PDA

View Full Version : Common Magic Items & WYSIWYG



Arbiter7
28-11-2009, 14:18
Cheers guys!

I was wondering whether you think this would be a problem.

I frequently use common magic items, but in their description, it's always swords. Provided one keeps to the restriction of one per army, would you think it OK to change the kind of weapon *namewise* and not ruleswise? E.g. its more fluffy that a warrior-priest wields a "Hammer of Might" than a "Sword of Might". Of course it would remain counting as a magical hand weapon, just not a sword.

Provided that it is one per type of magic item per army "e.g. only one XXX hand weapon of might", do you think this contradicts WYSIWYG?

Thanks!

Vermin-thing
28-11-2009, 14:23
Sure, just yell your opponent what your intentions are.

WYSIWYG is a joke. Really. If you paid the points for it, I have no problem with having a sword-axe of all power.

Taishar
28-11-2009, 14:32
Per GW, it's fine.


Cheers

bludsturm
28-11-2009, 15:35
Just keep in mind it's a magical weapon, not necessarily a magical 'hand weapon' since that is an important distinction for GW!

Condottiere
28-11-2009, 15:53
This is an area where you have to give some allowance, since the possession of which is supposedly secret in most games, until usage.

Then you can proclaim it, and if it's differently termed then the generic name in the BRB, mention in the next sentence what it's capabilities are.

enyoss
28-11-2009, 18:04
I'm pretty sure it even says explicitly in the BRB that the name `Sword of Might', for example, should be interpretted `Weapon of Might'.

The only time you have to declare WYSIWYG is when the magic item has some specific mundane rules, for example a magic lance or magic shield. In this case I'd point out to your opponent that the model is armed with a lance or shield, only declaring it's magic qualities once they are required during the game.

Lijacote
28-11-2009, 19:13
WYSIWYG is a rotten rule in fantasy, and as far as I know not really all that enforced. If you're going to make loud noises because my guys (characters) aren't wearing two-handed weapons when they have great weapons or a one-handed weapon with a hand weapon / shield or whatever... I'm going to make loud noises too, and everyone will be uncomfortable

We don't want that

yorch
28-11-2009, 19:19
WYSIWYG is a rotten rule in fantasy, and as far as I know not really all that enforced. If you're going to make loud noises because my guys (characters) aren't wearing two-handed weapons when they have great weapons or a one-handed weapon with a hand weapon / shield or whatever... I'm going to make loud noises too, and everyone will be uncomfortable

We don't want that

Exactly... The miniatures range does not encourage WYSIWYG at all, even less with newer armies where any "generic" character is being released (non existant generic Skaven and DoC characters say Hi!). Doing it would be very constly and not everyone has money, time or habilities to do it, as simple as that.

In WH40k for example is different, as miniature position, the plastics and sprues variety really encourages to play WYSIWYG, but in any case you are not going to complain if his general wears plasma grenades and they are not represented...

AtmaTheWanderer
28-11-2009, 19:52
Exactly... The miniatures range does not encourage WYSIWYG at all, even less with newer armies where any "generic" character is being released (non existant generic Skaven and DoC characters say Hi!). Doing it would be very constly and not everyone has money, time or habilities to do it, as simple as that.

While for the most part I agree with the point fantasy players are way more relaxed about WYSIWYG, I disagree with you on the model range portion.

And, IMHO, they don't need to release new character blisters, there are tons of classic models that look *just* fine.


In WH40k for example is different, as miniature position, the plastics and sprues variety really encourages to play WYSIWYG, but in any case you are not going to complain if his general wears plasma grenades and they are not represented...

There are no more "fluffy" or WYSIWYG bits on a typical wh40k sprue, excepting the chapter upgrade sprues, then there are on a typical fantasy sprue.

The Red Scourge
28-11-2009, 20:11
WYSIWYG is a rotten rule in fantasy

Thats why fantasy has no such rule :)

enyoss
28-11-2009, 20:22
WYSIWYG is a rotten rule in fantasy, and as far as I know not really all that enforced.

True to a certain extent, and I'm personally not too fussy about it. However, you probably agree that it is slightly annoying when units suddenly appear to have equipment that is in no way shown on the models. Characters I'm not too bothered about, as I expect the unexpected from them, but assessing your chances against enemy units relies on knowing what they are armed with, and WYSIWYG really helps here.

Of course, if my opponent kindly lets me know what units have what I really don't care if the `spearmen' have great weapons or similar :).

Crazy Harborc
28-11-2009, 20:22
Been using WHFB rules since 3rd Edition was "it". It's always been "acceptable" to keep the tats and change the name to fit in better. THAT said, the magic whatever did/does have to be on the use it list for that character/army/unit/minie.

WYSIWYG for fantasy is NOT too likely to ever be official/required. It would require GW to generate too many models/minies that would be low sellers. In other words, not enough money in it.

Taishar
28-11-2009, 21:40
Yeah, have units armed correctly is important...characters not so much.

Desert Rain
28-11-2009, 22:02
WYSIWYG != warhammer fantasy. The models doesn't support it in any way.

Talonz
29-11-2009, 00:25
Thats why fantasy has no such rule :)

Untrue. Read the BRB section on weapons.

Dageo
29-11-2009, 01:53
There is nothing I hate more than people fielding for example a block of marauders with hw/shields, then when I reach combat it turns out they have great weapons, just because "GW don't make models with great weapons, so I'm using this". Lamest excuse ever. It doesnt take very much immagination to convert a unit to have weapons which they're allowed to use, yet the box set doesn't come with.

Characters are a different matter however. If a character has a magic weapon "sword of x", it doesn't' matter if they model itself has an axe, mace, etc. Talismans, scrolls, etc don't have to be modeled on either (unless you want to). However, things like shields should be shown.

In the end, you should be able to judge a character's equipment from looking at it, even if this doesn't include the specifics. A character with a 2H weapon, will either have a great weapon or halberd or something. Someone with a mace and shield, might have a hw/shield, or a magic weapon/magic shield or some combination of that. To do otherwise, without clarification with your opponent at the start of the game, just ain't cricket.

tmarichards
29-11-2009, 04:33
Whenever I deploy a unit or character, if it's equipped with something not shown on the model (or vice-versa) I always declare it to my opponent so that they know, and remoind them every so often (for example, if he's about to shoot at my Xbows, or charge my shades, I'll remind him that they've got shields or great weapons respectively)- I do the same if I'm using a command group, but don't have the models.

With magic weapons, my dreadlord for example carries Crimson Death, which is described in the fluff as being a halberd. So, when I deploy him, I say that he's armed with a halberd, but don't say that it's magical until he swings it. I find this works for casual gaming, although tournaments might have a stircter attitude on WYSIWYG.
But yeah, it always pisses me off when someone doesn't tell you what their models are equipped with, if you can't be arsed to make the effort to model them properly then at least make the effort to be polite to your opponent.

Talonz
29-11-2009, 05:22
There is nothing I hate more than people fielding for example a block of marauders with hw/shields, then when I reach combat it turns out they have great weapons, just because "GW don't make models with great weapons, so I'm using this". Lamest excuse ever.

Yes! Part of the hobby is modeling, and modeling correct weapons is actually required (at least with a majority of the unit) precisely because it is misleading to your opponent otherwise.

Even if you explain the differences, it still isnt modeled correctly and just looks silly.


Characters are a different matter however. If a character has a magic weapon "sword of x", it doesn't' matter if they model itself has an axe, mace, etc.

2 different things there. Characters DO have to be modelled correctly. But generic magic weapons (ones without specefic 'spear', 'lance', 'bow' designations, etc.) can be modelled with any generic hand weapon type.

Freman Bloodglaive
29-11-2009, 07:59
My Arch Lector is modelled on warhorse with great weapon and shield, generally he's armed with the sword of fate though.

If units aren't WYSIWYG like my spearmen without shields I'll tell my opponent that they have shields (I use the 6th edition models and they don't look good with shields).

wilsongrahams
29-11-2009, 08:32
As mentioned, the BRB states that a model wielding a magic weapon must have it modelled. In the section on common magic items, it states clearly that a sword of might may be an axe of might etc, so as long as your character has some kind of weapon, feel free to use a common magic item.

As for a model showing WYSIWYG, there is no explicit rule for all gear and items, but it is encouraged, however tournaments are different.

There are ways around it though, for example my High Elf Lord is the metal one with shield and great weapon. Usually I give him magic armour which cannot be improved, so i drop the shield when purchasing him and say it counts as part of his overall 'Armour of Caledor' and he then just uses his great weapon. Giving him a shield would not benefit in any way game wise, but it is modelled on the model, so either way it doesn't mater as I can declare it as being part of the magic armour i bought that does not follow the normal rules for shield, as many magic items do not get the mundane weapon bonuses etc.

The Red Scourge
29-11-2009, 08:47
2 different things there. Characters DO have to be modelled correctly. But generic magic weapons (ones without specefic 'spear', 'lance', 'bow' designations, etc.) can be modelled with any generic hand weapon type.

Rules quote please :)

I'll bring you my counterargument in advance:

wilsongrahams
29-11-2009, 08:52
Not sure what Vlad is supposed to be showing there unless you mean his armour?

I too noticed that about the models, but you could assume it wasn't tough enough to count as armour - it could be made of little black gemstones or shaped leather?

The Red Scourge
29-11-2009, 09:41
Not sure what Vlad is supposed to be showing there unless you mean his armour?

I too noticed that about the models, but you could assume it wasn't tough enough to count as armour - it could be made of little black gemstones or shaped leather?

Of course its his armor - Vlad doesn't wear armor :)

You can assume a lot of things and thats the point. Fantasy is about keeping your opponent guessing. It might seem a little wrong to use a half naked Lahmia vampire as your tooled up, fully armored combat lord, but you could always assume that years of undeath has hardened her skin to an extent that it confers a 2+ armor save.

Its a magical world, where no two things are alike. Swords of Might aren't produced by Gerald Ford, but made by mad magicians swinging dead cats over their heads at full moon.

Not that I won't appreciate people pouring a little work into making their characters WYSIWHATEVER.

Braad
29-11-2009, 09:44
Studded leather has been used as armour throughout times, and would at least count as magic armour... Does that Vlad model has no armour? Weird... If I see it, I would judge it at least heavy, maybe full plate.

The only true rule I'm aware of that actually exists in written letters in the book, is that the majority of the models in a unit must be armed with the weapon they are assumed to carry.

A character is also considered to be a unit in itself if you ask me, and thus the majority (at least 1, in this case) has to be armed with the (mundane) weapons they got. And it does make the game easier if you do so.

Magic items do not have to be shown on a model as there is no wysiwyg rule for them, so the same goes for the weapons as they loose all rule for normal weapons. Though personally I do prefer to show an item that has 'spear' in its rules as a spear on the model, I don't think this is necessary.

I got 27 characters to pick from, for my O&G, and 12 more to paint :p
I know, I'm a bit crazy, but I do like to switch stuff around all the time and still keep the models in line with their equipment.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
29-11-2009, 18:08
SNIP
2 different things there. Characters DO have to be modelled correctly. But generic magic weapons (ones without specefic 'spear', 'lance', 'bow' designations, etc.) can be modelled with any generic hand weapon type.

This is a silly assumption. Do you never change the equipment your characters carry, or do you remodel your characters every time you want to try something different? Seriously, who has that kind of time or money?

I see no problem with character having items that aren't modeled on them and trust my opponents enough that what the character does have won't change during the game. Heck, I play some Celtic themed high elves where my general [based on Cuchulainn] is modeled in his chariot with a throwing spear even though in game terms he has a lance and the Bow of the Seafarer [the spear is Gae Bulga after all] and no one has ever had a problem with it [especially since I point it out at the beginning of the game].

rtunian
29-11-2009, 18:29
Characters DO have to be modelled correctly

the weapons rule you quoted does not make any reference to characters, and all of the examples given in the paragraph implying wysiwyg are of rank and file troopers.

furthermore, in the section on characters, there is this:
"the special character models are normally equally exceptional, and players often field them in their army using the rules for a normal hero or lord character of their chosen army. this is perfectly fine, as long as you let your opponent know that the model is not the special character himself, but just a normal lord or hero that happens to look a lot like him!"

the text in this quote is the opposite of wysiwyg, because what you see (special character) is not what you get (normal hero). there is no indication that you have to change the model to reflect the equipment loadout on the character. there is no implication that any conversion is or may be necessary.

nowhere does it say that this is an exception to the normal rule for characters. further, i see it as a precedent for using character models which do not perfectly represent their equipment loadout.

it's the most important rule and sportsmanship/ethics which prohibit you from deceiving your opponent (regarding characters). it is not the rules for weapons and magic items.

Talonz
29-11-2009, 19:36
A number of people clearly havn't read the rules thoroughly nor understand that this thread is about WhatYouSeeIsWhatYouGet (wysiwig). If you are not following that rule and your opponent has no problem with it, thats fine! But at tournaments which enforce the rule or when your opponent wants to play by the rules and/or wants your models modelled properly, prepare for the conseqeunces...

armour brb p29

"Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid damage IF they are wearing armour or carrying shields..."

If that model is not wearing armour or shield, you cant really claim any armour save for him based on armour or shields.

weapons. brb p54

"...the whole unit counts as being armed as the majority."

A single character is a unit of one. His weapon must be modelled appropriately. Magic items are a loose section because most are '(weapon) of X' without special weapon rules. To use any special weapon rules (lance, spear, great weapon, etc.), magic or otherwise, it should be modelled clearly.


Now as mentioned most people tend to be very loose with this rule, especially with unfinished armies. Thats fine. But the rules do exist and imo, we should all aspire to comply with them eventually, because modelling is a huge aspect of this hobby and I cannot stand seeing entire units without shields getting shield save bonuses, for instance.

Crazy Harborc
30-11-2009, 02:46
Been to some GDs and tournies. Some at GW run events, some at indie events. WYSIWYG has NEVER been "a enforced rule" at events I attended or played in/at. We are talking about fantasy.

IF and it IS if......local judges want to include a special rule about WYSIWYG they would have to let the players know a specail rule had been added to the rules for the event.

enyoss
30-11-2009, 03:30
IF and it IS if......local judges want to include a special rule about WYSIWYG they would have to let the players know a specail rule had been added to the rules for the event.

I think the point is that the rule is already there.

rtunian
30-11-2009, 03:49
the point is that it is not there.

the quotes given that support wysiwyg being a rule are taken out of context. in the context in which the quotes lie, characters are not being discussed (further, it is noteworthy that the "IF" is not in fact emphasized as quoted above). the former is merely an introductory statement to the armor saves section and to paraphrase, it says "if you are wearing armor, you may get an armor save". it does not refer to the appearance of the model. it does not say "if the miniature is modeled with armor and a shield it may have an armor save", nor does the context remotely imply that.

even if you want to take a super-literal approach, you are out of luck still, because a miniature does not wear armor, wield weapons, or have any saves. a miniature does not move, does not have any strength, weaponskill, and generally very little toughness. there is no active verb that can be applied to a miniature, because a miniature cannot do anything (it is inanimate). the point is that the rule you are quoting is referring to how a model is equipped, and not how a model looks.

in the second quote, the context is a unit of rank and file troopers. because you have so many troopers, it says, only a majority of them have to be modeled as the unit is equipped. this allows for a diverse look which keeps things from being monotonous. nowhere in the relevant paragraph does it mention characters or say that characters have to be modeled with the right equipment.

and even if you wanted to take a super literal appraoch and say a character is a unit of 1, it would still only apply to 51% of the unit upgrades, because that's what armor and weapons are: upgrades. if a character is upgraded with armor, a shield, and a talisman, and the miniature has armor a shield and a hand weapon, then you would still be conforming to this misapplication of the rule (because all models have hand weapons, you'd have 3/4). and it would NOT be wysiwyg, because you don't see the talisman.

edit:
also, as i demonstrated earlier, the book tells you that it's okay to use special char models for normal chars, which is so obviously not wysiwyg, it's not even funny anymore.

Crazy Harborc
30-11-2009, 03:52
enyoss.....
Page number etc...please and thank you. Put another way......NOT going to be a problem for my regular opponents and I. We've been using GW's rules for WHFB since 3rd Edition. For us there is no WYSIWYG in WHFB.

Ad-Rock
30-11-2009, 04:09
weapons. brb p54

"...the whole unit counts as being armed as the majority."

A single character is a unit of one. His weapon must be modelled appropriately. Magic items are a loose section because most are '(weapon) of X' without special weapon rules. To use any special weapon rules (lance, spear, great weapon, etc.), magic or otherwise, it should be modelled clearly.


So, according to your logic if a character has joined a unit he is armed identically to the majority of models in that unit...

I'd also argue that a unit refers to a number of models, not an independent model.

I have no problem with people using models that aren't WYSISYG, as long as they tell me before the game what they are armed with (not including hidden magical equipment, of course). I also make a point of asking regularly what different units are armed with so I don't forget.

enyoss
30-11-2009, 04:14
Well, I'm 5000 miles away from my rulebook, so I'll have to leave page numbers to someone else unfortunately. However, I'm sure there is a passage which states that equipment must, to some degree, be depicted on the model.

Look, as I've already said, I'm not too bothered by WYSIWYG. None of my spearmen, seaguard, or any other units for that matter, have shields on the models, yet I certainly employ them in the game after first warning my opponent. However, are you seriously saying that the rules would be 100% in my favour if I just started using my silverhelms as dragon princes and didn't tell my opponent, as apart from WYSIWYG (if someone can find a page number) there's nothing I can see which would stop me... if I wanted to be such an ass of course :)

Talonz
30-11-2009, 07:13
the point is that it is not there.

You have been shown directly otherwise.


...in the context in which the quotes lie, characters are not being discussed

No, units and models are. Of which, characters are one type.


...the former is merely an introductory statement to the armor saves section ...

Introductory or not, it is a legal rules section.


even if you want to take a super-literal approach, you are out of luck still, because a miniature does not wear armor, wield weapons, or have any saves.

You are really grasping here. Seriouslly, thats your counter argument? Good grief.


point is that the rule you are quoting is referring to how a model is equipped, and not how a model looks.

Seems pretty straitforward. If I can look at your model and clearly point out that it has no shield, I can rightly say you dont get a shield bonus for that model's as.


in the second quote, the context is a unit of rank and file troopers.

At no point does it say that. You are assuming because they use the plural of models that it cant apply to units of one. Thats a bad assumption.


and even if you wanted to take a super literal appraoch and say a character is a unit of 1,

Brb p.6 and 72.


it would still only apply to 51% of the unit upgrades,

No it applies to armour,shield and weapons with special rules.


... and it would NOT be wysiwyg, because you don't see the talisman.

Seems like you are confusing 40k and fantasy here.



also, as i demonstrated earlier, the book tells you that it's okay to use special char models for normal chars, which is so obviously not wysiwyg, it's not even funny anymore.

The brb has that section because that is specefically an exception to wysiwig.

The Red Scourge
30-11-2009, 07:59
However, are you seriously saying that the rules would be 100% in my favour if I just started using my silverhelms as dragon princes and didn't tell my opponent, as apart from WYSIWYG (if someone can find a page number) there's nothing I can see which would stop me... if I wanted to be such an ass of course :)

Of course not. The game is about having a good time, being an ass usually spoils that :p And you're welcome to use your silverhelms as dragon princes, they're elves in armor on a horse. Nothing wrong in preferring to use those instead of those rater silly DP models :)

WLBjork
30-11-2009, 08:04
enyoss.....
Page number etc...please and thank you. Put another way......NOT going to be a problem for my regular opponents and I. We've been using GW's rules for WHFB since 3rd Edition. For us there is no WYSIWYG in WHFB.

Page 54, first paragraph under "Weapons and Units".


Interestingly, the only mention of anything close to WYSIWYG is for weapons. There is no such mention for anything else - e.g. armour.


edit: Red Scourge - I'd add just as long as there isn't another similar looking unit of SHs being used as SHs that I can get confused with. Red painted SHs as DPs, Blues painted SHs as SHs for example would be fine.

rtunian
30-11-2009, 14:09
lol talonz.

you are so convinced that no amount of exposition will change your mind. well, you can go ahead and look down your nose at "everyone who chooses not to follow this rule" (which isn't actually a rule), all you like.

but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong

Lijacote
30-11-2009, 14:55
If the objective is making the hobby look bad, then well done. Mission complete.

Condottiere
30-11-2009, 16:03
Outside of a few players who have complete armies, most of us proxy to some extend (and in large games, even some of the fore-mentioned completists).

Usual practise is, even with units completely WYSIWYG, is to try to catch your opponent's eye while deploying and state what's obvious (or should be) about the unit, whether command or equipment.

Crazy Harborc
30-11-2009, 18:01
One of the BIG pluses of not gaming at a GW store and or official event is being able to stick with the spirit of enjoyment of a great way to socialize and interact with friends (new or old).

Until wargaming becomes a "blood sport, for keeps", my opponents and I will continue to follow the rules that are spelled out within their context.

wilsongrahams
30-11-2009, 19:23
Okay then, a vote here then, do you think a model wielding a magic weapon of some sort, have some type of weapon modelled on him? Same for say a magic bow? Armour is different because magic armour could take many forms. So what do you think is acceptable?

I regularly use a model in armour with shield to represent a model in magic armour that has no shield - using the shield as just part of the magic armour. However, I do like a model to show roughly what he has, eg:

If my model has a two handed weapon modelled, i either use this as a great weapon or a magic weapon.

If my model has a bow, it is used as a bow or magic bow.

If the model has a lance, it is used as a lance or magic lance etc... you get the picture for halberds, spears, hand weapons?

This is what I use, but then I have a variety of models to use. I don't enforce this on my opponents armies, however I do prefer to be able to tell what an enemy has by looking or by being told. If something is not declared, I really dislike finding that a model with a sword and shield in fact has a magic two-handed halberd for example. If this is pointed out first, this is fine, but many opponents don't point things out like this. I think this is where WYSIWYG comes into it. Without being told, you should still be able to guess what a model is armed with with more than a 50% chance. Does anyone agree?

The Red Scourge
30-11-2009, 19:34
I don't :)

There are some problems with that. For instance the only way a vampire character can get a light armor is to buy a magical armor - which is a bit of a giveaway.

Personally I'm happy knowing if the character is a fighter or a wizard. Both will have tricks up their sleeve :)

O&G'sRule
30-11-2009, 19:34
WYSIWYG doesn't apply to magic items as far as i'm concerned. Anyway, there are white dwarf articles from jervis saying that just because it says "sword" in the description doesn't mean theres not an (for example) axe with similar magical properties, so you could easily have a "chaos rune axe". If not, you couldn't have 2 armies with the same item against each other. I think it was a topic around when space marines were rereleased, as they were talking about how you can use each of the special characters in each of the space marine armies, not just the white scars one in the whites scars, ultra marines in ultra marine armies, just use the stats/abilities and give them a new name, same apllies here.
Frankly, the WYSIWYG police need to remember they are playing a GAME with ToYS, if they want to treat it so seriously they really need to look at their lives and sort themselves out

Mythrider
30-11-2009, 20:13
Personally, if a model isn`t WYSIWYG I won`t use it. Be it WFB or 40K.

I will preface all this by saying 90% of the games I play are in a tournament setting.

The whole sword/axe/hammer of Might/Strength/Battle is clearly laid out in the BRB and shouldn`t be an issue.

That being said I would consider it common courtesy to see any weapon that is specified as spear/lance/great weapon to actually be modelled, especially missile weapons. I would hate to finish moving my knights into a great charge position only to find out that the elf with the sword and shield on the other side of the table is now sitting on my flank with his invisble bolt thrower bow.

The only part of WFB that must be WYSIWYG as per my reading of the rules is the weapon/command loadouts of RnF units. Namely if your unit doesn`t have spears modeled on them don`t try to tell me they carry spears. Similarly, I frown on such things as being told that the unit of 30 identical Goblins actually has full command. The first rule is to make sure everyone is having fun; to me, WYSIWYG is just a courteous way of helping that along.

For casual games I don`t mind letting some things slide but just as food for thought, how far are you non-WYSIWYGers willing to let things go? Do you bother to paint your models?

Do you bother to model mounts for your characters? I realize models are mandated to be on the appropriate size base but would it be accaptable for me to use the DE Dreadlord with the Dragon hatchling on his shoulder as a Dreadlord on a Dragon against you.

I can already hear some grumbling about LOS issues but really I have an elf and a dragon on the proper sized base. No?

The bottom line is a large portion of this hobby is about modelling and painting (please for the love of God don`t tell me you play WFB for the quality of the ruleset). If we, as WFB players are not going to bother with having the proper (ie. WYSIWYG) models then really why bother with having the models at all. Pieces of paper are much cheaper and our armies could be changed at a whim between games.

@O&G`sRule

Actually the bit you put in about "If not, you couldn't have 2 armies with the same item against each other" is the way it was at one point. If I recall correctly in 2nd or 3rd Ed. (the goblin vs. high elf box) all the Magic Items were printed on cards and if the other guy already had the card you wanted to bad for you.

wilsongrahams
30-11-2009, 21:22
You said better than I what I wanted to know - concerning WYSIWYG, especially with the Dreadlord model.

WYSIWYG may not be an explicit rule, and most people are willing to let some things slip, especially for newer players, but there are limits and so there has to be some guidelines on what is acceptable. If people keep magic items hidden until needed, how is a model with sword and shield supposed to represent a model with a magic bow?

A particularly large sword (As most character models have), could to me, count as a hand weapon, great weapon or magic weapon of either axe, sword, choppa variety, but not a spear, halberd, bow, or a lance.

Talonz
01-12-2009, 07:07
lol talonz.

you are so convinced that no amount of exposition will change your mind. well, you can go ahead and look down your nose at "everyone who chooses not to follow this rule" (which isn't actually a rule), all you like.

but that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong

Right back atchya, except that I'm perfectly willing to back up my arguments with actual rules.

Blanket, generic unsupported statements do not make for a defensible position in a debate.

ChaosVC
01-12-2009, 09:45
WYSIWYG only applys to units and models rather than magical items. For example you don't call a bunch of goblins...chaos warriors....though sadly alot of gamers who doesn't really care had used much worst things to proxy for chaos warriors~thats why I wear two steam tanks on my feet and makes calls with my war altar when I decide to meet them for a game, I need to hurry before I finish my bag of swordsmen and handgunners along they way, *sigh* yes~I like them nutty.

Well anyone who is anal enough to demand that magic items should be WYSIWG should also chant the verse of Libermortis (or anything of that sort) every time he rolls to cast a spell, if he can't, it should be counted as miscast and and demand that he blow himself up with a dry blower...or a hooker.

Condottiere
01-12-2009, 10:36
Wasn't there a case where a player pointed out to his opponent that a unit of Wood Elves didn't have arrows, and therefore didn't have anything to shoot from their bow, following the observation that his steamtank doesn't function?

Lijacote
01-12-2009, 14:58
You are correct in your reminiscence.

O&G'sRule
01-12-2009, 15:37
Actually the bit you put in about "If not, you couldn't have 2 armies with the same item against each other" is the way it was at one point. If I recall correctly in 2nd or 3rd Ed. (the goblin vs. high elf box) all the Magic Items were printed on cards and if the other guy already had the card you wanted to bad for you.

Yep, thankfully that was 4 (4th ed) editions ago. However that was sorted out even then by both players having their own set. If it's good enough for the people running the company its good enough for me and you. Its fine if you want to do modelling so extensively, not everyone feels the same. Some people like to just play a game, decide theyre going to use a magic item/weapon for that game, so see no point being so fussy as to actually sculpt each model perfectly. Some people enjoy the painting, but not the modelling too. Applying your own rules to everyone is just saying "as long as I'm having fun, who cares about everyone else". If the ruleset is so bad, theres plenty of other hobbies out there

wilsongrahams
01-12-2009, 18:58
Most situations where you are playing against a friend, proxying etc is fine, however with a pick-up game, where debate about something is less friendly usually, it is better to have a model representing what you are using, or otherwise just cut some paper up into little squares with 'spearman' written on it and see where that gets you. Units and models includes every miniature they make. This means that a weapon has to be represented in some way, even if not exactly the same, such as a sword being an axe etc, but this does not allow for such items as magic lances on sword armed models etc... This is what people are complaining about. They don't want people to paint a normal lance up special to represent a magic one, only for the model to have a lance if it wantas to wield a magic lance instead of a bow and shield.

When assembling my models, I stop, read the army book, look at the rest of my models, and then decide what to model them with. With the plastics this is very easy with one kit, however, there is a wide selection of options in metal for all other armies. This means I have a variety of models, but most importantly, the ones I want to field. If I don't know what choice to go for beforehand, then I run the math, ask a few questions, or test it out with blue tac for one freindly game so that I have the correct model when playing against strangers.

O&G'sRule
02-12-2009, 00:39
to be honest all models are assumed to have hand weapons, so if the choice is between modelling your spearmen unit with spears or not then it makes no sense not to put the spears on, as you can say they aren't using the spears if you don't want to use them, the same goes for anything if the second option is a handweapon. But as long as there is a clear army list, there really shouldn't be a problem. give your opponent a list minus anything he doesn't need to know if really bothered

Talonz
02-12-2009, 04:55
*facepalm*

If your models are modelled corectly, giving your opponent your list is the very last thing you should have to do.

The Red Scourge
02-12-2009, 06:07
Wasn't there a case where a player pointed out to his opponent that a unit of Wood Elves didn't have arrows, and therefore didn't have anything to shoot from their bow, following the observation that his steamtank doesn't function?

Oh yeah. Great story that one. I think a lever was glued on wrong to the STank, so of course it couldn't work :D

Cypher, the Emperor
02-12-2009, 11:31
Right back atchya, except that I'm perfectly willing to back up my arguments with actual rules.

Blanket, generic unsupported statements do not make for a defensible position in a debate.

I'm sorry, but I have to cut in here:

You're just wrong.

There is no WYSIWYG for magic items in fantasy, it has never been enforced at a GW sanctioned event, and it can't have it because having WYSIWYG on magic items UNDERMINES A HUGE PART OF THE GAMES STRATEGY.

Have you ever PLAYED a game of Warhammer?
Seriously!
The fact that you are actively encouraged to hide the existence Magic Items and Banners and that the fact that there exists a mechanic for revealing them is a integral part of competitive strategy. If you had to accurately model items on characters, then why would game mechanics exist to hide them?

Read a battle report in White Dwarf, they don't model equipment in most of them (exceptions include Folly of Prince Rodrik, and a big deal was made out of it). There exists a reason that "open list" is a tournament comp that is considered to be something you need to inform players of itself supports the lack of character based WYSIWYG.

I have no choice but to determine that you have argued yourself into a corner by way of having no idea what you're talking about and by having no experience with the competitive scene, or the stance of GW on the issue.

O&G'sRule
02-12-2009, 13:56
*facepalm*

If your models are modelled corectly, giving your opponent your list is the very last thing you should have to do.

As previously stated, alot of people have no desire or time to model everything perfectly

wilsongrahams
02-12-2009, 15:42
'Perfectly' is different from reasonable. I think there is a grey area that is acceptable, and then there is just pure proxying. For those not in favour of any kind of WYSIWYG would you allow me to use a griffon as a dragon for example? Maybe a bad example but there must be something you would not like to come up against. Against a friend it is less of an issue as the result matters less, as is actually finishing the game before pizza...

The Red Scourge
02-12-2009, 16:46
'Perfectly' is different from reasonable. I think there is a grey area that is acceptable, and then there is just pure proxying. For those not in favour of any kind of WYSIWYG would you allow me to use a griffon as a dragon for example? Maybe a bad example but there must be something you would not like to come up against. Against a friend it is less of an issue as the result matters less, as is actually finishing the game before pizza...

I sure would let you use that griffdrake. And you'd probably have the courtesy to tell me that it was a super tough griffon suffering from a bad case of halitosis :)

Sure I'm in favor of WYSIwhatever, but not to the degree where you make it a rule. I find it a bit anal to check my opponents models for whatever little piece of equipment. If its a character, then make the model stand out. His equipment is mostly secret anyway, but if you've taken the time to convert the model, and given it a decent paint job, then it just adds to the experience. The models are there to give the game its atmosphere and visual appeal, technically the game could just as well be played with little pieces of paper.

The game experience is usually a result of the two gamers personalities, their models will rarely have a say this :)

O&G'sRule
02-12-2009, 17:39
'Perfectly' is different from reasonable. I think there is a grey area that is acceptable, and then there is just pure proxying. For those not in favour of any kind of WYSIWYG would you allow me to use a griffon as a dragon for example? Maybe a bad example but there must be something you would not like to come up against. Against a friend it is less of an issue as the result matters less, as is actually finishing the game before pizza...

No and thats completely different, its nothing to do with being forced to remodel your whole collection everytime you want a slight change in how a character or unit operates. For example using wood elves as an OK army wouldn't come into a WYSIWYG argument either, thats different too. You should be able to buy a unit/character of whatever, model them however you like, and be able to use them as any varient of that model described in the book, If jervis says its fine I really don't see how people can say it isn't the case. That is all

O&G'sRule
02-12-2009, 17:43
I have no choice but to determine that you have argued yourself into a corner by way of having no idea what you're talking about and by having no experience with the competitive scene, or the stance of GW on the issue.

Exactly, theres so many people on here that have an opinion on everything, but clearly don't play the games. Just sit at their computers, reading rules out of context and adding bits to fulfill their argument

wilsongrahams
02-12-2009, 20:24
I sure would let you use that griffdrake. And you'd probably have the courtesy to tell me that it was a super tough griffon suffering from a bad case of halitosis :)

Sure I'm in favor of WYSIwhatever, but not to the degree where you make it a rule. I find it a bit anal to check my opponents models for whatever little piece of equipment. If its a character, then make the model stand out. His equipment is mostly secret anyway, but if you've taken the time to convert the model, and given it a decent paint job, then it just adds to the experience. The models are there to give the game its atmosphere and visual appeal, technically the game could just as well be played with little pieces of paper.

I guess I see what you are coming at here, and I don't disagree at all. I'm glad you realise I'm being light hearted rather than trying to say it should be a rule. I just think people should at least try to go in theme. It doesn't need ot be 100%, but just something approaching the right model is a help for most games. And yes, I would always point something out beforehand, as I do my archers not having a champion despite me using my champion model. Magic items themselves are kept secret obviously.


No and thats completely different, its nothing to do with being forced to remodel your whole collection everytime you want a slight change in how a character or unit operates. For example using wood elves as an OK army wouldn't come into a WYSIWYG argument either, thats different too. You should be able to buy a unit/character of whatever, model them however you like, and be able to use them as any varient of that model described in the book, If jervis says its fine I really don't see how people can say it isn't the case. That is all

I'm not trying to say that people should be force to remodel their whole collection. I think you are going to the opposite extreme here from what i am trying to say.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that an army with models for three units of spearmen should be able to use them as spearmen, halberdiers and archers in the same game, which is just confusing and very easy to end up fighting the wrong one as they move about etc. When GW make models armed with all the options, there is no real need for having just one model used as all variants. For example, high elf spearmen used as phoenix guard, when there are models for them. What I don't mind is something like Spearmen being used as sea guard as the general unit is still shown by the models - spears, armour and shields - if pointed out they are missing their bows, that's not so bad, as i can still tell the combat potential of the unit by simply looking. I don't scrutinise any models, but from 4 foot away across the other side of the table I should be able to tell what I am facing. If this applies to troops, then in general it should apply to characters. Every item shouldn't be 100% accurate, but you should still be able to tell what you are up against on the whole. As stated above with the griffon etc, I feel this is fine for friendly games - I wouldn't do it myself as I have a large army and a good choice - but I don't think it that appropriate for players that you have never met and who would therefore be more of a competitive player, and you are less sure that they are changing things etc just to win.

I rememebr this from the late 1990's when my friend and i joined a game club. Against each other we never lied so a minor alteration etc wasn;t a problem as we could ask, and we trusted each other, but against people we did not know, equipment often changed, and without this on the model it was hard to prove, and it generally spoiled the game, as the fun was lost, as it always is against a cheat. WYSIWYG helps to alleviate this. This is why I am FOR an improvement in WYSIWYG however I do agree that a 100% ruling of every specific, and item should be modelled. Do you understand what I mean here, or do you think I am just being defensive? That is not my intention, I am merely trying to better explain what I mean, and discussion should always be light hearted - I can call my ex if I want an argument...

Talonz
02-12-2009, 20:26
I'm sorry, but I have to cut in here:

You're just wrong.

There is no WYSIWYG for magic items in fantasy...

Clearly, you havnt actually read all my posts on this subject. Otherwise, you wouldnt assume to ascribe to me such an erroneous strawman argument.

Try again.

gwrulz
02-12-2009, 21:00
And don't forget the "counts as" rule in the BRB!

rtunian
02-12-2009, 22:10
Right back atchya, except that I'm perfectly willing to back up my arguments with actual rules.

if you knew so much about debate, surely you would know the importance of context (which you have shown that you don't). the rules which you quote to support your argument are taken out of context, as in, in the context of the paragraphs of the specific sentences you quoted, they are not talking about the appearance of character models. they are either talking about the appearance of rank and file models (51% modeled correctly reference), or the ability of a unit upgraded with armor to take armor saves ("wearing" reference).

for your reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/context

further, you if you knew so much about debate, surely you would know that when your points are refuted with concrete examples of why they are wrong, ignoring rebuttal doesn't cancel it out (which you have shown you do not, by your ignoring the days prior exposition of the above)


Blanket, generic unsupported statements do not make for a defensible position in a debate
that's nice. which of my points were "blanket, generic unsupported statements" again? oh right, none. my opinion of you, that you'll never be convinced, is neither generic nor unsupported, and it's certainly not a blanket statement :rolleyes:

Crazy Harborc
03-12-2009, 00:46
It is a game, it is for fun. It should not be about dictating to another gamer what they are allowed to use in their armies. It should NOT be about using the rules to try to win the game before it starts. It's not about only using 'THE' correct minie. Some people can't afford to spend the bucks. That should NOT mean they are not allowed to play. OR not be allowed to use the stand-ins they DO have.

Hey now! That character has the wrong shaped sword. Hey, the armour is all wrong too! Sorry, you can't use him....ha, ha it's dead you lose, I win. Next player!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Condottiere
03-12-2009, 02:15
Remember, you aren't forced to play everyone - if for some reason you feel uncomfortable doing so, tell them and state why, whether it's a cheesy composition or the proxying that disturbs you, perhaps they'll adjust to accomodate you. You then can spend your time having an enjoyable game with someone of compatible standards, instead of grinding your teeth every time you stare across the table.

ChaosVC
03-12-2009, 02:22
Or you can simply play wih the person once in a blue moon with your own cheesy composition. You don't really need to tell him why you don't enjoy playing with him because some people will not "get it" anyway. He or she may think you are a sore loser or a whinner and can do really childish things in respond.

Ξ H2O Ξ
03-12-2009, 03:03
It is a game, it is for fun.

Pretty much sums it up.

TheDarkDuke
03-12-2009, 05:37
I am going to go with the majority and state WYSIWYG is far less enforced than in 40k, but I will go against some of the "models do not encourage it", "doesn't really matter what my unit has" comments that have arisen a bit.

If your mundane or magical weapon is a GW/Lance etc... I feel it should be modeled as so. If your character/model has or does not have a shield that should or should not appear on the model.

In the case of units, I think a unit for example that is armed with HW/Shield should have both a HW and Shield, not just a HW or Spears in their place, its a feature that tells you what the unit is better at. Now units that are armed with both or multiple weapon options that come standard I don't have an issue with all of one shown, or a mix (examples being HE spearmen/seaguard/black orcs). Units for example like Plague Monks if armed with an extra HW, have the model option and should be modeled so.

The Red Scourge
03-12-2009, 06:38
Hey now! That character has the wrong shaped sword. Hey, the armour is all wrong too! Sorry, you can't use him....ha, ha it's dead you lose, I win. Next player!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You can 'spike' my STank any day :D

O&G'sRule
03-12-2009, 14:40
and discussion should always be light hearted - I can call my ex if I want an argument...

Absolutely agree with that, no one can be right about every situation (I would expect most tournaments to be very strict on wysiwyg), but you aren't the most extreme on here, there is 1 or 2 arguing that you should remodel everything and thats just absurd, why people can't just play the game rather than moaning about others not doing what they want is beyond me

Crazy Harborc
03-12-2009, 21:16
Absolutely agree with that, no one can be right about every situation (I would expect most tournaments to be very strict on wysiwyg), but you aren't the most extreme on here, there is 1 or 2 arguing that you should remodel everything and thats just absurd, why people can't just play the game rather than moaning about others not doing what they want is beyond me

NOT A RANT or FLAME:):)
Well....a fair number of GW's games/minies users are not adults-yet. Many of the players at GW events, at GW stores and at many indie store GW events, are not adults/mentally fully developed. Many value judgements/emotions/etc are not those of adults. IMHO that can lead to emotional needs to dictate to other contemporary gamers how they must conform, how minies look etc.

Bottom line....what the opponents agree to, what this and that (on minies are), acceptable equipment, giving information about whats what....whatever. For me and my opponents....wargaming is a hobby. We paid our money, we assembled/painted/based/etc the minies. Away from GW "events", we the players decide whats what.:D

brendel
03-12-2009, 21:33
Cheers guys!

I was wondering whether you think this would be a problem.

I frequently use common magic items, but in their description, it's always swords. Provided one keeps to the restriction of one per army, would you think it OK to change the kind of weapon *namewise* and not ruleswise? E.g. its more fluffy that a warrior-priest wields a "Hammer of Might" than a "Sword of Might". Of course it would remain counting as a magical hand weapon, just not a sword.

Provided that it is one per type of magic item per army "e.g. only one XXX hand weapon of might", do you think this contradicts WYSIWYG?

Thanks!

I have not meet anyone that has a problem with what you have asked I myself have used a hammer of might or axe of swift slaying as stated above you have paid for it in points.

The Red Scourge
03-12-2009, 23:23
I rememebr this from the late 1990's when my friend and i joined a game club. Against each other we never lied so a minor alteration etc wasn;t a problem as we could ask, and we trusted each other, but against people we did not know, equipment often changed, and without this on the model it was hard to prove, and it generally spoiled the game, as the fun was lost, as it always is against a cheat.

Agreed :)

But I doubt, WYSIWYG as a rule would change this. The whole point in cheating is disregarding the rules in the first place. I'd rather play against the grey horde of proxies commanded by a person, who played by the rules, than a cheat with a perfectly modelled army - the WAACy players really is a waste of time.

That said, proxying can cause problems. Just last weekend, I had a unit of marauder horsemen stand in for some warhounds, and my opponent of course had them mixed up with the other horsemen, as they weren't properly distinguished (a thing that could have been avoided by mixing doggy models in the unit). It didn't have much impact on the game, but it wasn't my proudest moment :p

But in general, I'm quite happy with having a wizardly looking model represent casters and fighty looking models represent fighters. In this way their basic function is easily identified. Though in my group we prefer to have a lot of secrecy, spells and lores are chosen/rolled in secret, and things are only revealed at the point, when they impact the game. This of course demands a little trust, but also encourages a relaxed no-cheat attitude :)