PDA

View Full Version : Should there be a return to "what you see is what you get" modelling rules?



gigglyjoker
08-01-2011, 16:51
You know, back in 3rd edition, each Codex explicitly stated that you could only use what was modelled on your models. It was model-centric.

Now, how many times do you see people saying, "oh he's holding a plasma pistol but that's really a bolt pistol because I didn't have the points" or "I'm experimenting so these guys have power weapons even though it looks like chainswords." Really? Experimenting every game?

And then, not to mention the number of unpainted armies of plastic and metal.

Look, this ain't a computer game. You don't get to switch up on a whim.

These are models, and once you model them, they're finished. You're supposed to love them, and make due with them, and maybe move them around different squads but respect them as people.

But people are treating these guys as half-baked clones..."oh, I'm not going to ever finish modelling and painting them because I want to be able to say that they are taking different options depending on different games."

I think those rules need to come back, and people need to learn patience and the abilitiy to make due with what they have, instead of going on a neverending quest to find the formula that will beat everything.

It's about the models, beautiful and finished, WITH THE MATTE (or gloss) FINISH. Complete them. Love them. And then, AND ONLY THEN, fight with them.

Ante64
08-01-2011, 17:00
Yeah I agree with you :) I think it should be a definite rule among tournaments and such. Doesn't really matter outside that. It also makes alot easier to see what gear your models have in the army. And there is magnets for arms if you want to change your plasma to a heavy bolter ect for next match.

yabbadabba
08-01-2011, 17:03
You know, back in 3rd edition, each Codex explicitly stated that you could only use what was modelled on your models. It was model-centric.

Now, how many times do you see people saying, "oh he's holding a plasma pistol but that's really a bolt pistol because I didn't have the points" or "I'm experimenting so these guys have power weapons even though it looks like chainswords." Really? Experimenting every game?

And then, not to mention the number of unpainted armies of plastic and metal.

Look, this ain't a computer game. You don't get to switch up on a whim.

These are models, and once you model them, they're finished. You're supposed to love them, and make due with them, and maybe move them around different squads but respect them as people.

But people are treating these guys as half-baked clones..."oh, I'm not going to ever finish modelling and painting them because I want to be able to say that they are taking different options depending on different games."

I think those rules need to come back, and people need to learn patience and the abilitiy to make due with what they have, instead of going on a neverending quest to find the formula that will beat everything.

It's about the models, beautiful and finished, WITH THE MATTE (or gloss) FINISH. Complete them. Love them. And then, AND ONLY THEN, fight with them.

I think you have this all wrong mate. The hobby is people/person centric. The models, rules and everything else are just there to entertain us and fill our spare time. Models do not have to be painted, people are entitled to experiement, model, paint and play how they and their opponent feels like. And of course that means that if what you have described is how you want to enjoy your hobby then that is fine with you and your friends. Even tournaments are entitled to be run how the organisers see fit.

The Inevitable One
08-01-2011, 17:03
I don't think that will ever happen. It means that people have to go out and buy more models, which means people will either drop out of the hobby or spend even less. I don't mind the small things such as weapons/biomorphs being changed, but when you start getting into this whole "Orks as Imperial Guard" or "Chaos Space Marines as Tau" scenario, it becomes a problem.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
08-01-2011, 17:06
I think you have this all wrong mate. The hobby is people/person centric. The models, rules and everything else are just there to entertain us and fill our spare time. Models do not have to be painted, people are entitled to experiement, model, paint and play how they and their opponent feels like. And of course that means that if what you have described is how you want to enjoy your hobby then that is fine with you and your friends. Even tournaments are entitled to be run how the organisers see fit.

Well said, as usual.

It's your game people. You paid for it. Play it the way you want to play and to hell with GW and what they say you should and shouldn't do.

Bunnahabhain
08-01-2011, 17:13
The game still is WYSIWYG; it's right there in the rules, and I've certainly not seen a decrease in the proportion of people with non wysiwyg stuff- beyond stuff like grenades, or marine units, where they all have Bolter, pistol and CCW as default, but not three hands, so the squad shows bolter, BP, and CCW, rather than individual models.

Some people are fine with using unfinished units, others are not. I can't think of any time I've run into people deliberately not finishing stuff to keep it flexible though. Very odd.

Oh, and non WYSIWYG I see normally falls into two camps.

1) People doing a proper counts as- " It might look like most of a fire prism, but it's actually a shokk attack gun. The Mek-boy holding it is a slight hint... And, yes, the lootas are all holding Wraith cannons..."

2) People doing quick adjustments to lists on the fly- Eg someone on the other side hasn't turned up, so you have to shrink your list from 2000 to 1500, and you only brought the models you were planning to use with you.


The group I play with either have sufficiently large collections of models they can field almost any option properly, or they play with fairly fixed lists, so keeping them flexible isn't an issue.

Hendarion
08-01-2011, 17:16
The models, rules and everything else are just there to entertain us and fill our spare time.
I wish more ppl would understand it that way. Rules are funny, but they are nothing less than an excuse to toss around our little painted toy soldiers and to trash-talk about nerdy fluff.

Bergen Beerbelly
08-01-2011, 17:57
The way I see it, as long as your opponent shows up to the game with a list and the changes to his models are listed on the list, I could care less if it's WYSIWYG.

Frankly it costs too much money to have a model be WYSIWYG all the time.

And I totally agree with what Yabbadabba said.

AFnord
08-01-2011, 19:28
There are always limits to what is ok to proxy, models should at least be roughly the same size as what they are supposed to be, but I would much rather let people experiment with different weapon setups than force them to stick to exactly what their models have. The game is more fun if it is constantly changing, and when people bring new & interesting lists, rather than when people always bring the same 2-3 lists because that is what they have models for.

Dr.Clock
08-01-2011, 20:03
As far as WYSIWYG is concerned, I think it's wise to ask your opponent at the beginning of the game if anything ISN'T WYSIWYG. It could easily become tiresome if none of the opponent's squad leaders are modeled correctly. On the flip-side, models are very personal things. Using one or two 'trademark' items as variants on 'established' weaponry is actually much cooler than the alternative.

For example: my regular Chaos opponent has a number of Champions whose power-fists are taken from the Possessed box. It's a really great kit... but he doesn't use Possessed as a unit. I really like the look of his converted Champions and like it when impressive models are used. Hence, this is not a big deal.

On the flipside, his special weapons are hardly ever modelled appropriately. I have learned to inquire every time. He's good about keeping them to what he actually put in the list, but if I don't inquire, it becomes impossible to determine who in the Chosen unit has a flamer, and who a melta. If I don't call him out on it, we have trouble when he gets in range.

I'm a bit of a stickler for WYSIWYG in my own lists. Still, I have two sternguard modelled with storm bolters who I count as having plasma-combis. I've wanted to have a large number of storm-bolters in a unit since mid 3rd edition. I could use them as regular sternguard. I could have converted actual combi-weapons. I like storm-bolters and rationalize the one-turn bonus as a risky barrage of special ammo that could cook off the mag.

In sum, WYSIWYG is a good gold standard, but 'making do' with the models you have seems to fly in the face of what is supposed to be a creative hobby. The ability to model crazy things that still fit in the rules is one of the main things that keeps me buying and building.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Bonzai
08-01-2011, 20:26
To me WYSIWYG is satisfied by making sure that different unit types and wargear can be differentiated from each other. If a marine player has a sgt with a bolt pistol and power sword, but they want the pistol to be a combi weapon instead, I have no problem with that. I don't put grenades, knives, or pistol holsters on my marines, as I think they clutter up the models a bit. With hard line WYSIWYG I would not be able to use those option that come standard to the unit.

Scaryscarymushroom
08-01-2011, 20:27
I think you have this all wrong mate. The hobby is people/person centric. The models, rules and everything else are just there to entertain us and fill our spare time. Models do not have to be painted, people are entitled to experiement, model, paint and play how they and their opponent feels like. And of course that means that if what you have described is how you want to enjoy your hobby then that is fine with you and your friends. Even tournaments are entitled to be run how the organisers see fit.

Agreed. I like this post.

Lord Inquisitor
08-01-2011, 20:34
You know, back in 3rd edition, each Codex explicitly stated that you could only use what was modelled on your models. It was model-centric.
My gut-reaction was "Huh? Nothing has changed!" p47 has the WYSIWYG rule (although it is somewhat woolly). Some codecies specifically state this as a rule also. I haven't seen any change to this - I typically see strict WYSIWYG at tournaments and typically only see infractions in friendly games specifically gearing up for a tournament to test units before buying/reconverting models with new wargear, but that's more a case of proxying than laxity in WYSIWYG.

Indeed, I think there's more adherence to WYSIWYG now than ever. I think most of us will have perhaps one or two models in an army that have a minor change in equipment ("Oh yeah, this dude doesn't have a powersword, couldn't find the points!") but by-and-large I see WYSIWYG.


The game still is WYSIWYG; it's right there in the rules,
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that while codecies up to space marines have a line like this: "Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model" (C:SM p127, bottom of left column), later codecies seem to be missing this line (or at least I can't find it), and it is interesting particularly with regard to Blood Angels, which were also written by Ward. I don't think this is necessarily something we should read much into (particularly as the rulebook covers this) but it is true that there is less emphasis on this in later codecies.

samiens
08-01-2011, 20:35
Varnishing models ruins the finish....

People can do whatever they agree to do- but in organised events WYSIWYG is still pretty much in force- so not sure I see the issue?

Bigbot
08-01-2011, 20:37
I think there is space for both WSYIWYG and changing things. Me and my friends have called a power weapon a relic blade, or a bolt pistol a plasma pistol in the past.. it's not once hurt our enjoyment of the game.

For me it about 2 factors:
1: they've paid the points for the change (if it says on your army list you've paid for a plasma pistol that's fine, suddenly saying it halfway through a game without a list is not).

2: don't take the ****, that tau tank is not a carnifex. However the sternguard sarge can be a marine commander if you want.

I think the hard and fast of it is, you're playing with friends and you're all there to enjoy it. So treat your friends like friends and talk to them about your plans and see what they think.

Vaktathi
08-01-2011, 20:38
If the list is legal, and anything ambiguous is incorrect on the models is noted ahead of time, and everything is done in a clear and consistent manner, I don't see a problem.

There doesn't exist the time or money (and often conversion skill) for people to make everything WYSIWYG for everything they may want to try or have to adjust for (e.g. points changes, etc) and there aren't always necessarily models or bitz for everything either. Hell, half the kits out there don't even come with everything needed to make all, or sometimes any, of the models truly WYSIWYG.

People need to lighten up.

Arclight
08-01-2011, 21:36
I don't see what's wrong with trying different equipment for your models without having to get an entirely new model with a slightly different arm or whatever.
I'm all for loving the models and spending time to make them look good, but that's just an opinion it shouldn't be a rule, if people are in it for the game then they should be allowed to as long as it's all on friendly terms.

gigglyjoker
08-01-2011, 21:45
The ability to model crazy things that still fit in the rules is one of the main things that keeps me buying and building.

I actually agree with that. I don't object to customization.


On the other hand, it is interesting to note that while codecies up to space marines have a line like this: "Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model" (C:SM p127, bottom of left column), later codecies seem to be missing this line (or at least I can't find it), and it is interesting particularly with regard to Blood Angels, which were also written by Ward. I don't think this is necessarily something we should read much into (particularly as the rulebook covers this) but it is true that there is less emphasis on this in later codecies.

Going a step further, I recall reading somewhere, either in a Codex or in White Dwarf, where it was written that it's okay to call equipment whatever you like as long as your opponent agrees. That was a straight up reversal and I think it was wrong of GW to officially say that. It might even have been in the hobby section of one of the rulebooks.

Also, earlier army books were more explicit about the modelling. The previous Dark Eldar codex instead said "Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear if they are not shown on the model."

theunwantedbeing
08-01-2011, 21:50
Nothing wrong with kicking up a fuss over people who use unpainted half assembled models and expect a game.

Bit much to expect people who have fully painted models to play WYSIWYG all the time, especially if they want to try out new things.

jack da greenskin
08-01-2011, 21:55
I don't mind people saying "These sergeants have power swords by the way." (they're holding chainswords).

I do, however, object to people saying "Oh, you play orks. These melta guns are flamers, by the way."

Hendarion
08-01-2011, 22:03
Varnishing models ruins the finish....
If you do it correctly, the opposite is the case.

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
08-01-2011, 22:10
Woah. I don't have to play WYSIWYG anymore? Nice. That'll save me the conversion headaches. But really, the only time I'll play non-WYSIWYG is if I've accidentally brought the wrong models.

Aegius
08-01-2011, 22:18
cool! we don't have to use wysiwyg any more. what other rules do we get to ignore? I play fully painted wysiwyg models every game, some of my models have highly detailed bases complete with scenery. Can I have cover saves becaus half of my model is covered by scenery?

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
08-01-2011, 22:31
cool! we don't have to use wysiwyg any more. what other rules do we get to ignore? I play fully painted wysiwyg models every game, some of my models have highly detailed bases complete with scenery. Can I have cover saves becaus half of my model is covered by scenery?
Absolutely! You should always model for advantage. My marines will from this day forward always be modeled in bushes.

gigglyjoker
08-01-2011, 22:36
Absolutely! You should always model for advantage. My marines will from this day forward always be modeled in bushes.

This is a great day for modeldom!

yabbadabba
08-01-2011, 22:45
Going a step further, I recall reading somewhere, either in a Codex or in White Dwarf, where it was written that it's okay to call equipment whatever you like as long as your opponent agrees. That was a straight up reversal and I think it was wrong of GW to officially say that. Why?


It might even have been in the hobby section of one of the rulebooks. So does that make it a rule?


Also, earlier army books were more explicit about the modelling. The previous Dark Eldar codex instead said "Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear if they are not shown on the model." Yeah but even then no one really stuck to it round our neck of the woods unless an event was specific. It has always been an option. One of the things to remember is that GW is one of the rare wargames companies that has extensive modification built into the rules, so many old Lags never really saw the need for it.

Lord Damocles
08-01-2011, 22:52
All my armies are WYSIWYG. I prefer to play against opponants whos' armies are WYSIWYG.

I don't mind if all your Chaos Marines don't have Bolter, Bolt Pistol, CCW, Frags and Kraks; but what I DO mind is if half your Chaos Marines have a seemingly random selection of weapons, it's not clear what the Champion is armed with, and you've modelled an Icon of Khorne, but actually have an Icon of Nurgle on your list.

Even if your army list is 'clear', and you point out what everything is before the game - 'This Scatter Laser is a Starcannon. This Warlock is Eldrad. This Farseer is a Warlock. This Wave Serpent with no guns is an immortal Falcon with gubbinz. This random Dire Avenger is an Exarch with gubbinz'*, I don't want to have to ask you every turn what stuff is, and watch you like a hawk in case stuff changes, or that Avenger who YOU know is the Exarch switches around with the other four indistinguishable Avengers in the unit.


If you're not going to use appropriate models, why bother using models at all? Why bother playing a model-centric wargame?


*This actually happened!

insectum7
08-01-2011, 22:58
All my armies are WYSIWYG. I prefer to play against opponants whos' armies are WYSIWYG.

. . .


Word.

I'll even take it a step further and be explicit. Playing against non-WYSIWYG is less fun. I prefer to play against people who take pride in their well presented armies.

gigglyjoker
08-01-2011, 23:00
This Warlock is Eldrad. This Farseer is a Warlock.

Now that's funny!

Lothlanathorian
08-01-2011, 23:03
Word.

I'll even take it a step further and be explicit. Playing against non-WYSIWYG is less fun. I prefer to play against people who take pride in their well presented armies.

I disagree with this. Fun is about having an opponent with the right attitude to me. However, a fully painted, WYSIWYG army is a beautiful thing and does make the game look a lot better.

insectum7
08-01-2011, 23:17
I disagree with this. Fun is about having an opponent with the right attitude to me. However, a fully painted, WYSIWYG army is a beautiful thing and does make the game look a lot better.

Fair enough, but to me a well presented army can be part of "the right attitude". It shows a certain level of respect for the experience.

It's also true that someone who is clearly working on their army in progress is part of that paradigm.

yabbadabba
08-01-2011, 23:26
Fair enough, but to me a well presented army can be part of "the right attitude". It shows a certain level of respect for the experience.
It's also true that someone who is clearly working on their army in progress is part of that paradigm. What if that rate of progress is over 10 years? What if the person clearly has a lack of ability to achieve a "well presented army"? Seems too B+W to me. Also "the right attitude" and "respect" are also very subjective values. While I have absolutely no problems with you insisting on playing painted wysiwyg armies, I think the intentions and motivations of what and why people are in this hobby is far harder to use as a reason to play or not play.

insectum7
08-01-2011, 23:55
. . .While I have absolutely no problems with you insisting on playing painted wysiwyg armies, I think the intentions and motivations of what and why people are in this hobby is far harder to use as a reason to play or not play.

They go together to make the complete package, attitude and presentation. Presentation and/or clear evidence of effort can be an indicator of attitude, though not always. Someone could buy a painted WYSIWYG army and be a complete douche too (rare, but it happens), though you usually can make a character judgment before committing to a throw-down.

It's subjective, sure, I never said that it wasn't. But when I see a nice army, not only am I pleased that this person values his models and army, but with WYSIWIG I know there's going to be a lot less guesswork to do in the game, which keeps the flow going.

Playing 40K is like going on a date, if you're respectful and present yourself well, you're more likely to have a good time.

yabbadabba
08-01-2011, 23:57
Playing 40K is like going on a date, if you're respectful and present yourself well, you're more likely to have a good time. Yes, but that has nothing to do with the state of the armies, and everything to do with the person you are playing. I guess we have gone on different dates ;)

insectum7
09-01-2011, 00:04
Haha maybe. . . I guess I'm just saying that a non-painted, non-WYSIWIG army is like showing up for a date in sandals and shorts. Which, hey, some people can work with that. Personally, I'm less inclined to date a girl who shows up for dinner in sweats.

Kresterz
09-01-2011, 00:13
Wysiwyg...

Use magnets and you will be infinitly happier :)

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 00:14
Heh. I care more about being able to hold an intelligent conversation with her than what she's wearing. As long as she looks good in sweats, I'm game. ;) Of course, since I'm married, I suppose date night is a bit less formal. I guess I'm not really trying to impress the guys on 40k day with my attempts at a painted army (It's getting there eventually, I swear!).

Aegius
09-01-2011, 00:17
What if the person clearly has a lack of ability to achieve a "well presented army"?

I think that this comment is a little more than unfair. If someone is unable to paint to golden daemon standards then they shouldn't enter golden daemon, but these are not the standards that people expect from armies.

One of my friends recently disagreed with an opinion that 'it is nice to see two gorgeously painted armies fighting each other' his arguement was 'not everyone can paint gorgeously'. I came back with 'If you've put all you can into painting an army, then it is gorgeous.' this implies that the person you are playing against has put some effort into his/her army which I find to be a compliment to myself. Someone that has bare plastic 'count's as' just wants a game and doesn't give a crap about what I want, why the hell should I care what they want with their 'counts as' models.

someone with a nicely converted 'counts as' army is not covered in the above rant, the though as effort has quite clearly been put in.

I do apologise for all of the above grammatical errors.

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 00:23
What irritates me is when I spend a lot of time painting an army just to have someone start telling me it isn't good enough and I need to use washes (which I did) as soon as I start putting it on the table. I'm not a good painter since I haven't been painting for years. Elitist jerks who mandate everyone be up to their standards regardless of their experience are a detriment to the hobby.

yabbadabba
09-01-2011, 00:35
I think that this comment is a little more than unfair. If someone is unable to paint to golden daemon standards then they shouldn't enter golden daemon, but these are not the standards that people expect from armies.Hence the parentheses. Its not an unfair comment, because its a subjective value and can put output over skill. At a look, you cannot evaluate a "well presented army" in any sense of the word unless you know the person and their abilities well.

Its a kettle of worms. The whole point I am trying to make is that what we value in this hobby only has value for us, and that everyone has different values. In addition there are far more variables to what goes into a great hobby experience. So there is no universal hard and fast value system for this, and that is why I disagree with the original post.

gigglyjoker
09-01-2011, 00:38
What irritates me is when I spend a lot of time painting an army just to have someone start telling me it isn't good enough and I need to use washes (which I did) as soon as I start putting it on the table. I'm not a good painter since I haven't been painting for years. Elitist jerks who mandate everyone be up to their standards regardless of their experience are a detriment to the hobby.

Somebody actually told you this? As soon as you started putting models on the table? Was this at a painting competition? A tournament? Casual game?

What wasn't it good enough for? Did they refuse to play against you?

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 00:41
It was a casual game. They didn't refuse to play me, but I haven't played them since.

gigglyjoker
09-01-2011, 00:54
You must've been talking about painting your army beforehand, because I doubt your opponent would criticize your army without knowing whether you were finished with it or not.

Criticizing you for playing with an unfinished army is another thing altogether though.

Lothlanathorian
09-01-2011, 01:23
It was a casual game. They didn't refuse to play me, but I haven't played them since.

I wouldn't have played the first game. And I know no one else would play a person like this in a casual game 'round these parts.

And I'd have made it a point to request that they not speak to me, signal at me, carry signs for me to read or attempt communication with me at any point in the future.

That is just entirely too disrespectful. Some people can't paint well, this is not something to criticize anyone for. I have played against many a horrid looking army. Never cared. So long as I knew what was what and the game was fun, all was good. Of course, back when I was very active with the game, I only had really awesome people to play with.

DeeKay
09-01-2011, 03:43
With regards to wysiwyg, it only works if each piece of kit is clearly defined in what it is and what it looks like in the first place. The 3.5 codex was a nightmare for wysiwyg simply because everyone had different interpretations of what each daemonic gift looked like. Different types of ammo for things like bolters is also a headache. Since GW seem unwilling or unable to tighten up their basic rules set, I can't see them getting so worked up about the wysiwyg issue.

As for the issue of presentation, why does that bother people so much? Yes, it is nice if everyone progresses in what they can achieve when modelling and painting an army, but it isn't crucial for gameplay for people to do so. It's more about the effort put into making the force than technical skills used.

With regards,
Dan.

Lunk
09-01-2011, 04:18
Wow, I just realized by the strictest definition of the wysiwyg, my models are wrong. I used possessed as champions for all my squads. I do not field a squad of possessed. They are all holding "correct weapons", except I made an assault model with 2 chain knives (from the obliterators) representing twin lightning claws. (Based on that Soul Drinker character, who's name escapes me). Also, I have a khorne terminator squad with all lightning claws, but very few models have actual lightning claws, some have tentacles, some have spikes. None have a regular hand weapon or gun. All 4 of them have different spikey claw like things. Do these examples violate the rule?
The way our group plays, since there is no twin chain knives option for the champion, a quick hey this guy has lightning claws is good enough.
I don't think the designers/developers wanted wysiwyg to be a draconian rule. I do agree it is lame when someone says this guy with no arm has a missile launcher, I am fine when an opponent has a few test models, even if he plays the test models for several weeks against various armies.

wilsongrahams
09-01-2011, 04:34
I agree and disagree with the OP. To me, there is a balance to met, rather than total relaxation or strictness on the subject.

For example, facing an entire 'counts as' army is too hard to know what you're facing from turn to turn. On the borderline is say an Imperial Guard infantry army where all the special weapons fail to match the models but are all different. It'd be hard to remember what is where here. Then there is the army commander that has a different item to what is modelled - one or two changes like this aren't so hard to keep track of.

As an example - I game with the correct sergeant weapons, special and heavy in my BA army, but my captain, I alter what ranged weapon he has - now, the model is holding a power sword (which I always keep) and his helmet - he has no ranged weapon in his hands at all - and is modelled similar to the one in the BA Codex which also has no ranged weapon.

I modelled my commander this way because I liked the pose, not because I wanted to changed between bolt pistol and infernus pistol, though this is an advantage I do have - I point this out before a game so my opponent is clear - and one thing in an entire army that isn't shown shouldn't detract from my own or my opponents enjoyment.

Every gamer must remember that there are two people in every game.

Lord Inquisitor
09-01-2011, 04:53
Wow, I just realized by the strictest definition of the wysiwyg, my models are wrong. I used possessed as champions for all my squads. I do not field a squad of possessed. They are all holding "correct weapons", except I made an assault model with 2 chain knives (from the obliterators) representing twin lightning claws. (Based on that Soul Drinker character, who's name escapes me). Also, I have a khorne terminator squad with all lightning claws, but very few models have actual lightning claws, some have tentacles, some have spikes. None have a regular hand weapon or gun. All 4 of them have different spikey claw like things. Do these examples violate the rule?
The way our group plays, since there is no twin chain knives option for the champion, a quick hey this guy has lightning claws is good enough.

That's "counts as" though. 40K really lacks a proper "counts as" rule - unlike Epic, which has a specific rule.

What you are doing is a "counts as" and entirely acceptable. These converted possessed with chainblades count as champions with lightning claws - cool. There is no potential for confusion there. On the other hand saying "these meltaguns are flamers, those ones are plasmaguns but these ones are actually meltaguns" is the sort of WYSIWYG infraction that drives people nuts. While they're difficult to set down in words the difference between them, most people would agree that cool conversions are no problem, even to be welcomed, while just trying to use a model with one set of equipment as another is annoying.

UberBeast
09-01-2011, 05:13
Personally, I prefer to play with painted minis and wysiwyg. I don't mind playing the odd player who is experimenting with his army, and doesn't have it all worked out yet. However, I want to see that player at least making an effort toward the same goal I feel all miniature gamers should aspire to; a painted army with models that represent what they are in game terms.

To this end, I'll give advice and even help people paint or magnetize their armies. Sometimes all people need is to see a little enthusiasm and to get a little help. Is there really anyone out there who prefers unpainted models and having to "counts as" their wargear all the time?

FashaTheDog
09-01-2011, 05:51
Haha maybe. . . I guess I'm just saying that a non-painted, non-WYSIWIG army is like showing up for a date in sandals and shorts.

What if that date is at a Jimmy Buffett concert, would that not then be appropriate attire? Well reasonable anyway as grass skirts, parrots, sharks, and all flavors of wackiness are actually proper attire.

Tangent aside, my Space Wolves are WYSIWYG right down to the frag and krak grenades. Every Grey Hunter has a bolter, bolt pistol, and close combat weapon too. Then we turn over to my regular Marines where I have Marines with non-Codex weaponry. One guy is an actual GW model without conversion or kit swapping who has a shuriken catapult since it use to be legal. I've converted a few others to match in the last decade. One has a pulse rifle, another a flesh borer (tube growing into his wrist), one with a grenade launcher, another with an AK-47 shoota, the squad spotter with lasgun (laser targeting baby), one with a shiriken pistol, and another with a Kroot rifle. When I get to these guys in the Red Scorpions repaint, I'm not sure what to do, but I'll think of something. We could also take a look at my Dark Eldar. I have run them WYSIWYG and people still have no clue what they have. My regular Guard also have four of the old human bomb models that I use as Cyclops with their Mechanicum controllers.

In short, WYSIWYG is really overrated anyway as there is rarely any standard even with different armies of the same person sometimes. There are times like tournaments where it should be enforced while other times it is nice if it is and not a big deal if not. Some people feel different and they're entitled to since we all put time and/or money into this game to be at least a little discriminating in our tastes.

Designer891
09-01-2011, 06:32
I do prefer to play against a player who has a painted army. I paint very well and rarely see an army painted better then mine in person except a friend of mine who who is a golden demon winner (even then we are very close in painting skills :) ). It has never bothered me if the paint jobs of my opponents suck or are decent as long as the person tried... even spray painting them 1 color is cool with me and I would never tell them they suck or use more washes unless they ask for advice.

What I hate playing against the MOST are the players who have non-painted armies who don't even have the time to freaking glue all the arms on or put them on bases. playing a game where players cant even move their army up 6" without losing arms and heads that they just set on the bases between the models legs ... and yes I have played against a lot of people with these type of armies. I find it disrespectful to the game, if you want to play a game like that go play a video game.

SumYungGui
09-01-2011, 06:38
Hey I'll get right on that as soon as the amount of the Tyranid codex that does not exist in any manner drops under a third and the weapons options a quarter.

Until then suck it up and deal with the fact that some people don't have the time to lavishly paint past a hundred Termagants alone just to cover all the bases in commonly used weapons configurations and probably dozens of Warriors to accommodate all the weapons combinations, some of them also not existing in any form. Magnetizing can reduce that somewhat but cannot make things that do not exist, exist.

dakodamon
09-01-2011, 07:07
its all about the players rlly, i agree with ur point though i cant say that it is the correct way because we are only 2 of how many ever other people may disagree or agree. my beleif is that the commander of any army made shuld be able to use wat he/she has at ahnd to overcome their oponent. once again though that is only my view and may not be the view of others. i have found that in any strategical situation i do better when i am the underdog with either to few or not the right type of weapons for fighting the enemy and yet with great strategy that doesnt matter in the end.

yabbadabba
09-01-2011, 09:58
That's "counts as" though. 40K really lacks a proper "counts as" rule - unlike Epic, which has a specific rule. Yeah, but for different reasons mate ;)

Serpent
09-01-2011, 10:29
Here's my take on WYSIWYG: I prefer to play with an army where I myself can see what my little plastic and metal guys represent. This saves both me and my opponent a lot of time. But this is not set in stone...

When I play against someone at the club cellar, I keep in mind that both his/her army - as well as mine - may be in some state of reorganization. Maybe a meltagunner is on the workbench at home? That plasmagunner has a melta today - no worries. As long as your list is OK, I'm game. :)

I do agree with above posters who have stated that some important information is needed - what equipment is on what unit leader for example - and it should be easy to see this. Especially in tournament games. One thing that is important is base size. Will that thing be able to get into combat with me? (I've been on the recieveing end of a Defiler charge, where my Wolf Lord was surrounded by Chaos Marines except for a space smaller than the average base. I thought myself safe, but it managed to enter combat anyway - as it's on spider legs and only a claw was needed to get it into base contact... Dead Wolf Lord? Yes.)

I don't know if I made any sense - I'm already on my second cup of coffee... :confused:

As for commenting on paint jobs: if I've got constructive critisism to give, I'll wait until after the game. And start with the positive stuff first. ("Yellow is a very bold colour to use. What basecoat are you using?")

Irtehdar
09-01-2011, 11:19
If Im showing up to a game with my Tau Army you might notice my kroot are actually catachan junglefighter models and the hounds are LoTR Wargs. Ill explain clearly that they are indeed kroot and kroot hounds.
My leaders of my fire warrior teams are equipped with various weapons from the battlesuits to differentiate them from the rest of the squad.

None of these options are possible in game terms but the models look good. And Ive never had an opponent who had a problem with it aslong as I made sure to explain these details beforehand. Besides it kinda makes sense that the team has +1Ld aslong as the guy with the burst cannon is alive even though in rule terms that guy is still using a pulse rifle.

Eventually I will have all the models Ill ever need for every variation I can take from the book but I cannot afford to buy it all now. If I stumble across something I really like when experimenting Ill have an actual model representing it within the next 2 paychecks.

However Im not going out and spending money on 18 Piranhas before having playtested if I enjoy playing with them.

I like WYSIWYG to the extent that the model has to make sense and atleast look the part its supposed to play. A cigarette casing playing the part of a Chaos Rhino is wrong... However a SM Rhino or an IG Chimera taking that role is fine by me. (the chaosists didnt have time to repaint it. they were busy doing awful things to the crew)

Minsc
09-01-2011, 11:47
No, because some units don't even come with the bits they can field rulewise.

I.e, I like putting Missile Launcher or dual CCW's on my chaos dread's, but they don't even come with those options, only Plasmacannon or Twin-linked Autocannon.

WYSIWYG is good to a certain limit (I.e you actually have to have a Sergeant/Exarch/Sybarite in your squad if there is one - no proxies), but when you push it too far it just gets restrictive and ruins the game.

Admiral Koppenflak
09-01-2011, 12:14
Eh, my group strictly plays WYSIWYG. And I'll refuse to play any of my models that aren't painted, in principle.

I'm not going to tell someone they can't play with an unpainted/unfinished model, and I won't mind if they point out one or two models that they wish to equip with something not represented, but I'll get beyond shi**y if a marine unit armed with Plasma walks up to my Leman Russ and says "Ok, I'm shooting their meltagun" and they've never declared it as such.

Like all things - take five minutes before the game to go through the fine details. Terrain, weapons, models, characters. No one wants to find out your converted company commander with a bionic arm is actually Straken when they charge their captain in to combat with him. Sure, the model might even be WYSIWYG, but you need to point it out just the same.

tuebor
09-01-2011, 12:44
Criticizing you for playing with an unfinished army is another thing altogether though.

I disagree entirely. Expecting a brand new player to never play until their army is fully completed is a bit silly. Most gamers I know simply don't have the time to sit down and paint an entire army in a reasonable amount of time, what with jobs and families and such.

I know when I first started playing I painted extremely slowly and if I'd never had a game until I had enough Guardsmen fully painted to field a reasonable force (and since most people seem to want to play only 1850+ point games) I'd very likely have dropped out of the hobby.

Even more than that, different people enjoy different aspects of the hobby. I know some people who absolutely hate painting, doing it only because it's required for many tournaments and such, and I know some people who only have a game once a year because for them it's primarily about the painting.

They enjoy different parts of the hobby and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to try to impose your vision of the hobby on them through rules changes.

madprophet
09-01-2011, 13:56
I prefer WYSIWYG but I won't object to proper counts as. If it's a question of I am 2 points short, I'll spot you the points. If I am going to lose because of a 5 point piece of wargear then I deserved to lose in any case.

spiderman5z
09-01-2011, 16:03
i think wysiwyg causes people to never finish their models so they can say "oh I havent finished them yet but they all have X weapon this game." If we didnt have this rule then people would just focus on the aesthetics of the models and actually build their models.

Grand Master Raziel
09-01-2011, 16:44
We're talking about two different issues here - WYSIWYG and general army appearance.

WYSIWYG is a courtesy to your opponent, if nothing else. Given a reasonable degree of familiarity with your army, WYSIWYG allows your opponents to tell how units are upgraded just by looking at them, so he can respond to them appropriately. It's basically the expected manner in which one communicates with one's opponent to inform them what their units have. If anything in your army is not WYSIWYG, then you have a responsibility to communicate this information to your opponent in another way. I think an effort should be made to make sure anything one uses regularly is WYSIWYG. An occasional swap due to unforeseen circumstances shouldn't be a problem to most people, but if your army extensively lacks WYSIWYG, there's a problem you need to address.

Then, there's army appearance. Making your army look good is a courtesy to yourself and the hobby as a whole. Let's face it, any wargaming army is a respectable investment in money, and time is getting invested in assembling it to put it on the table. If you're going to invest that kind of money and time, why balk at putting in a little more time painting it to a semi-respectable standard? We're not talking about going from blank canvas to a John Singer Sargent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Singer_Sargent) portrait - you just need a moderately steady hand and a little patience. Heck, some armies can look decent with an even faster technique described below. The army doesn't have to be anything close to Golden Daemon standard - as long as some painting is executed in a reasonably competent manner, it's going to look way the heck better than unpainted plastic and pewter.

Yes, painting a whole army is a long-term project, and I wouldn't expect anyone to have a whole army painted before they started playing. I don't think that's a good excuse for not painting at all, though. Do one or two guys at a time, at least. I thing a good number do as a batch is 5 or so. Have 5 extra guys so you can rotate a batch out of your army for painting. Rotate them back in when you're done with them, and take the next 5 guys. It'll get done eventually, and your army will look way better when it's done.



What if the person clearly has a lack of ability to achieve a "well presented army"?

You don't have to be Leonardo Da Vinci to paint minis. It's basically painting within the lines. I'm not saying it doesn't take any skill, because I have a moderately well painted army I take some pride in, but like anything else, very few people are good at it the first time they try. Even giving varying degrees of starting talent, people get better with practice if they're willing to put in the time.

Also, some armies can be made to look halfway decent fairly fast. Take most any Marine army (though I think this technique would work with Nids, Necrons, maybe even Tau and Eldar). Primer. Slap on a color works well with the primer. Ink wash. Then, do a few details in appropriate colors - guns, eyes, teeth, etc as appropriate. Good enough for tabletop in a fairly short period of time.



No, because some units don't even come with the bits they can field rulewise.

I.e, I like putting Missile Launcher or dual CCW's on my chaos dread's, but they don't even come with those options,

The Chaos Dread is a bad example, because it's an awful kit badly in need of updating, but even so there are reasonable options you could pursue. You could, for instance, just buy a loyalist Dread and Chaos it up with bits from the Chaos vehicle accessory sprue. Bitz order yourself an arm from the Ironclad for those times when you want to run dual DCCW. No sweat.

yabbadabba
09-01-2011, 17:22
So in essence it seems to me that those supporting tight WYSIWYG basics also support tight painting basics. Which would lead onto similar standards for army lists and scenery. Is this fair?

Designer891
09-01-2011, 18:35
So in essence it seems to me that those supporting tight WYSIWYG basics also support tight painting basics. Which would lead onto similar standards for army lists and scenery. Is this fair?

Not really, I wouldn't say priming, spraying a base coat color and using a wash is tight painting at all. There is hardly any art/skill to it, if you can't put on a base coat and throw on a wash your just lazy. I think every one can understand if your army is a work in progress seeing a few new guys get painted each game day.

I have played against people who have had the same unpainted hardly assembled armies for years. Most the guys who play like this just have no plan to paint at all. I understand NIDs and Orks are bigger armies but a base coat (even spray paint works) plus wash would take all of a few hours. You don't need to paint the eyeballs or even dry brush.

Of course people who take pride in painting will most likely be a bit tighter on WYSIWYG basics on their own armies since we usually care more about the modeling aspect and such. I wouldn't say we would be tight on others painting abilities though.

Edit: The best thing about painting like the above I mentioned is you can always go back and add details and colors to the painted army in the future.

RayvenQ
09-01-2011, 18:41
I don't particularly give a damn about wysiwig, as long as the person I'm playing against doesn't unfairly abuse things.

Lets take a Marine with a Plasmagun, before the match, the player tells me that for the purposes of this game, that marine in that squad with that plasma gun, is actually a melta, I'm entirely fine with that as long as they are consistant.

1. As long as it's recognisable (like my example above) and not "generic space marine #3 of 9 has a plasmagun"
2. As long as they have that in the list they are currently using (rather than say saying it's a melta on the fly because of my army)
3. As long as their consistent with it, and don't try to switch back or get up to any funny buisness, I'm entirely fine with non wysiwyg.

Designer891
09-01-2011, 18:55
1. As long as it's recognisable (like my example above) and not "generic space marine #3 of 9 has a plasmagun"
2. As long as they have that in the list they are currently using (rather than say saying it's a melta on the fly because of my army)
3. As long as their consistent with it, and don't try to switch back or get up to any funny buisness, I'm entirely fine with non wysiwyg.

I agree. I go a step further and will make the player write it on a piece of paper too as a counter, as I have actually seen a lot of abuse in changing which plasma gun guy is really a melta gun.

The game should be fun and I don't have a problem with a few of these changes but the game becomes less fun when there are 10+ instances of these gun swap-outs you can't keep track of.

Now if its a full squad outfitted the same and you stay the bolt guns are all bolt pistols that's easier to keep track of. Especially with NIDs I am understanding.

RayvenQ
09-01-2011, 19:49
As long as they do something to make it unique, such as all of their plasma guns being meltas (or use whatever else isn't in use so say they want to have plasma guys in their squads, they use heavy bolter guys when they aren't using heavy bolters for anyone else etc)

But i don't mind about clarification, because the people i play with usually tell me anyway, and i usually ask, because i can't always see properly. (EG. Whenever I'm shooting, i'd go "this squad and This plasma guy, counting as a melta shooting at that squad "

Hicks
09-01-2011, 20:35
I don't think we should be too strict about it. One of the reasons why people don't paint their army is because they don't know exactly what they want to equip their units with. Sure some models can be easily magnetized, but for others it's a lot more complicated.

Just look at nids, they have a ton of biomorphs that must be glued onto the models (an with each codex their function change drastically). This makes it very hard for nid players to be 100% WYSIWIG and yet still be able to tweak their lists. Personally, as far as the weapons are well represented, I won't mind at all if some tiny gland bit isn't on the models. As long as I get told before the game what upgrades they have and what it does, I think it's fine.

And that's how I generally see things, at least have the right weapons showing on the models. Otherwise, it gets really hard to keep track of everything and prevents "magic weapon swapping on the fly", be it intentionnal or not.

koran
09-01-2011, 20:42
I like to be able to see at a glance what Im playing against so if there is a HUGE amount of reping it annoys me. On the other hand there are even recent kits that do not come with the bits needed to make many options.

The new DE warrior box is a good example. If you want to use this as the elite option with three dark lances you some how have to obtain another two dark lances and thats not an easy task as almost everyone uses the one in their box and has the same problem. So if its not too hard to see what things are and it isnt an endless list of 'this counts as this' then Im fine with it from my opponents (even though Im very anal about my army being WYSIWYG).

Tebrey
09-01-2011, 21:10
Hmm,

You know, when I first started playing there weren't options for everything. I played with what I had. I didn't have the skill to model changes...I practiced till I did. When the codex has a vehicle with no model, you make your own.

I have never once, in 22 years of 40k, put a figure on the table that was unpainted or NOT WYSIWYG.

It is laziness and over-competiveness to do otherwise. You can sing about having the game your way and other crap like that, but if you don't follow the rules, you're cheating, plain and simple.

gigglyjoker
09-01-2011, 21:17
Yes, yes, to Obi-Tebrey you listen.

Vaktathi
09-01-2011, 21:36
Not everyone has the money to buy all the models they'd like to have in their collection at any one time. Not everyone has time to buy the model for something new or to try out, and not everyone has the time, skill or patience to scratchbuild something decent. Some armies require *far* more models, scratchbuilding, and converting than others. These are simple facts of life. It's relatively simple to buy, build and paint a Space Marine army. Not so much a Tyranid or IG army, of which you could probably buy/build/paint three SM armies with the same $$$/time. If an opponent points out what things are before a game, is being consistent and not obnoxious about it, and has a legal army list, there shouldn't be a problem.

I have three fully built and painted armies, two other fully built armies, and another two in various stages of completion, but in all honesty there's no way I'm ever going to get every model I own painted, at least not in any space of less than a decade.

Yes it is nice to have everything built, painted, finished and WYSIWYG, but to deride others are lazy, cheese-mongering or cheating because they aren't using a fully built, painted and WYSIWYG army is the height of arrogant pretentiousness in a game of plastic toy army men.

Get over it.

This is a hobby, something to do for fun when you have spare time, to the extent to which you enjoy it. *NOT* a full time job, and *NOT* something that others depend on.

yabbadabba
09-01-2011, 22:00
It is laziness and over-competiveness to do otherwise. You can sing about having the game your way and other crap like that, but if you don't follow the rules, you're cheating, plain and simple. First, its not cheating. Second its not laziness or over competitiveness, thats the people and only certain people are like that.

Too big a brush :(.

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 22:05
If you and your opponent agree to it, it's no longer cheating; it's house rules. :p

gigglyjoker
09-01-2011, 22:13
Then stay at your house.

madden
09-01-2011, 22:13
I'm roughly 90% wysiwyg I don't stick on grenades or holsters and the only unit I change guns on is my havoks modled with heavy bolters which points dependant I call autocannons/las cannon cheaper than buying seperate weapons for one squad which would need 12 metal models in three diffrent guns, family and bills come first so I always tell my opponant what they are and only use one type in the squad so no confusion. As to unpainted it don't bother me to play against(won't do it myself but I've been doing this for years so have options) unassembled are not allowed to be used where I play so it dosen't come into it. Wysiwyg can go to far so common sense works.

jedideinos
09-01-2011, 22:25
I dont worry about pistols and grenades - in pouches, holsters etc, I figure. I do object if opponents try to utilise wargear/upgrades that aren't modelled, and make a big difference to the model's abilities. Worst case I've come across - an opponent in a tourny who claimed his daemon prince had wings, and it was ok despite the lack of WYSIWYG or informing me of the upgrade because he had paid the points. After that experience, I'm (understandably) keen on WYSIWYG.

yabbadabba
09-01-2011, 22:26
*sigh* It always comes down to this, everytime this argument happens. While everyone is entitled to their own standards, these are things that cannot be imposed on others, nor should it lead to any form of denigration of others. This is a hobby with a personal interpretation at its core and actively encouraged. All parts of the hobby and its enjoyment are as justifiable as any other. A painted army is as legitimate as an unpainted one; house rules are as legitimate as the brb; proxying is as legitimate as full wysiwyg; playing on the bedroom floor is as legitimate as playing on a fully modular table in a purpose built gaming room.

There will always be a need for certain boundaries to be drawn, but these are consensual, not imposed. The day this happens wargaming will stop being a hobby and will become a religion.

WildWeasel
09-01-2011, 22:47
Then stay at your house.

Tell them how they should be playing with their mandollies!

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 22:57
I didn't realize the guys playing with less than perfect WYSIWYG at the table next to you in a casual environment was ruining the game for you. I'll let them know they're in the wrong!

Tebrey
09-01-2011, 23:15
Definition of cheating: to violate the rules deliberately.

WYSIWYG is a rule of the game.

To say it isn't cheating to not follow the rules is to delude oneself.

Play however the hell you want. Make up any rules you want, but don't claim to be playing warhammer if you aren't following the rules.

I like house rules. I like conversions and cool models.

I don't like idiots coming in with unpainted, half-built models and claiming they have 2000 point armies.

I don't have a lot of time either. I'm married, working, and going back to school full time. I still find time for the hobby I love.

If you aren't going to follow the rules, paint your models, and model them correctly, you are just making excuses for laziness.

What I don't understand is what do you get out of the hobby if you don't?

WildWeasel
09-01-2011, 23:19
The rule only exists for character models in the 5E BRB, and even there it says "Hey, be flexible".

Tebrey
09-01-2011, 23:26
The rule only exists for character models in the 5E BRB, and even there it says "Hey, be flexible".

You see, I'm not talking about not be flexible.

I'm talking about the people who take advantage of it.

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
09-01-2011, 23:27
What I don't understand is what do you get out of the hobby if you don't?

I imagine the answer is "Fun" and/or "A good time with friends." What else are they supposed to get out of it?

WildWeasel
09-01-2011, 23:29
You see, I'm not talking about not be flexible.

I'm talking about the people who take advantage of it.

Well then the problem isn't the WSYWIG issue. It's the playing with jackwads.

Vaktathi
09-01-2011, 23:36
Definition of cheating: to violate the rules deliberately.

WYSIWYG is a rule of the game.

To say it isn't cheating to not follow the rules is to delude oneself.

Play however the hell you want. Make up any rules you want, but don't claim to be playing warhammer if you aren't following the rules.

I like house rules. I like conversions and cool models.

I don't like idiots coming in with unpainted, half-built models and claiming they have 2000 point armies.

I don't have a lot of time either. I'm married, working, and going back to school full time. I still find time for the hobby I love.

If you aren't going to follow the rules, paint your models, and model them correctly, you are just making excuses for laziness.

What I don't understand is what do you get out of the hobby if you don't?

And you are completely ignoring the realities of life, and what exactly this is that we are talking about. It's a *GAME*, a game of little plastic army men, one that not all people can or want to put huge numbers of hours of their life into. People with fully painted and WYSIWYG armies are by far the exception, not the rule, and for a reason. It takes a lot of time, effort, dedication and $$$. It's not something that everyone can or will do. The *ONLY* Specific WYSIWYG rule in the 5th edition rulebook is for Characters, and *specifically* mentions being flexible and giving leeway on that, even specifying that saying "that power weapon is just a chainsword, but he has meltabombs" is just fine. Other than that, no specific WYSIWYG rule exists in the 5th edition rulebook, nor mandating of painting or anything else.

Yes there is a point if week after week after week if someone just never gets their dudes even put together that it may be an issue, but other than that there really shouldn't be an issue.

Lothlanathorian
09-01-2011, 23:45
What about that part at the beginning of the BRB where it flat tells you you don't even need to follow the rules as written when playing? Does that count as a rule?

wewtzor
09-01-2011, 23:47
Its really not feasible in casual play to enforce WYSIWYG, especially for trying different combinations; I make my best efforts to get everything painted and reasonably representative, but sometimes you want to try using a flamer rather than heavy bolter or some similar exchange. As long as both parties are aware of a units capabilities and aren't gaming the system it shouldn't be an issue.

Wishing
10-01-2011, 00:21
WYSIWYG is a rule of the game.


In my view, it is not. It is a "rule" because the rulebook states it, but it is an etiquette rule, not a game rule. The game consists of measurements and dice rolls, and none of them are affected in any way by whether a model is WYSIWYG or not. It is like if the rulebook stated that you have to wear a yellow shirt while playing. Everyone who reads the book can tell that WYSIWYG is the kind of rule that is external to the game, and as such is very much optional without affecting the game.

Aegius
10-01-2011, 01:34
So in essence it seems to me that those supporting tight WYSIWYG basics also support tight painting basics. Which would lead onto similar standards for army lists and scenery. Is this fair?

Too big a brush


First, its not cheating. Second its not laziness or over competitiveness, thats the people and only certain people are like that.

Too big a brush :(.


hmmm, Too big a brush you say?


Definition of cheating: to violate the rules deliberately.

WYSIWYG is a rule of the game.

To say it isn't cheating to not follow the rules is to delude oneself.

Play however the hell you want. Make up any rules you want, but don't claim to be playing warhammer if you aren't following the rules.

I like house rules. I like conversions and cool models.

I don't like idiots coming in with unpainted, half-built models and claiming they have 2000 point armies.

I don't have a lot of time either. I'm married, working, and going back to school full time. I still find time for the hobby I love.

If you aren't going to follow the rules, paint your models, and model them correctly, you are just making excuses for laziness.

What I don't understand is what do you get out of the hobby if you don't?

I'm not being funny, this says it all. If I ever meet Tebrey, I'm going to give him at least one of my internetz.


Its really not feasible in casual play to enforce WYSIWYG

Casual play is exactly where you should be enforcing WYSIWYG, if I turn up to a club/store/whatever with my army for a pick up game with someone I don't know, then WYSIWYG is pretty much manditory. Why shouldn't it be? It's actually a rule in the rulebook. A game with your friends/gaming group may be a different thing entirely and that is when you can introduce house rules and skip any rules that you don't like. (Hell, within my gaming group we only ever play the same mission and deployment, that doesn't mean that I insist that we do the same whenever I play a random)

Nezalhualixtlan
10-01-2011, 01:52
You don't get to switch up on a whim.

Why not? Because you don't like it? Don't play players like that then, and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the game however we like it.

Many of us like variable games and lists, and are plenty happy to let our opponents proxy whatever they want. If we're happy, and our opponents are happy, then keep your meddling to yourself and more or less... go screw.

Designer891
10-01-2011, 03:30
What I want to know is how many of you anti-WYSIWYG players play with armies of guys missing arms, missing weapons... throw all your figs in a plastic seal food box and game?

These are the worst IMO and I can't stand playing against people who just dump and throw their figs around and just don't care. I have seen plenty of people like this and I think they make up about 20% of the gamers I have played against. These are the same dudes who eat sandwiches over the gaming tables and drop food all over the terrain.

I can't be the only one who has played against these types of gamers ... anyone with me on that?

UberBeast
10-01-2011, 04:32
What I want to know is how many of you anti-WYSIWYG players play with armies of guys missing arms, missing weapons... throw all your figs in a plastic seal food box and game?

These are the worst IMO and I can't stand playing against people who just dump and throw their figs around and just don't care. I have seen plenty of people like this and I think they make up about 20% of the gamers I have played against. These are the same dudes who eat sandwiches over the gaming tables and drop food all over the terrain.

I can't be the only one who has played against these types of gamers ... anyone with me on that?

I know these players well. It's sad because playing against them ruins a visualy driven game which is the reason for having 3d paintable models to begin with. They typically never paint their army, they abuse it, and they rarely add anything new to it instead just "counting as" everything they want to try.

I've gone so far as to take several of these guys under my wing and paint their army for them, only to see them dump those figures into the same bin. Then my friend bought them army foam, which they use for their unpainted new army which they just bought, keeping the one I painted in the tupperware container. Yeesh!

Pearls before swine is all I have to add.

Lothlanathorian
10-01-2011, 10:04
What about that part at the beginning of the BRB where it flat tells you you don't even need to follow the rules as written when playing? Does that count as a rule?

Should be around page three of the BRB. Can someone check and post? I lost my rulebook and haven't been able to replace it as of yet.

yabbadabba
10-01-2011, 10:14
The problem with talking with fanatics is the only reason they see is their own blinkered vision of what is right. Everything else is wrong regardless of circumstances, people or intentions. This is what ruins a hobby, the lack of acceptance, even at arms length, that other people are right in how they want to enjoy themselves even if you choose not to join in. Being abusive is just a bully's way of not facing up to a inadequate intellect to deal with such contrasts.
This thread should be consigned to P+R along with any others like it :(

chromedog
10-01-2011, 10:25
Return to?

I never left.

It's the reason I have multiple models purely because they have different gear.
As in 6 SM 'captain' models with different (legal) wargear/weapons.

I'm rather tired of the same semi-built/unfinished bare grey plastic weaponless Space Blood Angel Wolves, for example.

SumYungGui
10-01-2011, 11:52
I'm rather tired of the same semi-built/unfinished bare grey plastic weaponless Space Blood Angel Wolves, for example.

That's different from people who have not been able to finish their army yet like an IG/Ork/'Nid player. Grey plastic marine players never, ever intend to finish their army they're just power gamers being defensive with their cash. They don't want to actually have to pay for primer/paint and extra models when the next flavor of space marine comes out. Dollars to a doughnut these exact same people are suddenly going to be the hugest Grey Knights fans ever as soon as the models come out.

Nomrana Est
10-01-2011, 12:14
I'm a big SM player, but all of the miniatures I use in-game are painted and WYSIWYG. Because I have so many of the damn things, and all are armed differently, (1st squads Sergeant is differently equipped to 3rd squads Sergeant for example), I have the versatility there, and I am able to tailor the list to the other player.

I flat out refuse to use any unpainted minis, but I will play against those people who build their army to a certain list, as long as I know what everything is. I feel that, as long as I know what everything in my opponenet's list is, it's ok to play with.

I am a rather casual player, however, so take from what I've written what you will.

WildWeasel
10-01-2011, 13:04
What I want to know is how many of you anti-WYSIWYG players play with armies of guys missing arms, missing weapons... throw all your figs in a plastic seal food box and game?


I don't put a model on the table that isn't fully painted and reasonably WYSIWYG. I don't stick a bolt pistol, boltgun, CCW, frag grenade, and krak grenade on every single Grey Hunter. But weapon upgrades and the like are modeled. I haven't played with any models with the Mark of the Wulfen because I've not yet found a way to represent that to my liking. I'm not going to sweat making a wolf tooth necklace for my Wolf Lord, though, as that's a tiny little fiddly detail that's lost in the pile of wolf details already on the models (and not really within my modeling skills).

I have two Battlefoam bags that are my primary army transport. I do sometimes use plastic food boxes, with padding for the models, for ones I'm still working on or really oddly shaped things that don't easily fit in the case.

But the decision to play fully painted and the level of WYSIWYG that I do is a personal one, largely to give me the motivation to actually get things painted. The only thing I expect of my opponents is a fun and respectful time. I'd far rather play against Grey Marines with a half-dozen non-WYSIWYG instances when my opponent is a fun and jolly chap, then a beautifully painted and strictly WYSIWYG army commanded by an annoying jerkwad.

ForbidMetal
10-01-2011, 13:14
I think WYSIWYG is a very restrictive boring rule. I can understand people want to see what their opponent has in their units so they don't end up getting their tanks blown up by the grot who is really a terminator with thunder hammer.

However, on the same token, I like to paint and build very distinctive looking armies.
My Night Lords have all sorts of crazy **** in their units, you'd mistake one unit for possessed if I didn't tell you they were chosen. They have blatant weapons that they wouldn't be able to use in some units like a huge guy wielding a heavy bolter with one arm and a powerfist in the other.

I do this because they look great.
If I did WYSIWYG it would make my force look boring and like most other Chaos forces (I use the Chaos book btw, not Blood Angels etc).
However, I also include a base in each unit with a small pole and a piece of paper on the pole stating what is in the unit out of respect for whomever I play against.

I can't stand people who arn't relaxed about WYSIWYG, it makes all the time I spent in converting models feel pointless.

madden
10-01-2011, 13:18
I make my wulfen using the wolf shaped helmet and I only use it on models with wulfen so no confusion.

Ambull Tau
10-01-2011, 13:38
I despise WYSIWYG: It's greedy and uncalled for, and its a rule designed to modify social behaviour to increase sales, rather than a rule that makes the game more fun.

Provided it's clear to everyone playing what the models represent, I've no problem with it.

Players tend to ignore or workround WYSIWYG rules: I've not seen a Tau Army yet that doesn't have swap round magnets somewhere, for example. (But as a friend of mine explained, really they magnetised things so they had a reason to paint everything :p )

But then I play Orks. About a third of my force is heavily modified in someway anyway. WYSIWYG would simply get in the way of the fun.

Jonnycron
10-01-2011, 13:42
I personally have no problem with non wysiwyg armies or unpainted
Armies, everyone has their own interpretation of the hobby and it's up to them how they choose to represent their minis, it's their property at the end of the day.

I'm a pretty awful painter and not exactly quick with it either but I do like to try, I know other people like playing the game itself more than the enjoy the hobby side, so should they be banned from playing because they don't enjoy one aspect of the hobby?? I personally don't think so, as long as your happy with you army it shouldn't matter about the other players as long as they make it clear what is what!

Rick Blaine
10-01-2011, 13:51
No matter how you try to justify it, having a non-WYSIWYG army gives you an advantage you are not entitled to. Personally, I consider it to be in the same "soft powergaming" category as modeling for advantage and writing illegible army lists.

WildWeasel
10-01-2011, 13:54
No matter how you try to justify it, having a non-WYSIWYG army gives you an advantage you are not entitled to. Personally, I consider it to be in the same "soft powergaming" category as modeling for advantage and writing illegible army lists.

What advantage is that?

Ambull Tau
10-01-2011, 15:01
No matter how you try to justify it, having a non-WYSIWYG army gives you an advantage you are not entitled to. .
Taking that line of thought to it's logical extreme, that basically means that he who spends the most money has the most flexible army.

Which is brilliant for your FLGS's bank balance, and rubbish for having fun. Surely you've improvised when gaming? Provided both sides understand what each model represents, where is the problem?

Rick Blaine
10-01-2011, 15:20
What advantage is that?

In case you're not trolling:

Obscuring the nature and capabilities of your models. Even if you're completely open and honest regarding what's what, you're still unfairly forcing additional mental work on your opponent by adding another filter between the physical battlefield and his mental interpretation of it, thus reducing the speed of his game state evaluation and tactics-forming.

Not to mention the high probability of him simply forgetting some of your counts-as and making tactical decisions based on incorrect information.


Taking that line of thought to it's logical extreme, that basically means that he who spends the most money has the most flexible army.

Which is brilliant for your FLGS's bank balance, and rubbish for having fun. Surely you've improvised when gaming? Provided both sides understand what each model represents, where is the problem?

The person who buys more models owns more models, yes :shifty:

I find larger collections to be an in-game advantage only if you are gearing up towards a specific opponent, which I personally find unsporting.

WildWeasel
10-01-2011, 15:41
In case you're not trolling:

Obscuring the nature and capabilities of your models. Even if you're completely open and honest regarding what's what, you're still unfairly forcing additional mental work on your opponent by adding another filter between the physical battlefield and his mental interpretation of it, thus reducing the speed of his game state evaluation and tactics-forming.

Not to mention the high probability of him simply forgetting some of your counts-as and making tactical decisions based on incorrect information.

Who is forcing you to play? If it's a casual game and that's something you don't want to deal with, then politely say so and decline the game. It it's an event, it should have WYSIWYG guidelines posted and you can choose to participate based on that. If you are in an event and someone is violating those guidelines, call an event official over. There is no "unfair forcing" when your participation is entirely voluntary.

Yes, it does add an extra bit of information to track and consider. Personally, with a hundred models on the table and who knows what options out of over a dozen codices, I find remembering "the heavy bolters in that Havoc squad" or "these genestealers have toxin sacs" to be the barest drop in the processing bucket.

But, as noted, these are personal decisions. The difference is that I'm not declaring mine as the One True Way of 40k and that anyone who deviates from it is a jerkwad that's not playing True Warhammer.

Aegius
10-01-2011, 15:58
I think you'll find that a majority of the WYSIWYG purists (myself included.) are not as militant in their expectations as our posts are making out. We play many games, against many opponents, some of which are against people that comply with WYSIWYG and some that don't. We don't turn down games and we don't insult our partners. We give the leeway, but it just irks us that our opponents don't give us the same respect by at least putting the effort in. We have done our part to make sure that our opponent has fun(allowing them to proxy/ignore wysiwyg/use unpainted models.) but they have not returned the favor by putting in the effort.

As a note for 'he with the most models wins', I don't agree. I can go out and buy a landspeeder(for example, you can do this with a lot of GW kits.) and build it in such a way that it can represent 8 different options just by using magnets and/or pins.

MM/HF
HB/HF
MM/AC
HB/AC
HB
MM
MM/TYPHOON
HB/TYPHOON

d6juggernaut
10-01-2011, 16:09
My rule of thumb for my opponent and myself, have an army list written out before the game, don't make the proxies too confusing("This plasma is a melta, but that plasma is an actual plasma"), and tell the opponent what the proxies are before the game. I'm fine with everything within these rules. Oh and make sure the models look nice:)

ehlijen
10-01-2011, 16:19
It's a miniature wargame. That means, to me at least, it's about miniatures. And I prefer it if those those miniatures look the part, and if my opponent's do too.

WYSIWYG is to allow players to not have to remember who carries what and who is what kind of trooper. Sure, colour coded lines on the base do the same thing, but they don't look anywhere near as nice. If the look didn't matter, I'd be playing with lego figures (heck sometimes I still do that) or carboard markers.

Yes, taken to its extreme, WYSIWYG could be taken to mean that you're meant to buy more miniatures. But consider this:
Who is forcing you to need more than the one option you like using?

Luisjoey
10-01-2011, 16:26
gigglyjoker i do agree with you

but you have to keep in mind the type of people gaming, some people put the cheese over the game sense, other look for easiest ways, etc.

I like to play fully WYSIWYG and encourages everybody to the very same!

Bunnahabhain
10-01-2011, 16:53
There is always an amount of markers etc in use, in even the strictest WYSIWYG games- wound counters, broken/gone to ground squads, vehicle damage etc... Not to mention very hard to model things- how many people can identify all biomorphs accurately, or what grenades those are modelled on.

I play by fairly strict WYSIWYG, but still do things like using the same artillery vehicles to be a griffon or a collusus-not both in the same game, obviously. If people think that's too loose, them I have a feeling that's their problem, not mine...

Joo-o
10-01-2011, 16:58
I myself play pretty strict WYSIWYG, but I allow slips here and there from my opponents, as long as they are announced beforehand. Slipping from WYSIWYG is in my opinion acceptable in casual games, but in tournaments there should be atleast a benefit for playing WYSIWYG, if not totally banning armies that are not so.

jamesterjlrb
10-01-2011, 17:11
I have 3000 points of fully painted Guard. When i play in tournaments i play absolutely WYSIWYG, but in a casual game i might have the odd thing. Such as "this power fist which really doesn't look like a power fist anyway cause the guard ones are pathetic, doesn't exist". Cause when i'm trying out new units i might need a few points of leeway. Conversely i have no problem with people explaining a few non WYSIWYG things. However it can get out of hand. When people who should know better start listing tons of things because they've in hindsight put models together wrong i get irritated. I don't refuse to play cause you can't afford to in my store. It's so small you just won't get a game, but i do point it out and suggest they do something about it.

Lord Inquisitor
10-01-2011, 17:21
I think WYSIWYG is a very restrictive boring rule. I can understand people want to see what their opponent has in their units so they don't end up getting their tanks blown up by the grot who is really a terminator with thunder hammer.

However, on the same token, I like to paint and build very distinctive looking armies.
But these are two very different things.

There are two things people think of as "non-WYSIWYG" and they are not the same. I shall call them "WYSIWYG" and "Counts-as."


A "non-WYSIWYG" model is one where you do not have the correct option or model, so you're using a proxy for that particular game. "So all of my tactical squads have a plasma gun and a lascannon, regardless of what special/heavy weapons are on the models" is pretty manageable, "The guys who are looking to the left have meltaguns" is less acceptable.

A "counts-as" model is one where you've deliberately for modelling reasons created one model or option to represent another. "These guys with inferno pistols count as meltaguns," "My Cadians on motorcycles count as rough riders" etc. The one caveat on "counts-as" is that you can't use something that's actually an option for that unit in your army (if you say "all plasmaguns are meltaguns" that's back to a WYSIWYG problem, no claiming artistic preference there!).
These are two very different beasts and people are arguing at cross-purposes. Because in the first example, the model is a proxy or upgrades are not shown on the model, so it isn't WYSIWYG. In the second case, the model does represent the unit and upgrades are represented - they're just not the standard models.

In general, the former is much less acceptable. To give you an example, my Raptors (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2786309&postcount=142). They are not the standard models: they are heavily based on the Possessed models (two have wings!), they carry shields (which is not an option for them), they are not carrying the requisite bolt pistol and close combat weapon and one has claws (that count as lightning claws). That said they are WYSIWYG - the troopers with meltaguns are carrying meltaguns, the champion is clearly identifyable and clearly carrying an icon and counts-as lightning claws.

So let's be clear that we're all arguing the same thing. I prefer WYSIWYG, and I make quite a bit of effort to make sure my models are WYSIWYG. But that doesn't mean they're standard out-of-the-box models or involve a fair bit of "counts as".

Lord Damocles
10-01-2011, 17:47
We're talking about two different issues here - WYSIWYG and general army appearance.

But these are two very different things.

There are two things people think of as "non-WYSIWYG" and they are not the same. I shall call them "WYSIWYG" and "Counts-as."
These two posts deserve the awarding of cookies.

It seems that many people in this thread (both pro- and anti- WYSIWYG) are mixing other issues into their arguements - deliberately or otherwise - which has only served to complicate the issue and create a 'you suck!' 'No, you suck!' approach over the last couple of pages*.

Rick Blaine
10-01-2011, 18:53
Good post there, Lord Inquisitor. Creative modeling is indeed not inherently non-WYSIWYG as long as it's perfectly obvious what the model is supposed to be, as your fine winged Raptors show. Funny thing about those Possessed wings is that they are actually not WYSIWYG if you put them on the models they come with.

Inquisitor Gabriel Ashe
10-01-2011, 18:53
I once ran my Sisters as "Sisters Sanguine" a counts-as BA list to try it out before getting the BA models. Celestine was the Sanguiness, I used Seraphim Superiors as Honour Guard with JPs. Regular Sisters were tac squads. All their weapons were the correct ones where possible (my HFlamers became Multimeltas since I didn't have the models and Heavy Flamers aren't a tac squad choice).

gigglyjoker
10-01-2011, 20:43
I despise WYSIWYG: It's greedy and uncalled for, and its a rule designed to modify social behaviour to increase sales

Could you elaborate on this statement?

ehlijen
10-01-2011, 22:23
Could you elaborate on this statement?

I believe he is referring to the mistaken belief that wysiwyg forces players to buy models for every possible wargear combination.

scarletsquig
10-01-2011, 23:19
Well-presented army to me equals "painted army".

The standard of painting is irrelevant, a regular opponent of mine used to just do flat colours on his models. No highlighting or shading used, bases all painted flat goblin green.

Still looked great as an army.

In fact it looked better than my army, where about half of the models were painted to a much higher standard but the other half was either basecoated or undercoated.

Colonel Alexi
11-01-2011, 02:33
I have mixed feelings about this. I definitely agree with the painting however, I stick to the old GW rules that they used to have before they changed it to cater to younger audience "If its not painted it can't be on the field".

However for the WYSIWYG rule to a certain degree yes it should be enforced as it just confuses things how that guy with a bolt pistol magically has a plasma gun or whatever. It just slows down the game.

However on the other hand take my Grey hunters for example some of them have wolf pelts on them, although this is technically a wargear grey hunters cant take them, but even that what if I have a wolf pelt on my rune priest, they all come modelled like that. But what if I don't want the wolf-pelt but for a Space Wolf army having wolf pelts is basically a must on leaders purely for fluff rules. So in that case no I disagree it shouldn't be brought back. Furthermore for friendly games why not have someone try out new equipment on their units?

Pontiff
11-01-2011, 03:04
I find larger collections to be an in-game advantage only if you are gearing up towards a specific opponent, which I personally find unsporting.

Sort of agree here
To me the art of collecting an army is to take some time on it, read up on it *carefully* choose the models that make a force that is representative of the spirit of the codex (rather than min maxing for advantages) and you can expect to play all comers with and not rely on gimmicks.

I once recall seeing one guys force at warhammer world that was nothing but basic tactical marines (admiteddly all well painted) and the theory was that swamping the enemy with fairly rugged small squads would end up wth him having more table quarters (back in 3rd ed days), the fact it didnt really fit the back ground (nearly an entire company of marines armed only with bolters, on foot and with an absolute minimum of support staff) didnt bother them... in fairness though it was WYSIWYG :)

To me i like my army to be WYSIWYG and painted, i dont mind if my opponents army is in mid paint as long as it clearly gets more painted over time and i dont mind the odd counts as or trial piece clearly labelled *but* if i charge into a unit of tactical marines i want to get there and not find out they are actually assault temrinators (or to a lesser extent assault marines).

Models geared for assault shoudl look like they are, ditto for heavies etc and WYSIWYG is the ideal - Personally i hamstring myself by only using one piece old style metal minis where a lot of stuff simply doesnt exist. it just means i have to choose choices there are minis for and choose my minis carefully, personally i dont mind this.

Painting wise as long as they have a painted base (i dont even mind if its plain grey 'concrete'), one colour for the uniform, a flesh shade on the face/hands etc and black or silver on the guns (or comparable) i dont mind if its shaded, blacklined or block colours... i'd probably decline to play an unpainted or half assembled army though tbh as its just a maths exercise via the medium of grey plastic without the visual stimuli - i'd prefer we both just used card counters :)

Then again I play almost exclusivly with a group of five or six mates who i know well who all also enjoy fully painted, WYSIWYG armies on a fully painted table and on that front i'm lucky. We might play less games but we've not played one with unpainted (or even just undercoated) minis yet.

Lord Inquisitor
11-01-2011, 05:29
Sort of agree here
To me the art of collecting an army is to take some time on it, read up on it *carefully* choose the models that make a force that is representative of the spirit of the codex (rather than min maxing for advantages) and you can expect to play all comers with and not rely on gimmicks.

I once recall seeing one guys force at warhammer world that was nothing but basic tactical marines (admiteddly all well painted) and the theory was that swamping the enemy with fairly rugged small squads would end up wth him having more table quarters (back in 3rd ed days), the fact it didnt really fit the back ground (nearly an entire company of marines armed only with bolters, on foot and with an absolute minimum of support staff) didnt bother them... in fairness though it was WYSIWYG :)

I don't really understand the objection. Well painted, WYSIWYG space marine army, with a large proportion of tactical marines? Particularly considering this was in the days of 2x 5 man lasplas squads as your troops and load up on elites and heavy support, it actually sounds a lot more fluffy than average. Not to mention there are reserve companies entirely consisting of tactical marines and many forces are podded or airdropped behind enemy lines, so it isn't even far fetched at all.

Your entire objection and ten-plus-year-old anecdote is of a person with a legal, painted, WYSIWYG army largely of frontline troops ... Which is bad because you don't like the composition of his army :eyebrows:

Pontiff
11-01-2011, 06:05
No you completely misunderstand my objection it was chosen purely to swamp the table with marines to take ground as it was near impossible to kill them all off in the given six turns or so, he said quite blatantly that this was the rationale.

And it was about six years ago at the most so we may have been into 4th edition by then.

My objection is with an army chosen to exploit the victory conditions of many scenarios - the fielder of said army had no intention of it representing a reserve company he just wanted a marine hoarde.

Lothlanathorian
11-01-2011, 08:20
No you completely misunderstand my objection it was chosen purely to swamp the table with marines to take ground as it was near impossible to kill them all off in the given six turns or so, he said quite blatantly that this was the rationale.

And it was about six years ago at the most so we may have been into 4th edition by then.

My objection is with an army chosen to exploit the victory conditions of many scenarios - the fielder of said army had no intention of it representing a reserve company he just wanted a marine hoarde.

I used to play a Marine horde back in 3rd. It was effective. So, you are hating on someone who build an army with a coherent and sound tactic/playstyle in mind? I though the goal of the game was to win? Your logic is as sound as disliking a guy who fields lascannons to kill tanks:confused:

And Lord Inquisitor, we know that this thread was instigated by you dropping some Genestealers in a pants factory so that, in time, you'd have an excuse to post a link to those gorgeous Raptors:p

So, if some of you WYSIWYG hardcore types were playing a SW or Chaos Marines player who didn't model all three weapons on his dudes, would you have a silent aneurysm? Or, is it, you know, acceptable, since they are pretty blatantly Grey Hunters/Chaos Space Marines?

AndrewGPaul
11-01-2011, 08:26
No, he's "hating on" someone who builds an army purely for game effectiveness, with no attempt to represent an "actual" Space Marine force. I'm not sure why the two of you aren't getting this, because Pontiff has written it fairly clearly twice now.

Taking an army consisting of nothing but sixty Marines with boltguns is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "fluffy" army. It's just as cheesy as a "Lash Prince" army or the like.

Lothlanathorian
11-01-2011, 08:37
So, building a force that is effective is cheese? And I had a 62 man, all infantry Marine army back in 3rd. Being called 'cheesey' was the last I'd have been called. Most people thought it would be ineffective an easy to beat. Little did they know how very wrong they were.

Also, most of our games were for VP. I didn't build it because I thought it would be awesome and secure me a lot of wins, though. I fielded it because I didn't like putting together or painting vehicles, so I didn't.

And, while I can see having an issue with someone who builds an army with no more thought put into beyond where the winbutton is, at the same time, that SM force is nowhere near the same level as the Lashbliterators of Chaosystuff. Again, you might as well get upset at a guy who takes lascannons to kill tanks.

Wishing
11-01-2011, 10:55
So, building a force that is effective is cheese?

Not if you build it accidentally. ;) I think the point is to do with motivation. If your army is, as Pontiff put it, "a force that is representative of the spirit of the codex", then people like Pontiff will be cool with it. Following the spirit of the codex means, as I understand it, to build the army based on fluff and character, ignoring rules considerations (other than points costs) as much as possible. So if you show your 60 marine army and say "this is a reserve company that got stranded without support, so only have their bolters and numbers to rely on in their desperate struggle for survival", you get props. If you show the same army and say "this army is designed for maximum effectiveness, min-max style", then people will shake their head at you. It's all about perspective.

tuebor
11-01-2011, 11:14
It's a miniature wargame. That means, to me at least, it's about miniatures. And I prefer it if those those miniatures look the part, and if my opponent's do too.

I'm sure pretty much everyone prefers that, however some of us are realistic and realize it isn't always going to happen.

Azulthar
11-01-2011, 11:24
I'm a 90% WYSIWYG kind of guy. Grenades and biomorphs I don't care about at all. I prefer weapons to be accurate, but one or two weapons being substituted at 1500 points is not something I'll lose sleep over.

Personally I care more about the fluff than the miniatures...I prefer someone who swaps a few weapons to someone who plays a Deathguard army with everything in Rhino's and winged Daemon Princes.

AndrewGPaul
11-01-2011, 12:00
So, building a force that is effective is cheese?

No. Building an army based purely upon game rules considerations, with no thought to the background is, in my opinion - and Pontiff's, too, apparently. If that's what you do, that's fine - it's a big world, and there's room for everyone.

Ambull Tau
11-01-2011, 12:11
I believe he is referring to the mistaken belief that wysiwyg forces players to buy models for every possible wargear combination.

A mistaken belief held by various people who run tournaments as well, sadly.

But horror stories of people being kicked out of competitions for fielding rogue trader era models are perhaps off topic.


Given that it'd be generous to call it 'coherent' and what meaning you can glean from it shows the poster has no understanding of what the actual discussion is about... no. :D

How incredibly rude of you. That was uncalled for.

Pontiff
12-01-2011, 03:10
No, he's "hating on" someone who builds an army purely for game effectiveness, with no attempt to represent an "actual" Space Marine force. I'm not sure why the two of you aren't getting this, because Pontiff has written it fairly clearly twice now.

Taking an army consisting of nothing but sixty Marines with boltguns is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "fluffy" army. It's just as cheesy as a "Lash Prince" army or the like.

Cheers Andrew.

I was seriously wondering whether my current bout of illness related insominia (hence all the 4am posts... fentanyl you've got to love it kids! :) ) had made my posts incomprehensable.

Yup that exactly what i meant..

I mean I used to play a very scout heavy marine army but the backstory was the chapter were on the very end of a penitant crusade and most the power armour was screwed so most squads had revered to easier to maintain scout armour... i also self handicapped myslef by limiting myself to only one landspeeder in the army for the same reasons (hard to repair, low supplys).

Actually it an army i was working on and worked out with mates to allow marines to voluntarily take scout armour (at a lower points cost) and regain the ability to infiltrate *but* the flipside was that all power armour units counted as elites, only one tracked vehicle and one speeder was allowed as well. All house rules that my colleagues and mates were cool with but was modelled WYSIWYG and to be honest was a real handicap rather than a bonus but made for a cool background.

You see to me its all about the story, the narrative and the *spirit* of the army and the game.

And personally I dont play 'to win', I play to create a story. To me its like playing D&D, you dont 'win' an RPG.. you win by creating an exciting universe and suspension of disbelief between the players. Luckily I'm part of a very sound gaming group who all feel the same way and come from similar backgrounds (gaming wise).

Shameless plug for our gaming ethic here:
http://talesfromthemaelstrom.blogspot.com/search/label/Why%20We%20Play
If you have a second please read 'why we play' to me its fundamental to the spirit... while the passage isnt written by myself its written by a gmaing buddy who pretty much spoke for eveyr member of the group when he posted it up!


edit: oh and i'm not 'hating on' anything really as a Taoist i find 'mild dissapointment' suffices :) hates far too intense an emotion for a game of toy soldiers :)

unheilig
12-01-2011, 05:13
I've never NOT played WYSIWYG.

I've always expected my opponents to, as well.

Lord Inquisitor
12-01-2011, 05:51
You see to me its all about the story, the narrative and the *spirit* of the army and the game.

And personally I dont play 'to win', I play to create a story. To me its like playing D&D, you dont 'win' an RPG.. you win by creating an exciting universe and suspension of disbelief between the players. Luckily I'm part of a very sound gaming group who all feel the same way and come from similar backgrounds (gaming wise).

No I got what you meant. The guy was playing in a style you don't like. That's fair enough, different people want different things. But you have held this up as an example of something objectionable. Building an army that is effective on the tabletop is against the spirit of the game now?

We've gone from people who don't model or paint their armies to now building a list in a manner you don't like. 40k is a competitive game, it pits two players against each other in an attempt to win. Narrative is nice and all but are we seriously at the point of looking down on someone because he's built an army to win the game as opposed to giving himself a self-imposed handicap or giving each guy a name and background?

I get themed armies (even my tournament lists are slaanesh themed, so I understand self-limitation even in competitive settings), I understand disliking unpainted or non-WYSIWYG models. I, too, dislike WAAC behaviour for that matter, although for me that implies underhand behaviour beyond merely making a good list. But that someone plays wrongly because he builds an army to (shock) win the game - that I don't get.

Designer891
12-01-2011, 07:32
Who cares about how people build their lists ... ether to be fluffy or win, it is all legal. Nobody should complain about ether one as it is part of this fun game to be able to do both.

This is about WYSIWYG / Models not about cheesy list which I myself am super tired of hearing about. If its a cheesy list I'd love to play against you cause the challenge is one of the things I enjoy. If the list is legal it's legal. It's impossible to make every army totally equal just like in chess or even tic-tac-toe going first gives you an advantage ... the Die play a big roll in the game ether way.

AndrewGPaul
12-01-2011, 08:34
No I got what you meant. The guy was playing in a style you don't like. That's fair enough, different people want different things. But you have held this up as an example of something objectionable. Building an army that is effective on the tabletop is against the spirit of the game now?

You know what? I do find it objectionable. What neither myself nor Pontiff have said is that doing such a thing is wrong. What we have said is that we don't like it.

Wishing
12-01-2011, 10:33
Building an army that is effective on the tabletop is against the spirit of the game now?


Obviously all of this is grey areas, nothing is black and white. But I think that following the "spirit of the game" mentality, then if that's the only consideration, then yes.

Obviously once the game is underway, the player is expected to "roleplay" his figures appropriately, and it is assumed that those figures want to defeat the enemy, hence why the game is a competition with a winner and a loser. However, when you build your army, gaming considerations - although impossible to completely ignore - "should" be secondary to background and roleplaying elements, according to this line of thinking. If someone asks you why you included one of your units, the primary reasoning is supposed to be background-based. As a secondary consideration, it is acceptable to say "I think it is effective in-game too", but if that becomes primary, then it is considered cheesemongering.

Note that I think gaming groups who actually play like this are quite rare. But maybe a lot of groups aspire to be like this? I'm not sure, but GW themselves do set this kind of attitude up as an ideal, I think. And the fact that the concepts of cheese and comp exist at all shows that this kind of thinking is influential, even if most groups don't actually follow it literaly.

Major_Manny
12-01-2011, 11:53
I think WYSIWYG is a good thing for the hobby, there is nothing worse than playing someone that suddenly says some of his meltaguns are now flamers, just because he's seen me lay down 100 guardsmen! Its too confusing for both parties to remember what weapon is what!

For people to say that guard is too difficult to make WYSIWYG are talking madness! Its an easy army to weapon swap to make sure you have the correct special and heavy weapons. Jeez, FW do pleanty of weapon upgrade packs for you to swap your weapons around, without having to say that model has a super mega death ray today, but tomorrow its back to a flamer.

I myself own 10 leaman russes, so that i can swap and change between games, but nowadays, the standard box contains various turret weapons anyway? So people don't need to use icecream tubs as tanks!

I do however, not really care about grenades on troops, so long as it is made clear what squads have what. and whilst my army is painted, its upto other people what they do with theirs, but i atleast like to see a little bit of effort and progress from time to time.

Spyral
12-01-2011, 12:24
Unless EVERY marine has both frag AND krak grenades they don't count as having them.... 3E had the caveat that the didn't need to be modelled but 5e doesn't...

Major_Manny
12-01-2011, 12:28
Well my kriegsmen have thier frag and krak grenades in thier webbing and bergens!!!

magath
12-01-2011, 12:50
For me it about 2 factors:
1: they've paid the points for the change (if it says on your army list you've paid for a plasma pistol that's fine, suddenly saying it halfway through a game without a list is not).

2: don't take the ****, that tau tank is not a carnifex. However the sternguard sarge can be a marine commander if you want.

This should go into the rulebook in big black letters

WildWeasel
12-01-2011, 13:12
Unless EVERY marine has both frag AND krak grenades they don't count as having them.... 3E had the caveat that the didn't need to be modelled but 5e doesn't...

That's because the only mention of WYSIWYG is in relation to characters.

Wishing
12-01-2011, 13:46
This should go into the rulebook in big black letters

"Don't take the ****" should be in the rulebook? No objections from me, though it might be hard to enforce...

Drongol
12-01-2011, 15:34
I have a related question:

I just purchased Tyberos the Red Wave from Forgeworld, and am dreaming up armies to use him in. I think I've settled on using the Space Wolves Codex and building up a Loganwing army, with him counting as Logan.

How acceptable would this be? Admittedly, he's not armed with a Storm Bolter, but I feel that the Axe Morkai is a pretty close fit for Lightning Chain Claws or whatever they are. Plus, it would allow me to field an almost entirely Terminator force.

Everything else in the army would be entirely WYSIWYG, but I'd really rather not butcher a FW model to try to add a storm bolter somewhere. Would this be a major sticking point for people?

In case you want to see the model, here he is: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html

[Edit: threw up the link.]

gigglyjoker
12-01-2011, 16:35
Maybe you can glue a bolter under each hand like Marneus Calgar.

Ster Bear8
12-01-2011, 16:47
Wysiwyg and unpainted armies is my pet peeve.
If i wanted to see huge hoards of grey plastic battling against each other i would play strategy video games....but the point of the hobby is also to paint and model your minis (IMO at least) Im ok with a couple unpainted/unfinished models but the sight of multiple grey armys sickens me.. :(

AndrewGPaul
12-01-2011, 21:49
Everything else in the army would be entirely WYSIWYG, but I'd really rather not butcher a FW model to try to add a storm bolter somewhere. Would this be a major sticking point for people?

In case you want to see the model, here he is: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html

[Edit: threw up the link.]

This really is a bit of a pointless question to be asking here. You should ask the specific people against whom you play regularly. Some people might object, others may not. Personally I'm fine with it, although if it was me, I'd refrain from shooting the "invisible storm bolter".


Wysiwyg and unpainted armies is my pet peeve.
If i wanted to see huge hoards of grey plastic battling against each other i would play strategy video games....but the point of the hobby is also to paint and model your minis (IMO at least) Im ok with a couple unpainted/unfinished models but the sight of multiple grey armys sickens me.. :(

So, no Imperial Guard vs Relictors games for you, then? :)

Drongol
12-01-2011, 22:01
This really is a bit of a pointless question to be asking here. You should ask the specific people against whom you play regularly. Some people might object, others may not. Personally I'm fine with it, although if it was me, I'd refrain from shooting the "invisible storm bolter".

Agreed on the "invisible storm bolter" issue. That said, I do not have a regular gaming group as such--I am more of a painter than a player, and my free time is such that I rarely manage to get in a game, period. That said, I don't want to invest money and particularly time into something that the "average" gamer would have an issue with, you know?

Wishing
13-01-2011, 00:08
Agreed on the "invisible storm bolter" issue. That said, I do not have a regular gaming group as such--I am more of a painter than a player, and my free time is such that I rarely manage to get in a game, period. That said, I don't want to invest money and particularly time into something that the "average" gamer would have an issue with, you know?

One of the truths about this kind of gaming is that the better your army looks, the less likely it is that people will complain about it. If you do the army up really nice, people will go "wow, cool!", and once they do that, they aren't likely to go "hmmm, I disapprove of your lack of WYSIWYG".

Far Seer
13-01-2011, 01:15
well once painted, melta guns look quite similar to flamers... The problem with WYSIWG is that you need to magnetise a ton of stuff and maybe even invest more money into extra bitz. But i agree with WYSIWG, i just don't mind it too much if my opponent says that his SM sergeant has a PW instead of a chainsword.

Lord Damocles
13-01-2011, 09:51
The problem with WYSIWG is that you need to magnetise a ton of stuff and maybe even invest more money into extra bitz.
You only need to magnetise weapons and buy extra bits if you swap equipment around with any great regularity. The simplest solution is simply to use the models you have, equipped with what they have modelled.

If I want my Guard to have Grenade Launchers for some reason - tough. The models have either Meltas or Plasmas. So I'll equip them with Meltas of Plasmas.

ehlijen
13-01-2011, 10:51
You only need to magnetise weapons and buy extra bits if you swap equipment around with any great regularity. The simplest solution is simply to use the models you have, equipped with what they have modelled.


This is truth.

No one forces a player to repeatedly switch out things. Once you've gotten an idea of how the game works, you should be able to make one army list that contains everything you need to cover all situations you think need covering. No need for spare models or magnetising.

If you like variety and chose to spend extra on more models or magnets, then that is your choice. Many of us make that choice because we like building more models/converting with magnets. But we all understand that to play the game, none of that is necessary. Yes, GW wants us to spend more money, they're a buisness. But WYSIWYG can be adhered to without going to such lengths simply by using what you have as what you have.

Wishing
13-01-2011, 11:46
You only need to magnetise weapons and buy extra bits if you swap equipment around with any great regularity. The simplest solution is simply to use the models you have, equipped with what they have modelled.

This is definitely the core of the issue. The people who think WYSIWYG is an impossible and insane standard to adhere to seem to be of the mindset that they can't play the game without having all wargear and weapon options available when they sit down and build their army. WYSIWYG is only impractical for those who cannot accept Damocles' (which is also GW's) solution.

Pontiff
13-01-2011, 11:55
Choosing a force thats balanced and representative enough to take all comers is the challnege for me.

Very very rarely would a commander have enough resources to be able to cherry pick his ideal force and even rarer still would be accurate enough intel to tell him or her exactly what he was going up against. I know its 40k not real but to be honest that only re-einforces that. Imagine being a battleforce commander tasked to take a research station and hold it. You'd be assigned your objective and you might be the only force available to do it regardless of suitability.

A classic example is arnhem bridge... the British 1st Airborne division requested the loan o 6th Airbornes 'Tetrarch' Air portable tanks to seize the bridge but were denied the request... had they had them then the coup de main force might have had an easier time reascting to german recce vehicles and the relief foce of the Staffords and 11 Para alsmost certainly would have had a better chance against the 20mm and MG equipped light armour that ambushed them on route......

But an exciting (and obviously at the same time as its real horrific and bloody) battle occurred all the same.

Personally i feel forces shouldnt revolve around one trick ponies or be geared up 'just to defeat army x' and then next week rewritten to defeat 'army y'. Thats just how i play. I played for years between 2002 and 2007 with an IG force that apart from *neccesary changes* to make it 'legal' when i played folk i didnt know well was exactly the same pretty much in every battle. It was large enough to sometimes field an extra Russ instead of a section of sentinels but it wasnt bank breaking.

I just built a core 1500 of 'against all comers' guard and then added on 250 0r 500 point blocks every few months as 'anti tank block' 'fire support block' etc.

The Loneliest Hormagaunt
13-01-2011, 12:02
This is truth.

No one forces a player to repeatedly switch out things. Once you've gotten an idea of how the game works, you should be able to make one army list that contains everything you need to cover all situations you think need covering. No need for spare models or magnetising.

If you like variety and chose to spend extra on more models or magnets, then that is your choice. Many of us make that choice because we like building more models/converting with magnets. But we all understand that to play the game, none of that is necessary. Yes, GW wants us to spend more money, they're a buisness. But WYSIWYG can be adhered to without going to such lengths simply by using what you have as what you have.

Then the game loses half it's fun as you're only ever using the same list, or you get into ridiculous stuff like buying a Hive Tyrant for every weapons combination available to him. That just ain't fair to force someone to do.

Also, people have to start somewhere. At some point even the most manicured, beautiful looking army was a bunch of unpainted plastic and pewter. Combine this with some armies taking literally dozens of times more effort to paint than others and it can get pretty unfair pretty quick.

Far better to just be accepting of others and if you start to feel that someone else is in the wrong offer them help instead of condemnation.

Wishing
13-01-2011, 12:40
Offering help rather than condemnation should be a given, I think. However, the discussion is more about whether WYSIWYG is a fundamentally sound principle or not.

When you say the game loses half its fun when you aren't able to swap out weapon choices between games, it boils down to the rules vs. models issue. The pro-WYSIWYG side feels that the fun of having models that are armed with the correct weapons is more valuable than the fun of being able to swap around. The non-WYSIWYG side feels the opposite.

Lothlanathorian
13-01-2011, 16:53
Between games does not equate to between opponents that day. Nor does 'WYSIWYG should be relaxed' equate to 'I am a power gaming, baby eating, WAAC job'

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 17:51
Then the game loses half it's fun as you're only ever using the same list, or you get into ridiculous stuff like buying a Hive Tyrant for every weapons combination available to him. That just ain't fair to force someone to do.


If you think that being able to change your list easily is central to the fun of the game, then tabletop gaming is not for you.

There are a myriad of scenarios and different battles that the same warriors can find themselves in. Indeed, it seasons them.

The whole point is that you are investing time and effort into creating your own army, and then throwing them into the warzone.

I think the problem is people are afraid of investing themselves into something, something that is required for this hobby regardless of how you look at it. All these shortcuts are just ways for people to bend the game into something it's not, because of their own insecurities, and it only degrades the nature of the game.

If you want something to change in between games, then change the terrain, the scenarios, your deployment, your combinations, your tactics. All of these already offer a myriad of possibilties that are already waiting for you. But nooo, you want to go and change the one thing that's not supposed to be changed and then expect other people to follow you.

You are trying to establish a new order amongst us, with yourself as absolute ruler. Each and every one of you.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 18:21
Whereas you simply preach the Universal Truth, that transcends our fleshly gaming desires?

Miniature tabletop wargaming is at least two different activities mashed together. Each of them, on their own, have a variety of interests and emphasis to offer, that each person responds to in different measure. Then you combine them, and get a HUGE spectrum of what about the combined hobby appeals, and in what measures.

Wether it's the "make one fluff-based army and stick with it", "find the hardest list possible", "paint some awesome models and put them on the table", "have fun monkeying around with list builds" or what have you, it's still tabletop miniatures wargaming. Different styles, but not wrong ones. As long as the people involved walk away from the table having had fun, that's all that matters.

If someone's style clashes with yours to the point that you think the game won't be fun, then it's your responsibility to say, "No thanks, I was more looking for X," and not put models on the table.

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 18:44
If someone's style clashes with yours to the point that you think the game won't be fun, then it's your responsibility to say, "No thanks, I was more looking for X," and not put models on the table.

No, that's your responsibility.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 18:50
No, that's your responsibility.

So everyone is supposed to play to your interests?

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 18:54
I guess you don't get it. These aren't my interests. If anybody has interests, it's other people like you. In the meantime, leave the rest of us alone.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 18:58
I guess you don't get it. These aren't my interests. If anybody has interests, it's other people like you. In the meantime, leave the rest of us alone.

I do get it. You are declaring your personal tastes as an objective and universal truth, and slamming the preferences of others as badwrong. You are not saying, "This I how I prefer to play", but "This is how everyone should play."

Who is trying to be an "absolute ruler" here?

UberBeast
13-01-2011, 19:01
Note that I think gaming groups who actually play like this are quite rare. But maybe a lot of groups aspire to be like this? I'm not sure, but GW themselves do set this kind of attitude up as an ideal, I think. And the fact that the concepts of cheese and comp exist at all shows that this kind of thinking is influential, even if most groups don't actually follow it literaly.

I think that most players intend to grow into this kind of rare gaming group, but many of them end up getting caught up in the powergaming side and never get their armies fully painted or up to WYSIWYG standards. I know a lot of people who only want to keep and paint an army once they have "perfected" their list, only to end up buying a new army and falling prey to a viscious cycle of unfinished projects.

I think it's a cop-out to say, "to each his own" and pretend that people playing with unpainted, proxy armies are really involved in the same hobby/game that the rest of us aspire to. Nobody really prefers playing with unpainted proxy armies to having a fully painted wysiwyg army, otherwise they would just go play a video game like Dawn of War instead of a costly, hobby oriented miniature game.

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 19:06
No, you don't get it. I am not declaring my personal tastes. I am declaring your personal tastes. One of your personal tastes is playing a game with other people, and then changing the game as you go.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 19:15
No, you don't get it. I am not declaring my personal tastes. I am declaring your personal tastes. One of your personal tastes is playing a game with other people, and then changing the game as you go.

Actually I don't field anything unpainted or non-WYSIWYG. But if I go to play a game with someone and they say, "Hey, I'm fielding all my heavy bolter Razorbacks as assualt cannons, is that cool?", I'm perfectly ok with that.

What's your answer to that?

One of the first things in pretty much every GW rulebook has been "make the game your own" in one form or another. If anything, the spirit of the game is whatever you and your fellow across the table agree on, goes.

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 19:21
My answer is that you are catering to somebody else's personal taste. But don't get it mixed up. No matter how much you put impurities into the game, it's not going to change what purity is.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 19:26
My answer is that you are catering to somebody else's personal taste. But don't get it mixed up. No matter how much you put impurities into the game, it's not going to change what purity is.

I was wondering about your answer to the HB as AC Razorback question.

And who defined what is "pure" and why?

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 19:33
I gave you my answer. At this point you are asking me to explain my explanations.

If you want to know what I would say if somebody told me their Razorback Heavy Bolter is an Assault Cannon, I would say "No, that's a Heavy Bolter."

Maybe you're too young to remember those "Just say no" commercials. In hindsight really useful, must say.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 19:39
No, you have not given the source of this "purity" doctrine. You've made a faith-based declaration of some nebulous greater authority or truth. You've declared your preferences as a universal and exclusive Truth. You've not explained how it is actually such a Truth, but simply insisted that it is.

But seriously, objective standards of purity? Is this a game or religion?

EDIT to your edit:

What's wrong with "No thanks, I prefer to only play against fully WYSIWYG armies"?

I was in one of the pilot D.A.R.E. programs. So now non-WYSIWYG in any measure is equivalent to using illicit drugs?

gigglyjoker
13-01-2011, 19:52
If the Heavy Bolter is a Heavy Bolter then it is WYSIWYG. Solved the problem for ya.

WildWeasel
13-01-2011, 20:06
So even a simple "No thanks" won't do when you can be pedantic and condescending. Gotcha.

Wishing
13-01-2011, 23:36
Between games does not equate to between opponents that day. Nor does 'WYSIWYG should be relaxed' equate to 'I am a power gaming, baby eating, WAAC job'

If you were responding to me, then I didn't say either of those things. :)

The Loneliest Hormagaunt
13-01-2011, 23:55
A 100% WYSIWYG, beautifully painted army is great to look at on the table top and a noble goal. There are realities to consider however, and trying to condemn others for those realities is really weak sauce. It's entirely possible some people have noticed that this hobby is a bit expensive, yes? Some people can't afford every single model they want all at one shot. They have to budget their money and buy what they can when they can. It's also pretty time intensive to get our plastic crack fully modeled and painted. Some people happen to have busy lives. As long as someone is not just playing decapitated grey-plastic marines so they can jump to the newest codex every time one comes out and actually making progress on their army why not be a sport and play them without attitude?

ODINM4
14-01-2011, 00:35
what about this my army SW and is wip i use dual weapon weilders as my mark of the wulfen is that an issue?

also half of my power armours/grey hunters are painted as ultras but are used as grey hunters ive done this to represent a crusading force is this wrong ??

Omniassiah
14-01-2011, 02:36
what about this my army SW and is wip i use dual weapon weilders as my mark of the wulfen is that an issue?

also half of my power armours/grey hunters are painted as ultras but are used as grey hunters ive done this to represent a crusading force is this wrong ??

Well the first is as LordInquisitor described... WYSIWYG, you have modeled them in a particular way, and as long as that particular way doesn't conflict with the way other options/things are modeled your fine.

As for the second, technically that would also be fine... thematically its a bad mix because of the rules difference between the 2. The specialty chapters (BA, SW, BT) don't really work well as the codex to use for a crusade force as they are organized fairly different. Most times its better to use the stock marine force as the base.

Now to further elaborate on the OP, I love WYSIWYG, I'm not a WYSIWYG-nazi where absolutely everything must be perfectly WYSIWYG, but on the other hand I like it. I Have used pretty much the same 2 armies for 10 (IG) and 7 (eldar) years. I started with a solid list for both and expanded once I got everything I wanted first set. While the Eldar is finished painted, the IG never have gotten that far. Never had to use more then one unit as a proxy, because I don't radically change my lists. Why because as pointed out before you don't need too.

Personal experience has shown that most people who are against WYSIWYG, are list tailorers. They want to be able to radically change there lists based against whoever they play against. WYSIWYG requires them to spend a lot of money, do some extra work, and cause problems to being able to do that. Now like I said this is personal experience. Sadly the game doesn't need any of that.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
14-01-2011, 02:57
My answer is that you are catering to somebody else's personal taste. But don't get it mixed up. No matter how much you put impurities into the game, it's not going to change what purity is.

Emphasis mine. You sir, are trolling magnificently. Might as well argue that players can't use different paint schemes or converted armies (Pig Iron heads, for example) because they aren't "Pure".

WildWeasel
14-01-2011, 03:59
Emphasis mine. You sir, are trolling magnificently. Might as well argue that players can't use different paint schemes or converted armies (Pig Iron heads, for example) because they aren't "Pure".

Or that taking your 30 or 40 odd Black Templar Sword Brethern Terminators and fielding them using Codex DA as a Deathwing-style formation is not WYSIWYG.