Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey everybody Girthman here

I was thinking about the Rule: Wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) and I was wondering how many people actually follow this rules when they play? cuz I mean...... I myself dont think its a big deal, I think its just too expensive having so many models and having them restricted to only one role. For example a saurus modeled with a spear can only be used as a saurus with a spear in-game.

what do you people think about wysiwyg? do you use it?

and maybe for fun you can mention a funny experience experience where wysiwyg was involved...like people getting upset over it or anything you thought was funny or whatever haha.

thanks for reading, and I hope to hear what you think

I've been known to use completely different armies for my games until finding a list/army I like. "Yeah, this squad of Genestealers are Kommandos, those Gaunts are slugga boys and these Fire Dragons are Burnaboyz!" For offshoot games and trying out lists I'm perfectly fine playing with and against such armies.

That being said, when people unfamiliar with the game look on and see five different armies on the table, it can get confusing and might drive them away a bit. There is definitely a level of satisfaction when I can lay down an army and say "Yep, if you look at it, that's what it is." It does make the game smoother and a little more enjoyable on a certain level.

Now, if you brought in a squad of Goblin Archers and said "Ok, all of these have Spears, not Bows" then that's perfectly fine and I'd never say anything against it even in a friendly tourney setting. Now if half your Goblin Archers are Spears and the other half really are Archers, that can get pretty darn confusing, especially if you do that at an army-size level often and never move towards being WYSIWYG over the course of a few months and having a list you really like.

Girthman wrote:Hey everybody Girthman here

I was thinking about the Rule: Wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) and I was wondering how many people actually follow this rules when they play? cuz I mean...... I myself dont think its a big deal, I think its just too expensive having so many models and having them restricted to only one role. For example a saurus modeled with a spear can only be used as a saurus with a spear in-game.

what do you people think about wysiwyg? do you use it?

and maybe for fun you can mention a funny experience experience where wysiwyg was involved...like people getting upset over it or anything you thought was funny or whatever haha.

thanks for reading, and I hope to hear what you think

Haha I know we sure as hell do not follow this rule! Warhammer 40k is already an expensive hobby as it is, the only people who I know that get angry about models not representing their weapons/Wargear clearly are people that money and people who play in tournaments.

I've never been a stickler for that rule. I understand most of us don't want to spend the time, effort, or money on something that they are not sure about.

However, I do see the need to avoid confusion. Someone using all their night goblins to represent DE spearmen, corsairs, and crossbowmen might know which units are which, but I am going to have a hard time remembering. I would be better if they could at least have one model to represent the unit for clarity sake.

Fortunately, I have never come across a player that had a problem with "making do" in order to get a game in.

Jon Touchdown wrote:the only people who I know that get angry about models not representing their weapons/Wargear clearly are people that money and people who play in tournaments.

That may have come off as considerably more aggressive than intended, but seemed like a rather rash statement. I neither money nor play in a large amount of tournaments, but you don't have to be either to take satisfaction in having a WYSIWYG army on the table. Aside from RnF Fantasy infantry, most units that can take multiple loadouts are large enough to magnetize with very little extra effort. Yes, minis are expensive. Magnetizing lets you swap things around without buying a new model.

You don't have to be rich to slowly move toward a WYSIWYG army. Proxy and playtest as much as you want, you'll find something you like and you can start building it. My little Dark Elf Warband started from the only models I owned were the Cold One Knights that came in the Battalion. I have since slowly started building Dark Riders and will soon move on to building Shades (since I am not fond of the old metals of both of those units). Now I'm just waiting on hooded Glade Guard heads to come in the mail and my Dark Riders are complete. It may have taken me a little longer than others, but it's still there and the army will soon be WYSIWYG.

Now, there are many players who simply proxy the flavor of the month non-stop at friendlier stores. "No, these Marines are all Orks today. Next week they'll be Tyranids, then Daemonhunters, then IG, then..." I'm fine with proxying and play testing, but there comes a time that it gets a little annoying playing the same army models over and over but a new army book every time with absolutely no progression towards the "right" models on the board.

In tournaments I feel WYSIWYG is much more important. Not to say that you would go out of your way to cheat (no really, this unit of Gaunts were my Longfangs, the other ones were my Blood Claws), but it can get very confusing to your opponent and throw off the feel of the game. That confusion quickly turns to frustration and annoyance and becomes a rather unfun event for all.

Regarding Fantasy, especially in character choices, there are so many combinations and unmade models that standins are often not expected to be fully WYSIWYG every time. That being said, you can certainly attempt to model your hero in something similar to what loadout you have given him.

It may have, but I meant it more in jest. I myself am working to acquire all the needed pieces to complete my army, I am however a firm supporter of model modification and proxies to a reasonable point. If I do not like the Yarrick model or need one to stand in to fit my personal armies fluff, I am going to do it, no if ands or buts.

I do not agree with models that are completely off and in no way stay close to what they should really be, for example if I used orks to represent my guardsme, Carnifexes to represent my tanks, and Fire warriors to represent my Stormtroopers I would not play myself.

In a tournament the rule is vital in ensuring fair play; however, when a tournament player comes to the flgs and starts trying to impose that rule in an environment where things do not run that way then continually b1t()-(3$ about the house rules , that is when I have a problem.

While I do not need to be rich to complete my army not everyone has the money to or wants to spend it on gathering every type of model for one army.

Jon Touchdown wrote:In a tournament the rule is vital in ensuring fair play; however, when a tournament player comes to the flgs and starts trying to impose that rule in an environment where things do not run that way then continually b1t()-(3$ about the house rules , that is when I have a problem.

Ah, well that's just being a prick and unnecessarily obnoxious. He can find somewhere else to play or shut up and enjoy a friendly game.

Kirbinator wrote:

Jon Touchdown wrote:In a tournament the rule is vital in ensuring fair play; however, when a tournament player comes to the flgs and starts trying to impose that rule in an environment where things do not run that way then continually b1t()-(3$ about the house rules , that is when I have a problem.

Ah, well that's just being a prick and unnecessarily obnoxious. He can find somewhere else to play or shut up and enjoy a friendly game.

Exactly my point

I strive for full WYSIWYG, particularly when headed for a tournament or somewhere else I'll be playing people I've never met. If it's someone I know, not nearly as big a deal. About the worst I do is *not* give my longbeards great weapons even though the models have 'em.

Basically as long as things aren't confusing I don't have an issue with it. But I prefer there to at least be a model. I've played against an army that had an empty chariot base for a Black Coach. I kept not noticing it. You know... cause it wasn't there...

That stunk.

RZ

Red_Zeke wrote:I strive for full WYSIWYG, particularly when headed for a tournament or somewhere else I'll be playing people I've never met. If it's someone I know, not nearly as big a deal. About the worst I do is *not* give my longbeards great weapons even though the models have 'em.

Basically as long as things aren't confusing I don't have an issue with it. But I prefer there to at least be a model. I've played against an army that had an empty chariot base for a Black Coach. I kept not noticing it. You know... cause it wasn't there...

That stunk.

RZ

Lol dude I know what you mean about the "invisible chariot" haha. and the funny thing is that it had to do with our good friend Jon Touchdown. he had a couple of I guard sentinel sized basses with a pic of a sentinel on it. the whole time I had completely forgot about them since I couldnt see them and before I knew it I was getting reamed by a hail of shots from the good o'l invisible sentinels.

I don't use wysiwig if I'm thinking about the list

for example my Dwarfs have had a Ranger unit in the list for 3 months but I only built them as normal quarrellers for the first 2 months as I wasn't sure whether to keep them or not. After some games where they proved useful I have given them their great weapons and shields and painted them up (well after 5 of them taking a 20 strong High Elf spearmen unit down to 6 elves and keeping them out of the game I think they Deserve it XD)

Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

point of the story, WYSIWYG is assumed, so if models aren't 100% accurate, it better be clear at the start, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, remind the other player every time that the non wysiwyg unit is the target of something.

Deminyn wrote:Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

in this case I would have asked to see his armylist before the battle started or for him to explain whats in his army

Girthman wrote:

Red_Zeke wrote:I strive for full WYSIWYG, particularly when headed for a tournament or somewhere else I'll be playing people I've never met. If it's someone I know, not nearly as big a deal. About the worst I do is *not* give my longbeards great weapons even though the models have 'em.

Basically as long as things aren't confusing I don't have an issue with it. But I prefer there to at least be a model. I've played against an army that had an empty chariot base for a Black Coach. I kept not noticing it. You know... cause it wasn't there...

That stunk.

RZ

Lol dude I know what you mean about the "invisible chariot" haha. and the funny thing is that it had to do with our good friend Jon Touchdown. he had a couple of I guard sentinel sized basses with a pic of a sentinel on it. the whole time I had completely forgot about them since I couldnt see them and before I knew it I was getting reamed by a hail of shots from the good o'l invisible sentinels.

Those were the 1.0 models, the new 2.0 models actually stand up so you can see them. forgot to mention that DB

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Deminyn wrote:Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

in this case I would have asked to see his armylist before the battle started or for him to explain whats in his army

Generally, I don't think this should be necessary, especially as magic items aren't common knowledge. I really think the onus is on the player using not WYSIWYG models to volunteer this information before the game starts and through out the game as necessary. According to the rules, everything needs to be WYSIWYG so if you aren't following it, you need to make it clear right from the start. I don't have a problem with non-wysiwyg, only if people abuse it by not pointing it out. (Imagine someone using a champion as a lord and not saying anything... that would not be cool)

heck, I point out what my heroes are as I use empire and vc models for my brets!

Deminyn wrote:

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Deminyn wrote:Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

in this case I would have asked to see his armylist before the battle started or for him to explain whats in his army

Generally, I don't think this should be necessary, especially as magic items aren't common knowledge. I really think the onus is on the player using not WYSIWYG models to volunteer this information before the game starts and through out the game as necessary. According to the rules, everything needs to be WYSIWYG so if you aren't following it, you need to make it clear right from the start. I don't have a problem with non-wysiwyg, only if people abuse it by not pointing it out. (Imagine someone using a champion as a lord and not saying anything... that would not be cool)

If it is a large problem, ask them to at the start of their turns, ask if you have any questions about their units. I personally am going to start using paper to help myself keep track of enemy units, priories, their movements, and any proxies so I do not forget

Jon Touchdown wrote:

Deminyn wrote:

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Deminyn wrote:Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

in this case I would have asked to see his armylist before the battle started or for him to explain whats in his army

Generally, I don't think this should be necessary, especially as magic items aren't common knowledge. I really think the onus is on the player using not WYSIWYG models to volunteer this information before the game starts and through out the game as necessary. According to the rules, everything needs to be WYSIWYG so if you aren't following it, you need to make it clear right from the start. I don't have a problem with non-wysiwyg, only if people abuse it by not pointing it out. (Imagine someone using a champion as a lord and not saying anything... that would not be cool)

If it is a large problem, ask them to at the start of their turns, ask if you have any questions about their units. I personally am going to start using paper to help myself keep track of enemy units, priories, their movements, and any proxies so I do not forget

But why should you ask? That was the only non-wysiwyg thing in his army. So when I put my stuff down, I looked at the board and what I saw is what I saw... I had no reason to think anything was non-wysiwyg. I assumed that everything was wysiwyg. Now, should I be responsible for him not telling me that he isn't wysiwyg? My assumption, my fault? I don't think so.

If someone is not doing wysiwyg, you can say that it is against the rules. You would be TFG but at the same time, not having wysiwyg and not saying anything is cheating. And if you are doing it for advantage, definitely TFG right there. If you honestly forgot, maybe letting them take it back if it was something simple, but if it leads to the death of the general instead of tying up a flanking enemy unit for a crucial turn or two, its hard to 'take back' the last 2 turns of positioning... If I was on the otherside of the table and my opponent screwed up because I didn't tell him that my models weren't wysiwyg, I would feel responsible and eat whatever I didn't show.

I agree with you Deminyn. If they are your models, you are responsible in representing them correctly, if that means explaining before and during the game then so be it. And if I forget to tell you or remind you, then I am more than willing to let you take it back.

What is this WYSIWYG of which you speak? Warhammer Fantasy does not have such a rule, the way 40K does. The closest we come is on p. 34, where they say 'the whole unit counts as being armed as the majority.'

Now, when I am deploying my army, I make a point of telling my opponent "twenty swordsmen with full command (see the little banner?)," or "five pistoliers with a champion and musician, sorry the musician isn't modeled." And later in the game, if he asks, I remind him of what is there.
I especially make a point of doing this if, for example, I have armed my skeletons with spears. I only built a few with spears, because they tend to break. But if I've armed the whole unit with spears, I make sure the front ranks are all spears, and make sure my opponent knows. Conversely, if they've got hand weapon & shield, the spear-armed skellies go in the back, and are the first to be removed.

But I don't feel any particular need to have seven different generals on a griffon, just so the model on the tabletop accurately reflects the equipment on my army roster. It's a dude, riding a griffon. You know from that that he's a Lord. Assume he's tricked out. You can find out what he's packin' when I charge you. If the model happens to be waving a hammer around, and I paid the points for a Runefang, I am using the Runefang.

fellblade wrote:
...

But I don't feel any particular need to have seven different generals on a griffon, just so the model on the tabletop accurately reflects the equipment on my army roster. It's a dude, riding a griffon. You know from that that he's a Lord. Assume he's tricked out. You can find out what he's packin' when I charge you. If the model happens to be waving a hammer around, and I paid the points for a Runefang, I am using the Runefang.

I don't know if they still do it, but in the first 6th ed empire book, they even mention renaming magic items to match what the character is holding. So even though it says 'Sword of Justice' it can be a 'Cooking Spoon of Justice'. But that same dude on a griffon better have A weapon, and if he's supposed to have a shield, he should have a shield, or point out that he does if the model doesn't have it on him.

Deminyn wrote:

Jon Touchdown wrote:

Deminyn wrote:

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Deminyn wrote:Had a game where non-wysiwyg really annoyed me. 5 boars, no command models, so I charged them with a hero thinking I'm down 1 from outnumber with with 3 attacks I should get 1 or 2 kills. I got 2 and then the other guy starts counting '1 for outnumber, 2 for banner, so a tie, and the musician, so you lose, unmodified' WTF? Got a little flustered but whatever...

in this case I would have asked to see his armylist before the battle started or for him to explain whats in his army

Generally, I don't think this should be necessary, especially as magic items aren't common knowledge. I really think the onus is on the player using not WYSIWYG models to volunteer this information before the game starts and through out the game as necessary. According to the rules, everything needs to be WYSIWYG so if you aren't following it, you need to make it clear right from the start. I don't have a problem with non-wysiwyg, only if people abuse it by not pointing it out. (Imagine someone using a champion as a lord and not saying anything... that would not be cool)

If it is a large problem, ask them to at the start of their turns, ask if you have any questions about their units. I personally am going to start using paper to help myself keep track of enemy units, priories, their movements, and any proxies so I do not forget

But why should you ask? That was the only non-wysiwyg thing in his army. So when I put my stuff down, I looked at the board and what I saw is what I saw... I had no reason to think anything was non-wysiwyg. I assumed that everything was wysiwyg. Now, should I be responsible for him not telling me that he isn't wysiwyg? My assumption, my fault? I don't think so.

If someone is not doing wysiwyg, you can say that it is against the rules. You would be TFG but at the same time, not having wysiwyg and not saying anything is cheating. And if you are doing it for advantage, definitely TFG right there. If you honestly forgot, maybe letting them take it back if it was something simple, but if it leads to the death of the general instead of tying up a flanking enemy unit for a crucial turn or two, its hard to 'take back' the last 2 turns of positioning... If I was on the otherside of the table and my opponent screwed up because I didn't tell him that my models weren't wysiwyg, I would feel responsible and eat whatever I didn't show.

I can see where you are coming from, with each player being responsible for their models and it being the rules, but if you are gaming with someone you do not know, is it not your responsibility to talk with them before you game to ensure that you both come to a mutual understanding about the rules of the game, what you expect, the points value, the game type, and terrain? I f your want to ensure you are not cheated make sure that they understand that you play with/enforce the wysiwyg rule or have proper compensation.

I am not saying it is your responsibility to ask every turn about units, but if the person is going to break the rule to a large extent, simply dont game with them.

Assuming things things is okay with friends where there is a mutual understanding and the "house rules" have been set, but not with strangers. Imagine if every time I went to cross the street I assumed that every car would be looking for me and stop because, it is a "rule" , I would not last very long now would I?

I prefer models to BE the correct model they're supposed to be, and look somewhat like what they're equipped with. I want chaos marauders with flails to be chaos marauders with flails, not chaos warriors with greatweapons. I would prefer that chaos lord with a greatweapon not have a hand weapon and shield when I go to fight him.

But do I care that you paint your "blood red sword of slaying" red? Or that it's even an actual sword? No. I'm ok with an Ice Blue Axe of Slaying instead, just so long as the model somewhat looks like it's armed with what you bought. That blue axe could be a magic weapon or a handweapon, fine. Shouldn't all of a sudden be a greatweapon.

Jon Touchdown wrote:
Assuming things things is okay with friends where there is a mutual understanding and the "house rules" have been set, but not with strangers. Imagine if every time I went to cross the street I assumed that every car would be looking for me and stop because, it is a "rule" , I would not last very long now would I?

I expect everyone to drive by the rules of the road. I expect everyone to stop at a stop sign, and if they don't, they are at fault. Everywhere I've ever played has had the baseline of 'everything is wysiwyg unless someone says different' and I've only met 1 person that felt that some things should be assumed to be there. (The boars)

Agree with Deminyn.

The point of playing with miniatures, and the "armed as the majority" rule is so that the players can enjoy the visual spectacle, and look right at the units to see what they are and how they are armed/equipped. If a player doesn't want to play WYSIWYG, IMO they're missing part of the point.

I'm happy to play a game or two under those circumstances, especially with someone who's new or a friend testing out a new unit before buying/building, but as an ongoing thing? No thanks. And in the short term, the responsibility for making things clear lies with the person who's NOT meeting the standard with their models. If I'm testing out a unit that's not WYSIWYG, I always make sure to make it very clear to my opponent, and to remind them whenever they're interacting with that unit, targeting it, or whatever.

Deminyn wrote:

Jon Touchdown wrote:
Assuming things things is okay with friends where there is a mutual understanding and the "house rules" have been set, but not with strangers. Imagine if every time I went to cross the street I assumed that every car would be looking for me and stop because, it is a "rule" , I would not last very long now would I?

I expect everyone to drive by the rules of the road. I expect everyone to stop at a stop sign, and if they don't, they are at fault. Everywhere I've ever played has had the baseline of 'everything is wysiwyg unless someone says different' and I've only met 1 person that felt that some things should be assumed to be there. (The boars)

While they are at fault, is it not your own responsibility to look out for your own well being and not others?

As I said in the first part of the quoted post, "is it not your responsibility to talk with them before you game to ensure that you both come to a mutual understanding about the rules of the game, what you expect, the points value, the game type, and terrain? I f your want to ensure you are not cheated make sure that they understand that you play with/enforce the wysiwyg rule or have proper compensation."

If this is done as it should be then I am sure you would be able to avoid people who do not play in a style you are accustomed to, and would have no problem

Mannahnin wrote:Agree with Deminyn.

The point of playing with miniatures, and the "armed as the majority" rule is so that the players can enjoy the visual spectacle, and look right at the units to see what they are and how they are armed/equipped. If a player doesn't want to play WYSIWYG, IMO they're missing part of the point.

I'm happy to play a game or two under those circumstances, especially with someone who's new or a friend testing out a new unit before buying/building, but as an ongoing thing? No thanks. And in the short term, the responsibility for making things clear lies with the person who's NOT meeting the standard with their models. If I'm testing out a unit that's not WYSIWYG, I always make sure to make it very clear to my opponent, and to remind them whenever they're interacting with that unit, targeting it, or whatever.

They are missing part of the point if they are just disobeying the rule to gain an advantage; thus, missing the point of it being a GAME. There are exceptions to this as you have stated, but as I have said before there is no problem if everything is stated before.

In general my armies are WYSIWYG. However, sometimes details might be different (a unit of 10 bought naked might have a standard bearer... because I only have 10 of the bloody things), in which case I will tell you as I am placing them when what you see is not what you get.

And in instances where the unit is proxying for something completely different, I have been known to put a placard of some sort on/in front of the unit for clarity's sake.

Why do these things? Because I know how mad I'd be if someone pulled that sort of stunt on me and it cost me the game. So it's a matter of common courtesy, that's all.

Vulcan wrote:In general my armies are WYSIWYG. However, sometimes details might be different (a unit of 10 bought naked might have a standard bearer... because I only have 10 of the bloody things), in which case I will tell you as I am placing them when what you see is not what you get.

And in instances where the unit is proxying for something completely different, I have been known to put a placard of some sort on/in front of the unit for clarity's sake.

Why do these things? Because I know how mad I'd be if someone pulled that sort of stunt on me and it cost me the game. So it's a matter of common courtesy, that's all.

Exactly! The placard I feel would be one form of sufficient compensation for the absence of an actual model or feature, true the model is not there, but a big sign pointing that out would be great

Honestly I myself think that wysiwyg is kind of nice to have at times. A full Wysiwyg army is an impressive sight. but its kind of too inflexible for my tastes, since this game is quite an expensive ones, I would love to be able to change the way I play/ equipment I use with my army without the tedious task of having to switch stuff around. or having to start all over with new models if I wanted to try a different style of play.

although I also find wysiwyg a little necessary since I myself wouldnt want the burden of facing an army of dark elves thats really an army of skaven. or the army with an excessive coat of "invisible paint" (just a bunch of empty bases) but ofcourse those are extremes but I do find it amusing to bring them up lol