners or courtesy is not an excuse to abandon those standards yourself. On the contrary: by behaving in a courteous and polite manner even in the face of provocation, we shame and educate those whose own behaviour falls short.

R.

In the case of the hive tyrant the model is wysiwyg accurate. Forge world specifically state that the wings are sything so the model is equipped exactly as described. :)

AngryAngel
09-02-2009, 13:04
How much extra could the armor actually be ? All it does is turn stunned to shaken. I doubt you'd even see a diffrence in the armor set up. Perhaps its just internal shielding and buffering. Which makes more sense as it seemingly only allows the drivers to keep driving.

The pred itself has a higher front armor yet looks no bigger at all then the rhino. I guess that extra armor isn't needed eh ? Or can we wrap our mind around that one, just not the idea of further internal shielding for surely such would be madness.

Alright I have never, will never model extra armor on my vehicles. I am outfront with my army list and everyone knows what has what when the game starts and checks during. It isn't a secret. Even if I had extra armor modeled I wouldn't pay for it every time, so whats the point ? Truth is there is none except for anal individuals to find something to complain and moan about.

If you can't keep track of a few vehicle upgrades, or can't be botherd to ask if you forget with my list right there in front of you. I have absolutely no pity for you. All the "important to those I play with" wysiwyg is there. Like weapon options. I'm not going to buy x2 of my vehicles just so I have the extra armor, and non extra armor variants all set up. I like my tanks just fine as is thank ya.

If that means someone wouldn't want to play me, thats cool, it's there choice. However, I've not met 1 person over the 8 or so years I've been playing this, who cared if extra armor was visable or not and I doubt I ever will.

Bloodknight
09-02-2009, 13:42
I've never met anybody who really put extra armour on their vehicles. Personally, I don't like the look of it, and as an example: the FW spaced armour looks like crap, and the reinforced armour is hardly noticable and not worth the money. THat said, I usually expect extra armour on every enemy vehicle that needs to move except Rhinos (because it blows their cost up so much), and have no problem with asking which really have it.

Xelloss
09-02-2009, 14:29
My opinion is diverged : on one hand I understand the tyrannid player, as you don't always want to have twelve versions of the same model "just in case" nor to be restricted in only one army list ; one the other hand, your opponent just shouldn't have to know your army as good as you to play a non-competitive battle.
For example one time I played against an eldar player (never had the opportunity to play against eldar before). I had seen their codex before (quickly), so I was not completly new to them. The other guy quickly calculate an army list in some moonspeak code on a paper, and had is aspect warrior in the wrong colors.
OK this is not a strickly WYSIWYG example, but my point is when you play, the mini seems really tiny and it is difficult to understand what is what, so the more accurate the miniature is, the easier it is to play for your opponent. Misleading by tactics or strategy is OK, but by a poorly painted uncompleted mini isn't really "fun".

So to conclude I will say :
- WYSIWYG when you can
- if not, give your opponent (expecially if he is not an hardened veterant) a understandable version of your army list, with emphasis on the non-WYSIWYG parts
- markers when identical models with different gears.

qwertywraith
09-02-2009, 14:36
I think I'm on the side of the Tau player. Ok, yes the claws on the wings could be scything talons, though really I'd like them extended/ accentuated a bit. I know it seems like I'm being anal, but really, if we're going to make exceptions for this, exceptions for that, what's the point of WYSIWYG? Just to refresh everyone, it stands for What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What You Get (and with this extensive list of exceptions and add ons that I haven't modelled on or got models for but want to use anyway despite confusion it may cause). Where do you draw the line? Either at the top or the bottom, not halfway through.

Where do you draw the line? That's the question here. This is not a slippery slope situation, where if you allow a hive tyrant with forge world wings to count as scything talons you suddenly have to allow my army of pink chaos space marines to count as orks.

The line is somewhere balancing reasonable, aesthetic, and non-deceptive.

A flyrant with 2x scything talons which does not have the second set and instead has wings is non-deceptive and reasonable (it doesn't have a set of devourers or something), and is aesthetic (a matter of personal taste).

A unit of space marines who appear to be carrying flamers, but are actually (on the list) carrying plasmaguns is deceptive and unreasonable, even if in terms of aesthetics the player likes the look of flamers better, and uses them as plasmaguns everywhere.

Some upgrades are definitely "need to have" save in friendly and test games, but many are "nice to have". Extra armour is "nice to have" but because many people, especially kids new to the hobby, don't have the money for Forge World or the ability to make the upgrade. If it means the kid can play a 1500 point game without a 60 point handicap, let him (the extra armour isn't going to break you). However, heavy and special weapons in squads should be what they appear to be. It gets too fiddly if you cannot tell what an opponent is using for a lascannon versus an autocannon.

A lot of this comes down to personal choice. Would you allow a plastic loyalist dread to be a venerable dreadnought, even though a model exists? Would you allow a squad of plastic chaos marines (suitably converted) to be plaguemarines, even though pewter models exist? There was a thread recently about paintjobs and WYSIWYG, and how a player was refused a game because his deathwing were painted as Black Templars. WYSIWYG is not an iron rod, but anyone who wants to play less games of warhammer has that right.

Aegius
09-02-2009, 14:38
PLEASE READ MY ENTIRE POST BEFORE RANTING ABOUT IT.

I am of the camp that 'wysiwyg' is a RULE, I don't see why you shouldn't make your models look like they are meant to. I may not be the best modeller/painter in the world, but I spend the time and money to make my models look nice and represent the unit that they are meant to represent. Take a look at my project logs and you can see the amount of effort put into my models.

for example, my marine army was created during 4th edition. Flamers in tactical squads were just not really worthwhile in my opinion, so I didn't model any. On top of this, all my squads were painted with squad numbers on them, so there is even less flexibility for me mix and match special/heavy weapons in squads. With this in mind, if I'm writing an army list using my marines, I have to use tactical squad 1 and pay the points for the weapons modelled in that squad, rather than picking and choosing which weapons I want in my tac squad.

I'm not really working on my marines at the moment, as I'm on an Eldar buzz. But if I was, I'd be building more tactical squads with different loadouts, in time I'd be able to take any squad combination that I wanted, but they would all be modelled wysiwyg.

For those of you that think that extra armour is too insignificant an upgrade to model, I say, 'don't take it then.'. I've seen people represent extra armour just by putting LOADS of purity seals on the model and say that it represents the emperor protecting that vehicle more as the crew are more pious. I'm happy with this as it shows that my opponent has at least taken the time to think about what they are doing and model it accordingly. You don't need to buy 2X models to represent upgrades, people on here have already mentioned magnetizing your models so that you can attach upgrades as required. I don't use magnets, as a result, I would buy 2X of a model so that I can have one with armour and 1 without.


Although I do have these strong opinions, I do realise that there are all sorts of people involved in the hobby, so I don't impose my sence of wysiwyg on my opponents, but then again, I only play against my friends now.

But when the smoke has settled upon this discussion, it will boil down to one real question: What type of a gamer are you?

I'm a painter/modeller/gamer. Basically, I enjoy the painting and modelling part of the hobby more than the gaming, but I do use the gaming part to inspire me what to build.
other types of gamers I can think of are;

pure gamer - hates building the models, probably doesn't even paint them, just enjoys the gaming. would probably buy pre-painted/modelled units if they could

modeller/gamer - probably never paints their armies, nearly every unit in their army with be a conversion, all upgrades possible will be modelled on their units

gamer/modeller/painter - probably your sterotypical gamer, turns up to game because they love gaming, but sees that they hobby is different for different people, so turns up to games with painted units with all the correct upgrades modelled on. This is probably the most considerate type of gamer as they are considering everybodies needs, not just their own.

painter/modeller - probably don't even know what a d6 is, but more importantly, they don't care what a d6 is. You'll probably never play against this type.

loveless
09-02-2009, 14:39
I haven't read all of the posts especially well here, but as to the Extra Armour thing...

Land Raider Crusaders used to come with Extra Armour standard, did they not? As such, the LRC already has Extra Armour, despite there being no apparent difference in the exterior hull. I think it's acceptable in that case, at least, to consider that the upgrade is either inherent in the model, or added to the interior without having to be seen.

A whole different question is to whether or not Extra Armour is worth the new inflated points cost...

The_Outsider
09-02-2009, 15:31
That being said, I understand the OP's concern on this issue. Can I just glue an ammo pouch on my Sister of Battle Canoness and just say that her Book of St. Lucius is in the pouch? Or do I have to scour heaven and earth to find a GW produced 28mm scaled book, or just greenstuff a book on my own? I like the "utility belt" way of getting out of dealing with tiny wargear, but will my opponent mind? Will my opponent get confused if I didnít pay for those HKís I have mounted on everything? Will I remember that I didnít buy smoke launchers this time, even though they are represented on the model?



This - especially the last part - is why people should have written army lists on them at all times when playing a game.

In a similar scenario it enabled a 1500 point game to actually be around 1730 versus 1500 because one of the players didn't have an army list, and guessed their army size. The wargear on the 2 lords in question was a bit like russian roulette.

Generally, I won't go into specifics if something can sensibly be considered in/on a utility belt (or if it is modelled in a different way, like the book of st lucius actually being modelled as a scroll) - though vehicle upgrades are a but of an issue due to the tendency of players to glue bits on.

Bloodknight
09-02-2009, 15:49
Another problem with Wysiwyg are upgrades that don't have official looks, or are just too samey. I don't care if Tyranids have their biomorphs apart from weapons modelled because they look like random blobs anyway. Or Eldar/Tau vehicle upgrades. I also don't care about dreadnoughts being called venerable because I do not expect people to buy the FW model (the GW one is best swept under the carpet of history IMHO. Ugly as hell). And extra armour is just another one of these. Basically, I want to see what a thing is armed with, and that's it. The Book of St. Lucius example wouldn't have to be modelled in my eyes either. It's pretty mandatory, cheap, and I am seriously not bowing low enough over the table to notice if that model carries a scroll or a book.I think some people take Wysiwyg too far. Guns is where it's at. Everything that is basic equipment, such as grenades and additional pistols I don't need to see on an opponent's model, I know they have it.

The rest: that's what army lists are for, and I refuse to play against somebody who doesn't bring a list and can't show me what he paid for.

Erifnogard
09-02-2009, 16:06
With WYSIWYG we apply common sense and courtesy. If it would cause significant confusion not to represent something we model it. If it is a counts as conversion, we make sure everyone playing knows what it is. Regardless of whether it is modeled, we have an army list that is openly displayed.

On the raging debate about extra armor I reference a real world example that I have personal experience with. There are variants of the M-1 Abrams battle tank that have different amounts of armor. From the exterior you cannot distinguish that greater amount of armor without extensive specialist knowledge. Not all 'extra' armor is bolted on haphazardly after construction. Therefore we consider it unnecessary to model EA on tanks unless we have a cool conversion we want to try.

Edit: A further thought from the perspective of an ex-tanker. Not all system upgrades on an armored vehicle are something that will be visible from the exterior. We already have the example of extra armor. Another good one would be a Spirit Stone on an Eldar Tank. Anyone trying to convince me that an advanced alien race would put what is essentially a combination of one of their ancestors with their vehicles emergency autopilot on the <outside> of the armored hull will get only gales of laughter at the thought from me.

RCgothic
09-02-2009, 16:38
The last time I took extra armour was before the new SM codex. Not worth the points. For the cost of giving it to all my vehicles I could have another lascannon razorback.

Things like Predator armour vs Rhino armour I'd explain by the Predator using a more expensive alloy/taking longer to build/better build quality.

But when it comes to weapons a model has to have what it has. A Land Raider doesn't get a MM or HKM if it doesn't have them. My Captain with a power sword does not have lightning claws.

At some point I'm going to take the time to find and model on the 85 holstered bolt pistols my battle company needs...

jefferson613
09-02-2009, 16:42
There are all sorts of equipment and upgrade options that are not made by GW. It's not justification to make it invisible. And yes, the concept of attaching several extra layers of armour to the exterior of a vehicle would be considered "major".



Hmm. I think I'm gonna get yelled at here.

I think I'm on the side of the Tau player. Ok, yes the claws on the wings could be scything talons, though really I'd like them extended/ accentuated a bit. I know it seems like I'm being anal, but really, if we're going to make exceptions for this, exceptions for that, what's the point of WYSIWYG? Just to refresh everyone, it stands for What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What You Get (and with this extensive list of exceptions and add ons that I haven't modelled on or got models for but want to use anyway despite confusion it may cause). Where do you draw the line? Either at the top or the bottom, not halfway through.

Well technically then you're saying then that the Tyrant isn't even legal...
In the codex it states that the hive tyrant has to choose two(2) weapon symbiotes, If theres only one weapon symbiote then you could prolly argue that that hive tyrant shouldn't be played.... and thats absolute nonsense. its a FW model firstly, and secondly, if the tau player didn't ask what the second weapon that was on the flyrant, then he shouldnt say anything, and the tyranid player was right to leave.
as my own rule, i always ask if theres any proxies or if theres something i dont know wat it does ill ask them before the game... dont cry foul when its your own fault that you dont make sure wats on the models you're facing...army lists and common sense go a long way

the1stpip
09-02-2009, 17:19
I am struggling to see how to model Extra Armour on a Dread without it looking silly.

And anyways, I remember a WD article with George Dellapina putting Purity Seals on his tank to represent the crew's faith as extra armour.

Sidstyler
09-02-2009, 17:59
What your gaming group expects may vary, but by the codex rules, any upgrade needs to be represented. And as it is a model driven game, if you don't want to 'ruin' the look of a model, you should be content with using it as it is shown: the factory default.
You don't like the look of some model or upgrade: don't use it and spend the points somehwere else.

...yeaahh...sounds like BS to me, sorry. I'm not going to gimp myself because I refuse to glue random plasticard sheets to my tanks and let you WYSIWYG your way to an easy win.*

*Whether or not losing extra armor will actually "gimp" you in any way is up for debate, but the point is I shouldn't have to model something if I really don't like the look of it. Some could say that's the price of getting the benefit but I really don't buy that, either.

And like I said before, I'm not about to pay out the ass for FW upgrade kits to make you happy. If I paid the points I have the upgrade and any opponent of mine will just have to grow up and live with it. So long as I'm not calling a burst cannon a smart missile system what's the god-damned harm?


I am struggling to see how to model Extra Armour on a Dread without it looking silly.

You really can't, not from what I've seen.


A further thought from the perspective of an ex-tanker. Not all system upgrades on an armored vehicle are something that will be visible from the exterior. We already have the example of extra armor. Another good one would be a Spirit Stone on an Eldar Tank. Anyone trying to convince me that an advanced alien race would put what is essentially a combination of one of their ancestors with their vehicles emergency autopilot on the <outside> of the armored hull will get only gales of laughter at the thought from me.

That is an excellent point, you are a great, great man. :)

There are a lot of upgrades in the Tau codex alone that I feel SHOULDN'T be represented since the idea that anyone would put something that vital on the outside of the suit/vehicle and purposely make it vulnerable is silly. Like the target lock, or the targeting array, the multitracker, etc...do these sound like upgrades you'd just bolt on to the outside of a vehicle? Disruption pods are iffy, and I'll concede that decoy launchers sound like an upgrade that needs a bit, but when I tried doing a google image search the images I found looked, funnily enough, like seeker missiles...now tell me that wouldn't be confusing. Flechette dischargers are strange, reading the description in the codex I have a hard time imagining what the hell these would even look like. "Clusters on the hulls of tanks", uh...okay, the FW upgrade looks nothing like that in my opinion, so I don't think even GW knows what they are.

If someone tried to be a dick and insist I model these things then I'd ask them to show me the machine spirit on their land raiders, and when they protest stick my fingers in my ears yelling "LA LA LA IT MUST BE REPRESENTED, CODEX RULES, LA LA LA!"

Aegius
09-02-2009, 18:14
The harm is when someone fields a number of the same model with different upgrades and the upgrades seem to miraculously shift between vehicles during a game. I recently played against a tau player with a railhead and an ionhead. He couldn't remember which vehicle was which, because he couldn't be arsed to model his hammerheads wysiwyg. I remembered, because I was fielding a wraithzilla army, the two tanks did very different things to my wraithlords, but the underlying point is that I should be able to glance across the table and see what I'm facing.

*and the forgeworld upgrades don't cost that much, if you can't afford them, then you're really playing with the wrong type of toy soldiers. But as an aside, remember, you can model/paint extra armour in different ways. I'm not going to go into how you can model them, because I've just bit the bullet and bought the forgeworld upgrades. I've used my imagination in other ways.

Nostro
09-02-2009, 18:26
I'll weigh in with the majority here.

Yes to the Tyrant with wings standing as scytals.
No to the late searchlight addition. If he has the points, then he just could put his searchlights in the list to begin with.
Yes to access to the army list anytime.

As far as extra armour is concerned, no modelling expected, but it should be made easy for me to remmeber what tank has it if they aren't all equipped with. As others pointed out, the same hull (modelwise) can have upt to 3 armour points difference ruleswise (predator/rhino) so why not extra armour?

Sidstyler
09-02-2009, 18:33
There are all sorts of equipment and upgrade options that are not made by GW. It's not justification to make it invisible

Why?

GW, who make a living producing plastic kits for this game, can't even be bothered to fill up some of that empty space with missing codex upgrades. Why should I have to pick up their slack and ruin a perfectly good model with my amateur modeling skills?


The harm is when someone fields a number of the same model with different upgrades and the upgrades seem to miraculously shift between vehicles during a game.


So long as I'm not calling a burst cannon a smart missile system what's the god-damned harm?

The Tau player in your case was doing the very thing I emphasized in my post here...assuming I read your post right and he was using two railheads, but one was actually equipped with an ion cannon. A weapon is something major, and GW has produced both railguns and ion cannons, and not only that but they've made it pretty damn easy to swap between the two, so long as you don't glue either one down (or have multiple turrets like I do). So there's not much of an excuse in that case, the weapons function differently in the game and need to be represented to prevent the very thing that happened in your game.

It's not the same thing as having disruption pods on all your vehicles but no bits to represent them. If I have my army list in plain view and inform you of this before the game, there REALLY shouldn't be an issue. And you could always ask questions if you were ever in doubt. But claiming that I have to have every damn thing modeled because you could get confused kinda makes you look easily confused, in my opinion.


*and the forgeworld upgrades don't cost that much, if you can't afford them, then you're really playing with the wrong type of toy soldiers.

Oh wow, you're really going to go there? :rolleyes:

Before the conversion rate changed it would have cost me well over $10 a tank for those upgrades, not including shipping. And I have four tanks. For what it costs me just to get those stupid little upgrades I could buy a whole new god-damned tank and then some, not to mention half of each pack would be completely worthless to me since I hate the ugly decoy launchers FW produced. To put it frankly, they look *********** stupid. You're basically doing what was described before and telling me how YOU think my models should look, demanding that I spend my good money on upgrades that I don't need OR want. I don't see how that's fair or reasonable.

But yeah, whatever. "lolz you're just too poor for warhammer!"

Bloodknight
09-02-2009, 20:23
I agree with Sidstyler. Most extra armour conversions don't look good, and while FW is affordable if you play SM and need it for 3 Rhinos, it gets a bit silly to convert an IG mechanised company with roughly 20 tanks (I can buy another army for that money) just to have 20 tanks which optics I don't like anymore (and there's no extra armour for the Russ anyway).
The example with the Tau tanks is especially silly because the main guns are both in the box, and interchangeable on the turret. Also, Upgrades can't "float" on painted vehicles with unit designations and a written army list.

Dr.Clock
09-02-2009, 20:56
I consider WYSIWYG a default position. That is, it stands in the absence of an agreement to the contrary by the players concerned.

If you are not willing to agree ignoring the rule in certain circumstances then you are certainly within your rights.

In friendly games, the onus is on the player breaching the 'precedent' to declare any deviations at the outset of the game. If it comes time for a unit to use something and they clearly have something different, the opponent can claim that this cannot be done (a melta gun being used as a flamer).

If you ARE clearly violating WYSIWYG and KNOW that you are, keep it consistent (all grenade launchers are melta-guns... all dual-ccw sgts carry power-weapons) to avoid confusion.

I, for instance, now know to ask in advance what my regular opponent's special weapon troopers are 'actually' armed with.

I don't have many issues with this really - we tend to reward imaginative conversions - as long a the model is clearly distinguishable from others in the unit and you tell me what it has, I'll be more or less open to it. I think it's important to allow people to try things out before they shell out the points for MORE expensive models AND to allow people to keep their mad conversions and get good use out of them.

As with many of the 'softer' rules in this game - it's a question of context. Keep it honest, plan ahead and err on the side of courtesy.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Bunnahabhain
09-02-2009, 21:13
Most of my Russes have some combination of Track guards and Dozer blades.

These have been used to count as some combination of Extra Armour, Rough Terrain mods, track Guards and mine sweepers (the last two rarely)

The only way these upgrades float between tanks is if the turrets start swapping themselves about, as all my tanks are numbered, with the numbers on army list, and the upgrades are all listed there. If people have a problem with this, then that is their problem, not mine.


Main weapons should be right, upgrades that nobody knows what they looks like (nid biomorphs, Tau maulti-tracker, etc, etc) can be far more flexible.

People should also be reasonable, a Hive tyrant with one set of talons and nothing else is easy to see as a Hive tyrant with two sets of talons. Objecting to that is just daft.

the1stpip
09-02-2009, 21:15
Another upgrade that I have considered and cant figure out how to do it.

Dark Eldar night Shields.

The one picture I have seen, where someone used a piece of black net over their model looked ridiculous to me.

The_Outsider
09-02-2009, 23:31
Another upgrade that I have considered and cant figure out how to do it.

Dark Eldar night Shields.

The one picture I have seen, where someone used a piece of black net over their model looked ridiculous to me.

"Huh, I see no shimmering shield around your falcon, therefore no WYSIWYG and no holofields. Have a nice day cheating good sir!"

*Packs up and moves on*

Sidstyler
10-02-2009, 00:41
Yeah, another great example. Or do WYSIWYG sticklers insist that your falcons be painted with glitter and metallics?

Born Again
10-02-2009, 09:37
At max, there are two Tyrants in the list. If the player states which one has what (or if they are gameswise identical even if the models aren't), again, what's the problem? It's not like there's much room for confusion with just two models, at max, on the table.

This hobby is just as much about building awesome models as it is about gaming. It wouldn't cross *my* mind to demand another person change his models to accommodate my sense of asthetics.


Of course, allmost everything is open to abuse, and abuse naturally shouldn't be tolerated, but for example in the Nids vs. Tau scenario mentioned, this obviously wasn't the case.


You know, that's a good question. I've been pondering that myself...
Joking aside, it's there to prevent confusion during the game. Are you honestly going to tell me that after being told you are going to be confused about what the only model of it's kind on the table is armed with? Really?
Especially something as simple as having one extra attack.

As long as you tell me up front and it's not going to be confusing (same weapon being different things in different squads for instance) I really don't care.

My last game against a Tyranid army was against a good friend using a 'comedy' list. It's exclusivly stealers, homagaunts and warriors. We don't have enough warriors armed with Talons/rending claws to actually represent all 18 (I think), so some of them do have various shooty weapons. However ever single warrior is identical so there isn't really room for confusion. So far no one have raised any objections about the army at all. It's not WYSIWYG, but it's hardly confusing.

Of course, you could refuse to play against it. The end result would then be that neither got to play a game, but likely sit in a corner and feel mad at each other instead. As long as it's clear, I just don't see the point of strick WYSIWYG.

Obviously, this is a bad example as yes, it's unlikely you're gonna get confused over something like a single flyrant. But as I said, where do you draw the line? Obviously there's quite a lot of wargear combinations not covered by models, or have only just been released. Prior to AoBR, there was no model of a Warboss with PK, which is a popular choice I'm sure. So if someone popped down one of the existing warboss models (with an axe or squig) and said "that's a klaw" would you be willing to take it? Well, yes, probably (as long as they said it at the start and not when it suited them mid game) as described above it's only one model. I just think, personally, it's better to be all or nothing. If you're going to allow that sort of proxying on characters, allow it on every model. That's fine as long as both players agree and know what's going on with what. If you wouldn't allow it on rank and file troops, don't allow it on characters.





Where do you draw the line? That's the question here. This is not a slippery slope situation, where if you allow a hive tyrant with forge world wings to count as scything talons you suddenly have to allow my army of pink chaos space marines to count as orks.

The line is somewhere balancing reasonable, aesthetic, and non-deceptive.

A flyrant with 2x scything talons which does not have the second set and instead has wings is non-deceptive and reasonable (it doesn't have a set of devourers or something), and is aesthetic (a matter of personal taste).

A unit of space marines who appear to be carrying flamers, but are actually (on the list) carrying plasmaguns is deceptive and unreasonable, even if in terms of aesthetics the player likes the look of flamers better, and uses them as plasmaguns everywhere.

Some upgrades are definitely "need to have" save in friendly and test games, but many are "nice to have". Extra armour is "nice to have" but because many people, especially kids new to the hobby, don't have the money for Forge World or the ability to make the upgrade. If it means the kid can play a 1500 point game without a 60 point handicap, let him (the extra armour isn't going to break you). However, heavy and special weapons in squads should be what they appear to be. It gets too fiddly if you cannot tell what an opponent is using for a lascannon versus an autocannon.

A lot of this comes down to personal choice. Would you allow a plastic loyalist dread to be a venerable dreadnought, even though a model exists? Would you allow a squad of plastic chaos marines (suitably converted) to be plaguemarines, even though pewter models exist? There was a thread recently about paintjobs and WYSIWYG, and how a player was refused a game because his deathwing were painted as Black Templars. WYSIWYG is not an iron rod, but anyone who wants to play less games of warhammer has that right.

Well I'm not a 'nid player so I wasn't aware the FW model is technically illegal without allowing it another weapon. Obviously, if something has to have something to be game legal, that's fine as you assume it's there. A Nob who replaces his slugga with a kustom shoota still has a choppa, even though it's not on the model. You assume it's there as it's basic wargear that makes it legal.
Personally, I'm a fan of WYSIWYG. I've never encountered a situation where I've had to call someone on it or raise question, so I can't say how I'd take those situations. It's just personal preference in my armies to have everything represented: I want my opponent to look at the table and see what they're facing. After all, a SM captain with a plasma pistol is going to come at you with a plasma pistol, not a bolt pistol while shouting "this is a plasma pistol!" at the top of his lungs.
Ok, that was hyperbole. I just don't see the point in having all these different types of models for things if you're just going to proxy something else anyway. Obviously there are occasions, such as the FW flyrant, where an exception will be required to save extensive remodeling. But for the most part, I just don't see the point in avoiding it. People try out different combos now and then, or something may actually, in all honesty, be unavailible in model form, or impossible to show (someone mentioned holofields, which are a good example). That's fine, but for the most part, I prefer armies, at least in their major weapons and wargear, to be clear to me.

ankara halla
10-02-2009, 10:01
Well, first of all, I think it's very important to make the difference between "count as" and "proxy" clear.

A "count as" FW FlyTyrant counts as a Tyrant with wings and claws. (It really even doesn't, since it has quite enough claws on the model to easily represent that extra attack, but anyway...) while a Carnifex might be used to "proxy" a FlyTyrant with wings and claws.

Then again, said Carnifex could just as easily be converted to be a FlyTyrant, in which case it wouldn't "count as" or "proxy" as anything, but might be equally confusing to the opposing player to know what it's armed with if it isn't made clear before the game.

And that's the gist of it, wheter you are "counting as" or "proxying" anything, is it confusing? If it isn't, game away! I see absolutely no reason to draw a line or make a double standard regarding the whole issue, as long as there is no room for confusion. Quite easily acchived thru an introduction of ones army before the game (which I allways do anyway, out of courtesy).

So what if that Captain with two swords is gamewise armed with twin lightning claws? Game away! So what if that Razorback stands for a Predator without sponsons? Game away!

As long as it's made clear before the game.

Born Again
10-02-2009, 11:14
Yes, everything you say is true. I do agree and unless it was an over-the-top, stupid circumstance (ie; this marine scout "counts as" a soul grinder) I probably wouldn't question it, as long as it wasn't confusing. I just wonder, if we are prepared to abandon the WYSIWYG rule for certain circumstances, why bother having one at all? Why would they not it in the rulebook, when they could just have a note about explaining what is what in your army?

Like I said, I understand there are certain circumstances that require the WYSIWYG rule to be abandoned. But for the most part, if that model is an ongoing, regular part of your army, why would you not want it to be correctly represented? Just my way of thinking.

Aegius
10-02-2009, 11:24
Forgeworld do a skimmer upgrade kit for eldar that includes holofield generators. You could always model something similar if you want holofields on your falcons.

ankara halla
10-02-2009, 12:39
Yes, everything you say is true. I do agree and unless it was an over-the-top, stupid circumstance (ie; this marine scout "counts as" a soul grinder) I probably wouldn't question it, as long as it wasn't confusing. I just wonder, if we are prepared to abandon the WYSIWYG rule for certain circumstances, why bother having one at all? Why would they not it in the rulebook, when they could just have a note about explaining what is what in your army?

You know, I never did understand why GW came up with the WYSIWYG rule myself. I know it's there to prevent confusion, but was there confusion to prevent in the first place? At least of the sort that the rule might help with?
At best it just gives the moral high ground to one player for refusing a game against another. If that's the case, they both lose. Then again, if you don't want to play someone, you don't need justification from a rule like WYSIWYG not to play.

I've really never seen the point, though the cynic in me suspected GW tought it would promote sales of new models (same as their silly rule, that was introduced very briefly but at the same time, that if a newer model is available, you'd need to buy it to replace the old one to have a legal army...)


Like I said, I understand there are certain circumstances that require the WYSIWYG rule to be abandoned. But for the most part, if that model is an ongoing, regular part of your army, why would you not want it to be correctly represented? Just my way of thinking.

Conversions come to mind. I liked to equip my characters with scratch built pole weapons, that made them stand out from the rest of the army. They are by definition allways "count as" since there is nothing that looks like it in the rulebook. Never had a problem with anyone about them though.

Also, many people don't like the standard options available for the miniature. As an example I very heavily dislike the new "knuckle iron" look of the lightning claws. They are passable on Terminators, but with guys in PA, they just look stupid IMO. Other may not like the look of Ork power claws or something, and substitue it with something that looks just as powerful and dangerous, but isn't WYSIWYG -wise legal.

But what really worries me about WYSIWYG, when taken to the extreame, is that it stiffles creativity and imagination. IMHO anyway, these are essential parts of the hobby that shouldn't be discouraged, but rather encouraged. Again, it's only a problem if taken to the extreame, but as you said, where do you draw the line? Personally, I see no need for a line to begin with :)

Anyway, however you look at it, it boils down to asthetics. This hobby is as much about cool miniatures (or else you could just as well play with painted pinecones) as it is about gaming, and if it can be agreed that the sole reason of the WYSIWYG rule is to prevent confusion (and/or promote sales...) and there is no confusion, even in the absense of WYSIWYG, then it must be reasoned that then WYSIWYG is pointless.

Again, only if it's clear what everything is ruleswise.

Bloodknight
10-02-2009, 14:42
Forgeworld do a skimmer upgrade kit for eldar that includes holofield generators. You could always model something similar if you want holofields on your falcons.

Still, most of those only make sense to an Eldar player, just like Tyranid biomorphs or the Tau thingies. Same counts for Dark Eldar who have no assigned look to any of their upgrades except the Scythes which are fitted to every vehicle for looks, but not paid for by anybody sane. As the guy on the other side, it's pretty unlikely I'd even notice.

AbusePuppy
10-02-2009, 15:01
First of all: as a 'Nid player, WYSIWYG is basically impossible to model completely. I have magnetized 'Fexes and Tyrants, but even that doesn't begin to cover the multitude of other options I can sink into those units. Toxin sacs, tail weapons, flesh hooks (which conveniently have no MC-sized version!), adrenal glands, reinforced chitin, etc, etc, etc. Even if you only take the non-retarded combinations of biomorphs (i.e. excluding AGi + only ranged weapons), you're still looking at thousands of possible setups that are feasible and somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100 that I would actually use, dependent on the points available. Following a strict WYSIWYG as Tyranids forces me to buy ten or more times as many models as I otherwise would- or else drastically limit what sorts of armies I can field. And frankly, I enjoy 'Nids because of their flexibility, so that rather defeats the point of even playing the army.

Secondly, 40K (and wargames in general) is pretty intimidating to new players. There's a lot of rules to learn- the base rules, your army, everyone else's armies- and a lot of work to do before you can ever set that first mini down on the table and play. AoBR has gone a long ways towards mitigating this, but there's still a big barrier to entry for new players. Strict WYSIWYG will only raise that bar- for someone who is new to modeling and struggling just to assemble the figures out of the box, scratch-building and converting just to be allowed to play with what they want probably comes off as rather disheartening. It's all fine and good to get beardy about perfectly representing your models and such, but without an influx of new players the game will die. Against anyone new the game, I'm perfectly happy to allow proxies, for both equipment and models so long as it's clear they're making an effort to progress.

That is, essentially, what it comes down to in my opinion: so long as the opponent is not being duplicitous and isn't using those same orkz-as-terminators that he was two years ago, I don't have a problem with it. Everyone has to start somewhere, and none of us have unlimited money. What I consider to be an acceptable investment is overwhelming to some people, and there are plenty of people who invest amounts of time and money in this game that I see as bordering on absurd. Play and let play and stop worrying so much about the details of what your opponent's army men have shoved into their pants.

AngryAngel
10-02-2009, 16:13
I don't get how unreasonable some people are on this fact. For me wysiwyg goes about as far as weapon loadouts. Most of the other things if you want to put them on, thats cool, if ya don't. That as well is cool. Some options look nice and get put on everything, like dozer blades. Some look good and you almost always take them, like reinforced rams.

We have viable reason for why extra armor doesn't need to be shown on the model. Is it too much to ask for people remember what their opponents have on a vehicle for those kinds of things ? Or dare I say ask ?

As with tyranids they are about the same all I normally ask for is weapon loadouts. Everything else I pretty much remember. Even with one opp who has three units of winged warriors. He has recently gotten wings for them, but because he liked the look of the wings not because he was pressured into it.

Cane
10-02-2009, 16:20
Yea, unfortunately this hobby seems to be an outlet for a lot of arrogant, self-righteous, socially defunct, anal nerds. And with that kind of mentality and a venue to be an anal rules lawyer, they'll bend the words to their liking.

WYSIWG isn't a problem in a non tournament setting as long as both parties involved knows whats up.

We are playing with toy Army Men and its not like they actually shoot and kill eachother, we use make-believe and imagine entire fluff backgrounds for our armies that rivals the length and quality of official fluff.

When people take their little toys too seriously...man there's some psychological issues behind that!

Gazak Blacktoof
10-02-2009, 16:30
For the purposes of the games I play I view "WYSWIYG" as being an aid to smooth game play.

If somebody wants to try out a few options and doesn't have the models- that's fine.

If all their vehicles have the same missing upgarde- that's fine too.

I'd be ok with any deviation so long as I know about it and the army predominantly represents what it should.

AngryAngel
10-02-2009, 17:03
I'm kind of loath to give an upgrade to a vehicle if I can't across for the board. For instance, if I decide to use extra armor on rhinos. They all have extra armor, all the rhinos anyways. As I said, I've never, ever found anyone who cares its not shown on the outside of the model and have always been completely upfront with my army list and what they have so has never been an issue.

onnotangu
10-02-2009, 18:22
With the Tau tank bits you can get away because they are not sufficiently explained in their looks anywhere official.

Extra armour has become one of those defacto not representable things as there just haven't been any models for it, ever. But really it should be easily representable with a few spare track pieces, some shield thingies or extra armour plates from different kits.

If the plates are 'thicker' shouldn't they look thicker? Usually armour is not extendable inside a vehicle, but has to bolted on to the outside.

What your gaming group expects may vary, but by the codex rules, any upgrade needs to be represented. And as it is a model driven game, if you don't want to 'ruin' the look of a model, you should be content with using it as it is shown: the factory default.
You don't like the look of some model or upgrade: don't use it and spend the points somehwere else.


extra armor has been made avalible before. ( spaced armour metal in form) for the old style rhinos and predators and chimeras. the same sprues you pull your models off of can be used to help make extra armor. it's really not that hard.
I've done spaced armor on mine. But I have seen someone do small sections of the sprues clipped over the frontal armor and sanded to look like ablative armor.

http://40kfightclub.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=16744 My attempt at Spaced armor.

Bloodknight
10-02-2009, 19:42
Yeah, you could do it. I'd prefer to not see that on the table, though. That is exactly what I meant with: extra armour does not look good, especially not the spaced variety. I don't care if it makes sense from a realistic point of view; this is, as ehlijen put it, a model driven game, and that ruins expensive models.

loveless
10-02-2009, 20:25
Yeah, you could do it. I'd prefer to not see that on the table, though. That is exactly what I meant with: extra armour does not look good, especially not the spaced variety. I don't care if it makes sense from a realistic point of view; this is, as ehlijen put it, a model driven game, and that ruins expensive models.

I agree completely.

Kudos to onnotangu for taking the time to do it, but it really ruins the look of the rhino chassis.

Why not just model a "commander" on each tank? If Chronus can work better than Extra Armour, I'm sure a "lesser" commander could work just as well as Extra Armour.

Cheesolith
10-02-2009, 21:18
I've been refused a game once because i equiped my lord with a lasgun according to WYSIWYG(my lord has a dead guardsman impaled on his SoL, which, according to my opponent means that i'm using a lasgun by proxy only because the identifiable part of the staff is obscured) so i'm on the side of the "viability first, models second" team unless being confusing on purpose(for example, having immortals proxied by warriors when there's also real warriors on the table as well). Conversions, yes, lazyness, no.

Sidstyler
11-02-2009, 01:30
Forgeworld do a skimmer upgrade kit for eldar that includes holofield generators. You could always model something similar if you want holofields on your falcons.

"COULD" being the key word there. If I don't want to, I shouldn't have to.

And going back to what was said before, a "holofield generator" sounds like a pretty important piece of equipment, what ***** would bolt it to the hull so it could be more easily shot at? I'll accept that it's there if people WANT to model it, but to expect everyone to because it's there? No.


extra armor has been made avalible before. ( spaced armour metal in form) for the old style rhinos and predators and chimeras. the same sprues you pull your models off of can be used to help make extra armor. it's really not that hard.
I've done spaced armor on mine. But I have seen someone do small sections of the sprues clipped over the frontal armor and sanded to look like ablative armor.

http://40kfightclub.com/modules.php?...wtopic&t=16744 My attempt at Spaced armor.

...okay, I really don't mean any offense here, but I wouldn't do that to any of my tanks. I just really don't like the look of it, and I don't care if it's "really not that hard", I simply do not like how it looks, end of story.

And like it was said, I'm not a fan of spaced armor, either. And honestly I can't even tell the difference between a normal rhino and a rhino with the regular extra armor upgrade from FW, the picture on the FW site looks like a stock rhino to me and I wouldn't be able to tell without seeing them side by side.

Now I've seen people do armor that really didn't look that bad, one guy used plasticard to bulk out a hammerhead once, and it was completely unnecessary since the extra armor is included in the profile, but it looked good. I just don't want to do that to my own tanks.

Anyway...I can see why WYSIWYG is necessary in some cases, but there's no reason whatsoever to be this damn anal about it.

jason_sation
11-02-2009, 01:54
No one says how good the upgrades have to look on the model. Just put sticky-notes on them!

(I kid, sort of).

As long as there are army lists and I can continuously ask questions about a unit before I do whatever, I'm fine with it. I figure for the 40 dollars you spent on your vehicle, you can make it look like whatever you want, and I'll do the same with mine.

Also, earlier somebody mentioned that the Demolisher isn't modeled with extra armor for its increased AV rating. It actually does come with some metal bits that you glue on, and an armored plate that goes over the back.

A Thracian Major
11-02-2009, 02:02
Beyond the obvious things like equipment, if we were really wanting to apply WYSIWYG to its (il)logical conclusion, must all models be displaying the right rank/unit insignia? Must all space marine sergeants have the skull motif? It becomes a completely different kettle of fish with guard, between having captains to colonels as senior officers, and is there a way to 'model' the difference between a senior and heroic senior officer? If i equip my army with autoguns/autopistols instead of las weapons, is the army illegal? Granted a lot of these examples are guard specific, but similar things could apply to other armies i'm sure.

In short, I think that players need to show some judgement on how far to take WYSIWYG, and apply it as RAI as opposed to RAW (except in tournaments and the like). Is it reasonable to say 'my captain as a power sword as opposed to a chain sword' today? Or is it more reasonable to expect your opponent to have several variations of each model?

tacoo
11-02-2009, 02:36
that tau player was a jerk. and gear that dosnt need modeled is certain things my tau, can rember what called, but incluse Hard wired systems, says it could be given by jewlery and the such

Sidstyler
11-02-2009, 03:09
No one says how good the upgrades have to look on the model. Just put sticky-notes on them!

I know it's a joke, but I think I will do that whenever I play a jerk like that. "Okay, give me a piece of paper and a crayon and I'll fix this right up for you!"

AngryAngel
11-02-2009, 03:22
That sounds like a fine idea but then he'll say he can't read your hand writing and demand you print out on the sticky note what the vehicle has for upgrades. It's just like if you give a mouse a cookie man.

Codsticker
11-02-2009, 03:46
The rest: that's what army lists are for, and I refuse to play against somebody who doesn't bring a list and can't show me what he paid for.

That's the bottom line for me; more important than WYSIWYG. There is so much stuff in this game that affects game play that cannot be modelled that getting bent about item A or B not accurately rendered is pointless.

Born Again
11-02-2009, 05:04
You know, I never did understand why GW came up with the WYSIWYG rule myself. I know it's there to prevent confusion, but was there confusion to prevent in the first place? At least of the sort that the rule might help with?
At best it just gives the moral high ground to one player for refusing a game against another. If that's the case, they both lose. Then again, if you don't want to play someone, you don't need justification from a rule like WYSIWYG not to play.

I've really never seen the point, though the cynic in me suspected GW tought it would promote sales of new models (same as their silly rule, that was introduced very briefly but at the same time, that if a newer model is available, you'd need to buy it to replace the old one to have a legal army...)



Conversions come to mind. I liked to equip my characters with scratch built pole weapons, that made them stand out from the rest of the army. They are by definition allways "count as" since there is nothing that looks like it in the rulebook. Never had a problem with anyone about them though.

Also, many people don't like the standard options available for the miniature. As an example I very heavily dislike the new "knuckle iron" look of the lightning claws. They are passable on Terminators, but with guys in PA, they just look stupid IMO. Other may not like the look of Ork power claws or something, and substitue it with something that looks just as powerful and dangerous, but isn't WYSIWYG -wise legal.

But what really worries me about WYSIWYG, when taken to the extreame, is that it stiffles creativity and imagination. IMHO anyway, these are essential parts of the hobby that shouldn't be discouraged, but rather encouraged. Again, it's only a problem if taken to the extreame, but as you said, where do you draw the line? Personally, I see no need for a line to begin with :)

Anyway, however you look at it, it boils down to asthetics. This hobby is as much about cool miniatures (or else you could just as well play with painted pinecones) as it is about gaming, and if it can be agreed that the sole reason of the WYSIWYG rule is to prevent confusion (and/or promote sales...) and there is no confusion, even in the absense of WYSIWYG, then it must be reasoned that then WYSIWYG is pointless.

Again, only if it's clear what everything is ruleswise.

So what we've come to find in this thread is, the WYSIWYG rule is pointless really as a) we can't find an exact reason for it's existence, and b) no-one follows it rigidly anyway. Nice one, GW :rolleyes:
Conversions are fine as long as it's still clear, if someone wants to replace their ork's power klaw with a giant, hydraulic driven hammer that counts as a PK, that's fine as it's still clear and makes sense.
On the flipside, how does everyone feel about things being on the models that it doesn't have? Example: the ork trukk kit comes with boarding planks and a wrecking ball as part of the kit. IMO the model looks kinda weird without them, especially the planks. So if someone puts them on for aesthetics, but doesn't buy the upgrade, is that cool too? Or is something being on the table that isn't actually there more confusing than the reverse? Just an idea I had.

Silverbullet5774
11-02-2009, 05:14
I know it's a joke, but I think I will do that whenever I play a jerk like that. "Okay, give me a piece of paper and a crayon and I'll fix this right up for you!"

I seriously laughed out loud when I read this.:D

And unless I was gonna play a very, very serious match (tournament setting) I really could care less if my opponent doesnt have something like extra armor modelled (so long as they tell me that its there).

ankara halla
11-02-2009, 09:30
On the flipside, how does everyone feel about things being on the models that it doesn't have? Example: the ork trukk kit comes with boarding planks and a wrecking ball as part of the kit. IMO the model looks kinda weird without them, especially the planks. So if someone puts them on for aesthetics, but doesn't buy the upgrade, is that cool too? Or is something being on the table that isn't actually there more confusing than the reverse? Just an idea I had.

Well, I think I have personally made my personal views clear regarding this. I'm all for cool miniatures, so game away with your truck modelled full or orky goodness!

Just make sure everybody knows what it is in reality equipped with and leaves no room for confusion regarding other similiar vehicles one might be playing with.

But it is a good question. Is everybody supposed to assume those trackguards on that Leman Russ represent an upgrade of somekind? Or those pieces of track on the hull of that Rhino? As long as it's made clear, I don't see a problem.

Gaebriel
11-02-2009, 10:13
Well, I'm all for WYSIWYG - within reason. I won't force someone who doesn't want to invest the extra money to buy Forge World upgrade kits or someone who isn't a master modeller to break out the greenstuff. As long as a model look nice and fullfills a "similar to the role-look" and has a fitting main weapon, I'm okay.

I myself change my list every game, so I tend to model as much extras as aesthetically possible without feeling the need to buy every upgrade for every game (and no, I won't buy and build my command models five times to take care of every possible variation I might come up with).

On Extra Armour - I already model my Predators using Forge World Extra Armour (reinforced) to make them look sturdier than the standard Rhino chassis, justifying the higher Armour Value - I wouldn't want to model extra plates on top of that.

ehlijen
11-02-2009, 11:38
Wysiwyg does have reason: It let's people combine two things:
looking at cool models
reading army lists

I'd much rather do both those at once than just the second in order to know what I'm facing.

I don't like the look of lascannon, does that mean I can call green bolters 'superlaserbotlers' and use them as lascannon?

If you're into the games for the models, you should accept that if you don't like the model of somethings so much you won't use it, you can't put it into your army list. Otherwise the 'I'm in it for the models' line is nothing more than an excuse.

Games run much more fluently if neither player ever needs to explain to the other what what is. That may not be your cup of tea, but it's the reason why wysiwyg exists and I for one like it for that.

rebmonk
11-02-2009, 13:41
I agree with other people in that the only thing that has to be wysiwyg is weaponry, and not extra equipment. As long as the weaponry is fine just look at their army list to see what has upgrades. If they took the same model but with 2 upgrades (example two LRBT, only one has a HK), and its not clear which is which, i just ask them to indicate which one has the upgrade. It's as simple as that, especially since GW doesn't give us every available upgrade in each box.

To the tyranid question it was the tau guys fault if it had 2 sets of ST. If the other weapon on the hive tyrant was anything but ST, then it was the tyranid players fault for not putting it on or stating it before the game.

And seriously people, have you ever gone: "crap, that predator had EA? maybe i shouldn't fire my lascannon at it."

The usual story is opponent: "you rolled a 2, I have EA so it gets knocked down to 1" I look at his army list and it has EA, so i say: "cool, next im going to shoot...."

This is coming from a Tyranid player who ripped off 3 pairs of devourers to replace with ST and BS when 5th edition came out.

El_Phen
11-02-2009, 17:05
I'm going to jump on the band-wagon of "Just tell me what's got what before the game and we're fine."

I find this WYSIWYG obsession rather disturbing and am thankful that my own gaming group is of a similar disposition. It does add to the models appearance to make them holding grenades or with whatever specific type of gun they're supposed to have but I have to say that I really don't care and am more looking forward to the tactical challenge my opponent offers rather than how nicely modelled, or not, their miniatures are.

malisteen
11-02-2009, 17:20
Official ruling:

default equipment should be modeled on enough of the models in a unit to show that it's there (ie, some of those marines should have pistol holsters or grenade packs), but does not have to be shown on every model.

Upgrades and optional equipment should always be shown. Even things like extra armor, or artificer armor, or the like.


In practice, several pieces of wargear frequently go un-modeled, and extra armor is right at the top of the list. You'll rarely, if ever, be called for it, even at official events. There's not a clear cut line, but try and make everything as easy for the opponant as possible. 'This meltagun is a meltagun, but that meltagun is a flamer' is just bad form, even in settings informal enough to allow it.

Remember that exchanging army lists before the game is now an overt part of the rules. If you have anything iffy in terms of modeling, be sure to point it out to your opponant at that time.

Sidstyler
12-02-2009, 00:31
If you're into the games for the models, you should accept that if you don't like the model of somethings so much you won't use it, you can't put it into your army list. Otherwise the 'I'm in it for the models' line is nothing more than an excuse.

First of all, so long as you can tell the difference between regular bolters and "superlaserbotlers" what's the big deal? The whole point of WYSIWYG is to prevent confusion and if the modeler has made it clear that it's a lascannon substitute I really don't see the problem. If you can't remember for one game that those are supposed to be lascannons then I really don't know about you.

If every gun in the army looked the same but had different rules you might have a point, but other than that you're just taking it way too far and/or need to remove whatever that is stuck up your rear.

Second, are you serious? That's quite possibly the biggest load of BS put forth in this thread. "If you don't like the model, you can't use it in a game. At all. Ever. Sorry!" ********!

I really don't see how someone with an attitude like that can get a game in at all. The people in your area must be masochists. "Every model in your army has to be the most current released version (OOP models aren't allowed). No non-GW products (not even other-branded tapes or templates or dice). No scratchbuilds. No conversions. No "counts-as" or old army lists that don't have codex support (LatD, genestealer cult, etc.). All paint jobs must be "official" schemes or the scheme on the box. NO CREATIVITY ALLOWED."

This is Warhammer 40,000. This is serious hobby.

Lorenzen
12-02-2009, 01:48
my thoughts go as follows...

in the case of the tyranid/tau discussion.. the tyranind player was in the right. Why? Because the forgeworld site specifically states that the wings count as scything talons too.

with the exception of frag/krak equivilant grenades i expect everything to be modelled on much in the same way that i expect to be able to easily identify which squad is which when they are in close proximity to each other.

ehlijen
12-02-2009, 03:05
Way to go balistic. My point is: if you refuse to model an upgrade because you can't think of a way to make it look acceptable to you (including conversions or older models), don't use it!

You have a choice of what to put in your list. If you put something into your list and then break the wysiwyg rules with the justification of "I don't like the model", then you're in the wrong. No-one forced you to put the offending upgrade in your list. There are plenty of ways to make legal lists without using things you don't like the look of, and if the looks are all you care about, then you should stick to your words and simply not use what you don't like the look of.

All I'm saying is: your excuse for breaking wysiwyg is insuficient as far as I'm concerned.

Born Again
12-02-2009, 03:08
Wysiwyg does have reason: It let's people combine two things:
looking at cool models
reading army lists

I'd much rather do both those at once than just the second in order to know what I'm facing.

I don't like the look of lascannon, does that mean I can call green bolters 'superlaserbotlers' and use them as lascannon?

If you're into the games for the models, you should accept that if you don't like the model of somethings so much you won't use it, you can't put it into your army list. Otherwise the 'I'm in it for the models' line is nothing more than an excuse.

Games run much more fluently if neither player ever needs to explain to the other what what is. That may not be your cup of tea, but it's the reason why wysiwyg exists and I for one like it for that.

I agree. I think that really is the point of WYSIWYG, though the new convention of swapping army lists and ignoring it anyway have deemed it rather useless. Yes, I suppose in practice it's fine to tell me "that's a lascannon" and I can deal with it, but it's much easier if I just look at it and know it's a lascannon.


First of all, so long as you can tell the difference between regular bolters and "superlaserbotlers" what's the big deal? The whole point of WYSIWYG is to prevent confusion and if the modeler has made it clear that it's a lascannon substitute I really don't see the problem. If you can't remember for one game that those are supposed to be lascannons then I really don't know about you.

If every gun in the army looked the same but had different rules you might have a point, but other than that you're just taking it way too far and/or need to remove whatever that is stuck up your rear.

Second, are you serious? That's quite possibly the biggest load of BS put forth in this thread. "If you don't like the model, you can't use it in a game. At all. Ever. Sorry!" ********!

I really don't see how someone with an attitude like that can get a game in at all. The people in your area must be masochists. "Every model in your army has to be the most current released version (OOP models aren't allowed). No non-GW products (not even other-branded tapes or templates or dice). No scratchbuilds. No conversions. No "counts-as" or old army lists that don't have codex support (LatD, genestealer cult, etc.). All paint jobs must be "official" schemes or the scheme on the box. NO CREATIVITY ALLOWED."

This is Warhammer 40,000. This is serious hobby.

That's not quite what he said. He didn't say you were banned from using a model you didn't like, he was saying that many people build their armies on what models they like, not what is ultra competitive. So, if you're getting Tyranids because you really like the models, but don't like the gargoyle models, you most likely won't include them in your army. Or, you will use a substitute, which is where things can get problematic and raises questions of WYSIWYG. Taking gaunts and attaching wings is probably ok. Just saying "these gaunts are gargoyles" is probably gonna get confusing.

OOP models, scratch builds, conversions etc are all fine, but they should be basically representative of what they are. If the model has a lascannon, give it a lascannon, not a heavy bolter and say it's something else. If a model has a power fist, give it something that in all reasonability could be a power fist. If a model has an unusual bit of wargear (say some sort of book for SoB), and you don't want to use a model or convert something with a book, at least make sure there are scrolls, penants or something similar on the model. Far from confusing your opponent, I also find it helps remind me in the middle of games, without having to read through my list the whole time.

Sidstyler
13-02-2009, 00:25
Way to go balistic.

Ballistic? Hardly...


You have a choice of what to put in your list. If you put something into your list and then break the wysiwyg rules with the justification of "I don't like the model", then you're in the wrong.

No, I am not in the wrong, that's what I'm trying to get through to you.

You seem to be thinking in a very black-and-white manner on this (kind of ironic after just saying "No I'm not wrong, you're wrong", but I digress) and that's what irritates me. Why can't I like the fluff or idea behind a unit in an army, and want to include it in my list, but use a different model or a conversion because I don't like GW's specific take on it? What if I like plague bearers and hate the GW models for them, but found these awesome alternative models that would work perfectly?

You're saying that's "wrong"?


No-one forced you to put the offending upgrade in your list.

No, but you are trying to dictate how I write my army lists.


There are plenty of ways to make legal lists without using things you don't like the look of, and if the looks are all you care about, then you should stick to your words and simply not use what you don't like the look of.

Who ever said the looks were "all I cared about"? That's something you said, that's an argument YOU created. Not mine.

You need to open your mind a bit and realize that there's more than one reason why people might want to take a unit or upgrade they don't like the "official" models for. The gargoyles are another good example, someone may wish to convert those out of gaunts simply because of how damn expensive a full squad of those things would be. But then I guess we go back to that argument, "Maybe you're just too poor to play 40k?" :rolleyes:


All I'm saying is: your excuse for breaking wysiwyg is insuficient as far as I'm concerned.

Because you obviously haven't been paying much attention, and will probably continue to insinuate that I'm a cheesed out powergaming ******* while plugging your index fingers in your ears and ignoring anything further I have to say.

Here are my "excuses" for breaking WYSIWYG:

1. Price of the model: a full squad of obliterators, gargoyles, Kroot hounds, etc. is damn pricey.

2. The look of the model (yes, this is only ONE POSSIBLE REASON): I don't like the GW version, I want to sculpt/convert my own/use an alternative, don't want to clutter my vehicles or cover up all the details with long sheets of plasticard in a grid-pattern.

3. People prefer plastic over metal: a lot of people use other GW plastic kits to convert plastic versions of metal models because they just don't like working with metal. Like plastic raptors, obliterators, terminators before there was a plastic Chaos termie kit, etc.

4. Testing: Some people break the WYSIWYG "rules" with proxies to test out a unit in the codex before dumping the money on said unit and being disappointed later.

So it's a lot more than just "You're a beardy cheating bastard that wants to WAAC blah blah blah."


He didn't say you were banned from using a model you didn't like, he was saying that many people build their armies on what models they like, not what is ultra competitive.

No, he didn't quite say that, but he was basically trying to tell me that if there's a unit in the codex I want to use I have to "bite the bullet" and pay for the official GW model or just do without it. That's pretty much as good as "banning" someone from using the model.

And there's more than one way to build an army at that. I'm not "ultra competitive" by any means (I play *********** Tau), but I really don't see what's wrong with people who are. I most likely wouldn't play many games with competitive people like that, but I'm not going to tell them they can't play that way with other like-minded people. Anyway, I really don't see why being a competitive player means you have to either use **** models or do without.


Taking gaunts and attaching wings is probably ok.

No, it isn't, that's ehlijen's whole point. It's breaking the WYSIWYG "rules" and making the game harder for him to play. You have to use the official gargoyle models or you can't use gargoyles. That's the price you have to pay if you want to use such an obviously broken/uber unit like freaking gargoyles.


Just saying "these gaunts are gargoyles" is probably gonna get confusing.

Probably, yeah, but will it make anyone's brain explode if they did it for one game just to see how gargoyles played on the table?


OOP models, scratch builds, conversions etc are all fine

Once again, no they're not. That's why I'm going "ballistic", because I'm being told that that is "illegal".

ehlijen
13-02-2009, 01:09
I never disputed your right to use conversions/other ways to model something.

But you can't at the same time claim:
"I'm in it for the models!"
"I don't like the way this looks so I'll use a model that isn't accurate in any way to represent it!'




...okay, I really don't mean any offense here, but I wouldn't do that to any of my tanks. I just really don't like the look of it, and I don't care if it's "really not that hard", I simply do not like how it looks, end of story.

And like it was said, I'm not a fan of spaced armor, either. And honestly I can't even tell the difference between a normal rhino and a rhino with the regular extra armor upgrade from FW, the picture on the FW site looks like a stock rhino to me and I wouldn't be able to tell without seeing them side by side.

Now I've seen people do armor that really didn't look that bad, one guy used plasticard to bulk out a hammerhead once, and it was completely unnecessary since the extra armor is included in the profile, but it looked good. I just don't want to do that to my own tanks.

Anyway...I can see why WYSIWYG is necessary in some cases, but there's no reason whatsoever to be this damn anal about it.

You are either in it for the models, in which case you should be able to deal with not taking any upgrades or units that you don't like/can't change so you do like them.
Or you don't really care about the models to the point where you ignore wysiwyg to give you a gaming advantage. Technically that's braking a rule, but most people (including me on my good days) don't really care about that in many cases. What I do care about however is pretending to be the first while actually being the second.

If the models are what's important to you, don't use the stuff you don't like. Or admit that the models aren't really what's important to you and ignore wysiwyg if you like. Both are fine if your gaming group accepts it, but at least be honest.

Claiming to play for the background and looks doesn't work if you then ignore background, looks and rules to gain a gaming advantage.

Trekari
13-02-2009, 02:07
I don't model Extra Armor on my vehicles or dreadnoughts because my modeling skills are absolute crap. I refuse to RUIN a model that I've spent hours painting just to satisfy some ass****s idea of WYSIWYG for something like that.

I always have a printed, easily readable army list.
I always make sure my opponent is clear on what is not WYSIWYG, such as substituting (since I'm not done building painting them yet) an AC dreadnought for a TLLC, and my AoBR dreadnought using a PC instead of the MM.

I won't tolerate anyone who tells me that I can't use my Land Raider because it doesn't look to have Extra Armor, or the dreadnoughts for that matter. They are my models which I've spent my money on, and my time painting. If you can't be bothered to access my army list anytime you want to, or ask me any question about my army before taking an in-game action, then you aren't someone I will play. Period.

Aegius
13-02-2009, 02:12
My regualer gaming group don't really do wysiwyg, but I do. I will admit that I've played a few games where I've proxied models to try out a unit. If I liked that unit, I've bought the models for the very next game and had them built and ready to use. I don't mind if my regular group don't use wysiwyg, because I know them, I know their motivations and I know that they are not likely to cheat, but if I'm playing someone in a store or at a tournament, then they really should be using wysiwyg. It's a rule in the rule book. It can't be misinterpreted, its covered by RaW and RaI.

as far as the 'too poor to play warhammer' thing goes. sort it out. GW staffers are amongst some of the poorest payed people in the country,(I should know, I used to be one of them.) but they can still buy rhinos with forgeworld extra armour on.(don't use the discount arguement, because I can almost guarantee that GW staff spend more on their hobby than most people do.)

*And can someone please tell me which page in the rulebook it says that it is ok to ignore wysiwyg as long as you have an army list with you?

As far as I can see, the rulebook doesn't even say that you have to have an army list.

Sidstyler
13-02-2009, 02:13
"I don't like the way this looks so I'll use a model that isn't accurate in any way to represent it!'

I never said that.


You are either in it for the models, in which case you should be able to deal with not taking any upgrades or units that you don't like/can't change so you do like them.
Or you don't really care about the models to the point where you ignore wysiwyg to give you a gaming advantage.

...yeah, that makes sense. "You have to be in it for the models and love losing, or not give a **** about models at all and WAAC." Black or white.

Looks like it went down exactly how I said it would, you ignored my post and the point I was trying to make and just kept pointing your finger going "Competitive gamer! Competitive gamer! If you cared about the hobby you'd use **** models!"


What I do care about however is pretending to be the first while actually being the second.

Yeah, that'd **** me off, too. Good thing I'm not like that.

Look, I never claimed to be a 100% hobbyist OR a 100% gamer. Most of the lists I use are not all that competitive, and I think my win/loss record proves it. I chose Tau as my first/main army because of how cool the models looked in general, I had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how the game played or even how Tau played, other than what I'd seen from Dawn of War (which is really only enough to know that they have Asian accents and hovertanks). So by trying to constantly insinuate that I'm a self-proclaimed hobbyist "only in it for the models" that's breaking WYSIWYG for the sole purpose of winning games, you're kind of wasting your god-damned time because I NEVER SAID THAT.

Speaking of which, do you play to lose? Because if you don't you might be a powergamer. :rolleyes:


Claiming to play for the background and looks doesn't work if you then ignore background, looks and rules to gain a gaming advantage.

That's kind of...stupid. Where did that come from? Where did I:

1) Ever claim that I personally play for the background?
2) Ignore said background?

I think you're actually going out of your way to misunderstand me now. When I posted those reasons why people would break WYSIWYG, I was providing examples of what I've seen other people do. There isn't any unit in my army that I claimed to take for the "background" that I then incorporated into my army in a way that completely rapes it like you've suggested. In fact, until just this very week, I never took more than 4 devilfish/hammerheads* in my army because you can only fit four in a single manta. So if you ask me, I do respect the background more than you give me credit for.

*I have 2 devilfish and 2 hammerheads, obviously if I ever took 4 hammerheads I'd be breaking a rule. I bought two more devilfish because I'm tired of fighting the Lash and wanted to try and avoid it with mounted fire warriors. Instead of rolling over and getting my ass kicked I want to step my game up a bit and actually try to win, if that makes me a horrible person then by all means...

Anyway, I'm not even really arguing this crap for myself, since personally I don't see my army being a WYSIWYG nightmare, all I'm trying to say is maybe it isn't quite as black and white as you keep saying it is? Maybe there really is more to it than people wanting to WAAC, but whatever. I'm just an obvious WAAChole powergamer, my opinion means nothing.


I won't tolerate anyone who tells me that I can't use my Land Raider because it doesn't look to have Extra Armor, or the dreadnoughts for that matter.

Yeah, that's another glaring problem with WYSIWYG. What if they simply don't think it's "good enough"? "But that doesn't look like extra armor to me...those don't look enough like gargoyles in my opinion..."

And what if this game happens to be a tournament and winning or losing actually kinda matters, then he could just refuse to let you play with any of your models since he personally doesn't feel like you represented all your upgrades accurately. You're quick to label me the powergamer who only cares about winning, but I could see WYSIWYG working both ways. If you're TOO anal or strict about it you could get the same advantage that you claim you can get from being too loose about it.

ehlijen
13-02-2009, 02:13
Trekari:

Noone's going to tell you you can't use your land raider/dreadnaught. What some people *might* tell you is that you have to use them without the extra armour. And by the rules, those people are in the right if you try to use extra armour without modeling it.

You can hate them as much as you want, not play them if you don't want to, but by the rules they are in the right.

Noone forces you to use extra armour if you can't figure out how to represent it to your satisfaction. But you are trying to force people to ignore a rule just so you can benefit in game from something you haven't modeled.

Is it so hard so simply not take any extra armour?


Sidstyler:
You said you'd never model extra armour because you don't like the way it looks. I'm saying, then don't take it! You don't need extra armour to win games (you don't even need vehicles if you can't stand vehciles without EA either!).

Trekari
13-02-2009, 02:29
Pg. 47 of the BRB has the relevant rule, which appears to apply specifically to Characters, given the section of the rulebook it is under.

I wouldn't play them, and neither would anyone I know in my local gaming club.

Sidstyler brings up a perfectly valid point - what if you decide, being "that guy," that my idea of Extra Armor isn't good enough? Who are you to determine what something must look like, given the complete lack of GW production for the wargear in question?

If they don't supply a suitable representation of the options or wargear available in the kit that you purchase, then I am not required, by ANY rule, to model it myself.

Pg. 47 has a little blurb in the box about how MOST gamers are happy to accommodate non-WYSIWYG situations within reason. If you really want to be TFG about it, then you are welcome to play someone else. I have EA on my dreadnoughts, as well as being venerable. My army list is printed and available at ANY time during a game. You're welcome to move to the next table if that isn't good enough for your elite modeling skills and expectations as far as I'm concerned.

Note: This post is intended in the subjective tense. If someone specifically here on the forums wishes to address me and BE 'that ********** guy' about my modeling skills and situation, then yes: this post is aimed at you. Until that time, "you" is intended to be subjective.

Sidstyler
13-02-2009, 02:32
Sidstyler:
You said you'd never model extra armour because you don't like the way it looks. I'm saying, then don't take it! You don't need extra armour to win games (you don't even need vehicles if you can't stand vehciles without EA either!).

And I probably wouldn't! It's a lot of points for very little actual benefit, and the only good-looking FW model for it is hardly noticeable.

It's just the idea that frustrates me, that my opponent thinks he can actually "ban" me from taking things in my army list because I didn't pay out the ass for a FW upgrade or build something myself out of plasticard. Especially when you consider we're talking about an upgrade that a lot of people don't even think is really worth taking anyway, that some people don't think is so noticeable or critical that it HAS to be modeled, and that one person even posted a real life example explaining why it wouldn't always be noticed in the first place!

Hopefully if this WYSIWYG-lawyering actually turns up in any one of my games, I can just point to the big boxes with "X's" on them on the rear of my tanks and hope that passes for a disruption pod, because if not, I might have to dreadsock someone.


Is it so hard so simply not take any extra armour?

Is it so hard to simply let someone play with it, having paid the points?

ehlijen
13-02-2009, 02:40
It isn't any harder than not using what you can't model. Except that it's against the rules and not everyone will let you break it.

If wysywyg means nothing, we might as well play with paper counters. I've done it and it's still 40k and can still be fun (as long there isn't a breeze!). But it's so much more fun if you have the right models for everything. Is it so evil to want to play by the rules if that also means neither player needs to read any lists (as it's all on the models)?

Sidstyler
13-02-2009, 02:51
It isn't any harder than not using what you can't model. Except that it's against the rules and not everyone will let you break it.

If wysywyg means nothing, we might as well play with paper counters. I've done it and it's still 40k and can still be fun (as long there isn't a breeze!). But it's so much more fun if you have the right models for everything. Is it so evil to want to play by the rules if that also means neither player needs to read any lists (as it's all on the models)?

WYSIWYG also used to count for old models and, I could be wrong on this, but didn't your base have to be painted Goblin Green to be tournament legal? :p

If WYSIWYG were really THAT DAMN IMPORTANT that you simply can't play the game without it, then GW should really get off their god-damned lazy asses and start making plastic bits for ALL of these upgrades. Bits that look good, I'm not putting that **** that FW calls a Tau vehicle upgrade on MY tanks. And I really don't care what you say, a 4+ save for 5 points is too good to simply pass up.

I am not an animal, I am a man. A man that likes winning games now and then and would rather NOT get his ass stomped all the time because he stupidly and purposely doesn't use the best items in his army list for...some reason.

Trekari
13-02-2009, 02:57
It is my belief that some people in this thread want to take WYSIWYG to an absurd level of expectation.

I purchased two Forgeworld Dark Angel Venerable Dreadnoughts, does that give someone the right to refuse to let me play with them if I decide not to take the Venerable upgrade?

No. At that point, they will be finding a new opponent. More likely, they will be finding a distinct LACK of opponents, as nobody wants to play with that kind of a person.

I don't model Extra Armor, and neither does Games Workshop, outside of the Vindicator kit (of the things I've purchased, at least). It is not my responsibility to conjure up suitable "Extra Armor" for the things that GW doesn't produce while at the same time writing Codices that include Extra Armor for those same vehicles.

I don't model Venerable status on my dreadnoughts. It is not my responsibility to purchase the metal kit, along with the plastic kit, just to have one model that has the weapons I want, as well as the Venerable 'look.'

If you AREN'T the kind of gamer who is happy to accommodate a few non-WYSIWYG issues in my army list, then you simply don't belong playing a game of toy soldiers with me and are free to desperately search for other like-minded, elitist jerks.

Sidstyler
13-02-2009, 03:12
Just for the record, I understand the point about following the rules. I find myself sticking up for the rules in threads sometimes because a lot of people simply think they're too good for them, that GW are so bad at writing them that they don't have to acknowledge them.

And I've seen some people that probably could write a better codex than GW, but there really has to be a standard. A common denominator. I might entertain someone and play a house rules codex once or twice, but not all the time. Sometimes I just want to play straight up 40k, not the "house rules" version. The house rules version may be fun, but I don't want to play it all the time. I'm not defending GW at all, I often question them myself and wonder what the hell they were thinking sometimes. I'm under no impression that the game is truly "balanced", but I'd simply prefer to play by the book regardless. Not because I don't trust you, but I just trust the game designers more. I have less reason to believe that they would skew the game or be as biased (even Marines aren't all powerful and win all their games). It may not be perfect, no, but at least we're all playing with the same rules.

So I'm not going to accuse anyone of "elitism", but...even GW aren't all that strict, and often encourage us to play the game our own way and use the book as a guideline if we want to, and make up house rules and the like. They don't often say "You HAVE to play this way", their answer for everything is "roll a dice" or some kind of lame non-answer. And I don't see any reason to be so strict about wargear when the guys in the studio probably do the same thing, or have their own special "staffers only" version of 40k. :p

Anyway, bottom line: I support WYSIWYG, but to a certain extent. I feel that weapons and the like should be modeled "properly", I'll accept substitutes and "counts-as" if the stand-in is convincing enough, and there are certain upgrades that I think don't have to be modeled. I don't care if the models are really old and OOP, even though in some cases it might affect TLOS. I don't care about bases so long as it's reasonable, my Tau commander is a FW model and came with a 60mm base. In my case I don't think there's really any advantage to basing a battlesuit on a bigger base...it makes you easier to assault, means you'll contact more models in assault, your model will take up more space and be harder to hide...I just don't see any advantage. And besides that's the base it came with, so...

[Black] Katalyst
13-02-2009, 03:16
I purchased two Forgeworld Dark Angel Venerable Dreadnoughts, does that give someone the right to refuse to let me play with them if I decide not to take the Venerable upgrade?


That's a really good point.

I always uphold WYSISYG to stiff degree. If it comes in the box, it'll be on the model/s. It's the least I can expect from someone.

It's a simple gaming courtesy.

DarkMatter2
13-02-2009, 03:34
I have a pretty heavily non-WYSIWYG army.

I run a demolisher as a regular Leman Russ, and since I run Mordians who don't have plasma models I use the Melta gun models as proxies (of course I don't run any meltaguns in the army, as I appreciate that would be confusing as hell)

I tell all my opponents before hand what is not WYSIWYG and I always bring a printed army list to my games.

The world has yet to end.

I have never heard the WYSIWYG rule even referenced in my gaming group.

dodicula
13-02-2009, 03:57
my only bug with options is: its 40K not 3 card monty. i.e. if you have 1 land raider and say it has extra armour fine... if you have 3 of them and each looks identical and they all have different equipment, then its a problem

dodicula
13-02-2009, 03:58
I have a pretty heavily non-WYSIWYG army.

I run a demolisher as a regular Leman Russ, and since I run Mordians who don't have plasma models I use the Melta gun models as proxies (of course I don't run any meltaguns in the army, as I appreciate that would be confusing as hell)

I tell all my opponents before hand what is not WYSIWYG and I always bring a printed army list to my games.

The world has yet to end.

I have never heard the WYSIWYG rule even referenced in my gaming group.

Counts as is fair play

jeffersonian000
13-02-2009, 05:53
What if it doesn't come in the box? What if it's a "soft" upgrade that isn't easy to model, even if you know what it should look like? What if you, or anyone else for that matter, don't know what a specific upgrade looks like?

It’s easy to model a Veteran Sergeant, as he's the only one allowed to have that specific weargear that would be in that specific squad. But how do you model a holo field? Or a void shield? How do you model that a Dreadnought is older and more skilled? Do you have to purchase a specific model, or can you buy a generic model and use paint to get the effect you want?

From my point of view, small stuff that can be put in a belt pouch or is too small to see at this scale should be able to be "had" but not "held", if you don't feel the need to model it. WYSIWYG is supposed to be a way of keeping the game simple by allowing models to use what is modeled on rather than "counts as" something that is radically different. It’s a rule for clarity, not a rule that forces an individual to give up their imagination and artistic license.

If I wanted to field Sisters of Battle as a Space Marine chapter, took all the points and stats from the current Codex: Space Marines, and represented every piece of gear correctly, and expanded to my opponent what I had done so there was no doubt, why could I not play that army as Marines? It is WYSIWYG, all the weird stuff has been coved between both players, and that's left is to roll the dice.

Correct?

Let’s look at Extra Armour. Very few bits are available in common to model extra armour. All it does is allow a vehicle to move when it would normally have to stay in place for a turn. Why can't that be from improved crew safety belts? The AV doesn't change (which ironically doesn't have to be modeled). While I use to just throw some extra track links up on the front of my Rhinos to represent extra armour, and call it good, I can see an Eldar or Tau playing having issues with this. Should they be penalized for not have the correct bits in their kits?

I think not.

SJ

[Black] Katalyst
13-02-2009, 13:13
There's WYSIWYG and "counts as".

Like the example of the IG. Since he doesn't have plasma guns its fair to say all the melta guns are plasma guns as long as they ALL are.

The leman russ is a bit iffy. There's clearly two different boxes of leman russes but the demolisher box is more expensive, so I'd let it go.