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.

We've been having a disagreement in my gaming club for weeks now about whether we should be following What You See Is What You Get in our campaign of This is Not a Test, a skirmish game very similar to Necromunda or Mordheim.

Being one of only two active wargamers in the club (the other Wargamer eventually decided to do his own Warband himself), I've been investing my own time and money collecting and painting up several Warbands of miniatures at once so other people in the club who aren't wargamers can join in. (partly out of self interest, I like all the factions myself so it improves my collection; and providing the miniatures myself ensures that I have opponents to play with). They don't have to lift a finger, I'm providing everything for them: rulebook, terrain, miniatures, even dice.

One particular player who I'm providing an entire Warband for (and he's using my biggest Warband to date, with about 15 models to pick from, already painted with a variety of weapons) is refusing to even pay lip service to WYSIWYG. His argument is that in a skirmish game like TNT or Necromunda, the equipment loadouts change far too much over time for WYSIWYG to be practical, and he doesn't want to feel restricted by the models I provide for him.

On the other hand, I find it somewhat ridiculous and confusing for an opponent if for instance, a miniature with an assault rifle and no armour...is used to represent a character with a composite bow in power armour (the player wants an entire Warband of bows and composite bows and crossbows and power armour...and the miniatures I'm providing have rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, combat armour etc).

I'm not trying to be draconian but I do feel the look of a miniature should roughly approximate what the character is equipped with. (e.g. A model with an assault rifle and body armour could represent a rifle, assault rifle or shotgun and any sort of armour except power armour). You should be able to glance at a miniature and know what it is without having to ask the opponent to remind you every time. I don't want situations like...

"I'm going to shoot at that model with the assault rifle and light armour".
"Actually he has Power Armour".
"OK, then I'll pick a different target".
"Sorry, you've already declared the target. No take-backsies."

What do you think? Is WYSIWYG important in a warband level skirmish game like Necromunda? Or should should we just throw it completely out the window and let players do whatever they like, not matter how confusing it might get?

[i](To give a little context...I started Wargaming with Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and Warhammer 40,000, two wargames where WYSIWYG is typically applied much more strictly, so its pretty much ingrained in me.)/i]

I'd expect at least representing the basic archetype right (ccw&pistol / rifle / special / heavy)

Tough one same here about the archetype although I'm lax when it's cool models easily distinguished from one another without precisely the right equipment. Equally I generally provide my own models and not owning the right archetype is an excuse to find and paint one...

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'd expect at least representing the basic archetype right (ccw&pistol / rifle / special / heavy)

That was my exact argument.

"It depends...."

Of course WYSIWYG is easier. If the archetypes are constant (all pistols are light bows, all shotguns light composites, all machine guns heavy composites etc) then it could still work.

On the other hand, of he wants bows that much, can't he buy his own figures?

 Llamahead wrote:
Tough one same here about the archetype although I'm lax when it's cool models easily distinguished from one another without precisely the right equipment. Equally I generally provide my own models and not owning the right archetype is an excuse to find and paint one...

In this instance I'm providing all the models for this particular player, and yet he's complaining that he doesn't want to feel restricted by what I provide. (He has a range of about 15 minis to pick from at the very start of the game, and starting warbands are typically only 5 - 10 models).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stroller wrote:
"It depends...."

Of course WYSIWYG is easier. If the archetypes are constant (all pistols are light bows, all shotguns light composites, all machine guns heavy composites etc) then it could still work.

On the other hand, of he wants bows that much, can't he buy his own figures?

Knowing him, he would probably not play the game then. Due to his family situation and the three shift patterns he works he doesn't have the time. And I'd be left with only one opponent (the 2nd Wargamer in the club who's doing his own faction).

I do have some other miniatures with bows, crossbows etc, but they're not painted and it'd probably mean starting an entire new warband (at least, the theme wouldn't be consistent with the models I've already made for this particular Faction).

When it comes to small things like daggers, which are easily concealed, or grenades, which are universal in some skirmish games, I'm quite hapy to let those things pass.
But if a character is supposed to have a rocket launcher, they'd better damn well have one. I draw the line there!

-

magnets are your friend! changeable arms = ever evolving characters! (at least weapons wise)

For games where you can upgrade the gear as the campaign progresses, I’d be a little more forgiving. But you should be able to get the general idea of the character (choppy/shooty/tanky) from a quick look, even if the specifics change.

And if you stray from WYSWYG, you should be more forgiving during game play. If you start to shoot small arms at what looks to be a lightly armored target, and it turns out to be in heavy, neigh impenetrable armor, you should be able to switch targets. No take-backs is BS in that situation. Unless fog of war is a key part of the game, I should not have to be playing “memory" in addition to whatever other game we are playing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When it comes to small things like daggers, which are easily concealed, or grenades, which are universal in some skirmish games, I'm quite hapy to let those things pass.
But if a character is supposed to have a rocket launcher, they'd better damn well have one. I draw the line there!

Agreed - it can get very, very confusing and annoying when somebody tries to field a unit of the old plastic Storm Troopers as Van Saar - and then claims that this guy with a Hot Shot Laser Rifle actually has a Melta, while that identical figure over there has a Plasma Cannon.

In our case we told him to get weapons for the Heavy and Special weapons, or we were going to treat them all as being armed with Las Rifles.

He didn't believe us, so we did. Sorry, Andre, that is Str 3, not Str 8. 'Cause that's a Las Gun.

The Auld Grump

It's probably a bit off to be complaining when someone else is doing the work to let you play the game, but in more general terms - I have come to despise WYSIWYG.

It's yet another concept that was a really good idea in theory that, when put into the hands of your average gamer, has become a complete gakshow.

We're talking about skirmish games here, not 40K where inconsistent equipment is a pain in the arse because you're trying to deal with potentially hundreds of models - if people can't be bothered to remember the rough loadout for 5-10 guys, or hell can't be bothered to glance briefly at the warband sheet to refresh their memory, I'd say they're the ones with the issue.

WYSIWYG was supposed to be a Pirate Code situation(more guidelines than actual rules), a courtesy to your opponent, and I do think you should try to get as close as possible to the loadout, but in the end as far as I'm concerned the look of the model comes first.

Necromunda is typically the game that has different rules for very specific equipments like weapons. Since it has an influence in game, it is important that everything is clearly known by all players around the table.

Not playing WYSIWYG means you have to constantly remind people and yourself about what that guy can do. And during the game, it can be easy to forget about it - especially when the others models are WYSIWYG.

As usual, better to talk about it with your fellow players before the game on a common stance on this topic, to avoid unnecessary drama afterwards.

By the way, Infinity does the same thing.

Yes, we've had arguments in the past over Take-backsies. One of the guys I'm playing with is very strict about it and doesn't allow, even when somebody changes their mind on what they want to do after a misunderstanding of the rules.

I expect it'll slow the game down quite a lot, I'm going to be constantly asking what each miniature is, what they have; changing my mind on what I want to do because I mistook one mini for another or forgot what a particular mini is equipped with.

At the end of the day, Gaming is an extension of the Gentleman's agreement. Fair play, and sportsmanship at its base form.

You still can be competitive, but being a stand up player, who is playing for the play is the end of the day goal. Your examples are beyond the pale on playing a game, and some of the examples, if true, should be taken to task on their action.

WYSIWYG is part in parcel of gaming. To the point where the rulebook discusses it at length. That someone would nitpick, goes to an issue that THEY have, not you.

Call them on it, and explain that its not a court case. You are there to play, fit hey want to be a TFG, which is what you described, you need to call them on it, because they are [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] on something as benign as a change, or a weapon being A, B, or C. That's a dick move for the purpose of dick move with absolutely nothing to do with the game, its counter to being a Gentleman in a game.

Don't tolerate it.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When it comes to small things like daggers, which are easily concealed, or grenades, which are universal in some skirmish games, I'm quite hapy to let those things pass.
But if a character is supposed to have a rocket launcher, they'd better damn well have one. I draw the line there!

Agreed - it can get very, very confusing and annoying when somebody tries to field a unit of the old plastic Storm Troopers as Van Saar - and then claims that this guy with a Hot Shot Laser Rifle actually has a Melta, while that identical figure over there has a Plasma Cannon.

In our case we told him to get weapons for the Heavy and Special weapons, or we were going to treat them all as being armed with Las Rifles.

He didn't believe us, so we did. Sorry, Andre, that is Str 3, not Str 8. 'Cause that's a Las Gun.

The Auld Grump

Van Saar - that's a name I haven't heard in years.

I'm getting all misty eyed about the memories of yesteryear


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
It's probably a bit off to be complaining when someone else is doing the work to let you play the game, but in more general terms - I have come to despise WYSIWYG.

It's yet another concept that was a really good idea in theory that, when put into the hands of your average gamer, has become a complete gakshow.

We're talking about skirmish games here, not 40K where inconsistent equipment is a pain in the arse because you're trying to deal with potentially hundreds of models - if people can't be bothered to remember the rough loadout for 5-10 guys, or hell can't be bothered to glance briefly at the warband sheet to refresh their memory, I'd say they're the ones with the issue.

WYSIWYG was supposed to be a Pirate Code situation(more guidelines than actual rules), a courtesy to your opponent, and I do think you should try to get as close as possible to the loadout, but in the end as far as I'm concerned the look of the model comes first.

I used to play timed games, much in the manner of the new Space Hulk.

Obviously, it was optional, but sometimes we did it for the challenge and to reflect the pressure of real combat.

It was usually 5 minutes a turn and provided good exciting games. So, as a result, we had to be tough on the WYSIWYG rule...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grot 6 wrote:
At the end of the day, Gaming is an extension of the Gentleman's agreement. Fair play, and sportsmanship at its base form.

You still can be competitive, but being a stand up player, who is playing for the play is the end of the day goal. Your examples are beyond the pale on playing a game, and some of the examples, if true, should be taken to task on their action.

WYSIWYG is part in parcel of gaming. To the point where the rulebook discusses it at length. That someone would nitpick, goes to an issue that THEY have, not you.

Call them on it, and explain that its not a court case. You are there to play, fit hey want to be a TFG, which is what you described, you need to call them on it, because they are [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] on something as benign as a change, or a weapon being A, B, or C. That's a dick move for the purpose of dick move with absolutely nothing to do with the game, its counter to being a Gentleman in a game.

Don't tolerate it.

Good post.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When it comes to small things like daggers, which are easily concealed, or grenades, which are universal in some skirmish games, I'm quite hapy to let those things pass.
But if a character is supposed to have a rocket launcher, they'd better damn well have one. I draw the line there!

Agreed - it can get very, very confusing and annoying when somebody tries to field a unit of the old plastic Storm Troopers as Van Saar - and then claims that this guy with a Hot Shot Laser Rifle actually has a Melta, while that identical figure over there has a Plasma Cannon.

In our case we told him to get weapons for the Heavy and Special weapons, or we were going to treat them all as being armed with Las Rifles.

He didn't believe us, so we did. Sorry, Andre, that is Str 3, not Str 8. 'Cause that's a Las Gun.

The Auld Grump

Van Saar - that's a name I haven't heard in years.

I'm getting all misty eyed about the memories of yesteryear

Right now I am waiting on Victoria Lamb models in order to do a neo-Victorian Van Saar gang.

And if I can convince my good lady that she wants neo-Victorian Escher....

The Auld Grump

I feel the frustration. I played a good bit of Necromunda and a LOT of Mordheim. You'd create a character with a particular set of equipment, get skills to back them up, and then he'd lose a hand or something! You'd also get models to represent your beginning warband, then not use them at all after everybody upgraded something.

I'd suggest that the problem is in the campaign rules, more than the idea of WYSIWYG. If everyone is agreeable, figure out how much it costs to equip your guys the way you want. Let everybody start at that point, rather than some other arbitrary point. If everyone is cool with playing a gang of tooled up Van Saars (or a horde of scavvies and zombies), then who gets hurt?

I'd also consider house rules maybe allowing people to pick advances, rather than roll them. It's hugely frustrating, and really silly, when the guy toting a two-handed melee weapon gets +1BS and the dude with a laspistol gets +1 STR. Same with injuries--come up with a chart that works for your group, rather than expecting everyone to model eyepatches and crutches. If injuries are recovered/miss next game/roll each game to see if you miss/Dead, Jim, and that works for you, great!

I'm really big on finding ways to enable everyone to play WYSIWYG, because it's a miniatures and scenery game! Otherwise, you could just run combats on graph paper with a pencil. If it doesn't matter whether you have unarmored guys with rifles or power armored bowmen, then why not use numbered chits?

WYSIWYG is in the rules for Necromunda plain and simple. I've run Necromunda campaigns before and I'm about to start another soon, most weapons have to be on the model (grenades, knives and equipment are the only things that don't).
Converting models is half the fun of Necromunda, you get more invested in your models fluff that way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It was usually 5 minutes a turn and provided good exciting games. So, as a result, we had to be tough on the WYSIWYG rule...

You really didn't, nobody does.

I don't get where all the disagreements and arguments people are talking about could come from - did you not bother to keep your gang/warband sheets up to date? Because if so glancing at your opponent's sheet to check their gear is hardly much more effort than squinting down at the model to see what's stuck to its belt.

I expect that an opponent will go to the effort of making a warband where all the miniatures are visually distinct enough that you can tell the difference between them, but demanding people either make models that are just vaguely-humanoid lumps of glue and equipment, or that they hack apart their miniatures and rework them constantly through a campaign is just unreasonable. Especially when, again, the alternative is me taking a fraction of a second longer than otherwise to glance at their warband sheet.

I always take a different approach to WYSIWYG. Rather than making models to fit the gang (or whatever), I'll make my gang fit the models.

So is taking Lasguns on everyone more "efficient" than other weapons such as Autoguns and Shotguns? Sure. But I only have 6 Lasgunners for my Delaques, so I'm not going to take more than six. My Heavy Stubber guy has a Shotgun, so I'm going to give him a shot gun.

The only exception to this were things that could be easily hidden or concealed (bionics, smaller HTH weapons, pistols, various bits of equipment, armour worn under clothing, etc.).

Having to WYSIWYG all your models after each round is impractical (guy has a bionic hand? Well now you have to convert that model you spent 6 months painting to perfection!). By the same token having a bunch of models with various rifles, pistols, axes and rubber duckies and saying "They're all shotguns" is equally as stupid.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes, we've had arguments in the past over Take-backsies. One of the guys I'm playing with is very strict about it and doesn't allow, even when somebody changes their mind on what they want to do after a misunderstanding of the rules.

Your problem is that you have TFG, not anything to do with WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG or GTFO.

OK, let me get this straight:

1. You are pushing a game into your gaming club.
2. The other people are pretty obviously not as enthusiastic about the game as you are. Otherwise they would be collecting the gak out of it, as you are doing, right? They are not wargamers (except one).
3. They agree to play with you, however.
4. You provide the miniatures, because 2.
5. Then you say "If you want to play, you need to invest serious money or only play by my - limited - rules!"

Did I sum that up correctly?


I suggest you ask and answer yourself a question: Do you want to play with these guys?

If the answer is No: why bother?

If the answer is Yes, then make it possible. Do not think in problems, think in solutions.

Bringing people together to do anything, especially if they are not highly motivated to do so, requires good communication and compromise.

So instead of discussing nerd-only relevant questions on a nerd-only relevant forum, only to get some self-affirmation (how will this topic help you with your issue? Will that guy suddenly be super-impressed by some DakkaDakka discussion and change his mind??), you should talk with them/him and find an understanding.


From what I am gathering off of your post: The guy invested time, he got interested, he started his "head cinema", he chose a gang setup. But he has no financial investment, yet. You gave him minis but they do not fit his chosen theme/set up. Then you came and talked about WYSIWYG. And that guy probably thought: Well, that is bs. I cannot play what I would like to play if I had to follow this rule! So he blocks.
He also actually makes a good general point: If the characters' loadout changes over time, WYYSIWYG will become a very costly and time-intensive rule to adhere to. Even for you.
Since they are all non-wargamers, you can assume that others will think the same.
So you have a choice: Do you want to antagonize the club with your WYSIWYG rule, or do you want to have fun time?

Ask yourself: What could be a good compromise? You could agree to paint some miniatures together, or that the club buys some mini sets. You could also agree that you play some rounds without WYSIWYG and if people get hooked, you try to slowly move them there.

WYSIWYG for the guns n hand weapons.

Anything else, never bothered representing as its silly to go to the nth degree. "I hope you modelled the frenzon dose or filter plugs on your models if they are carrying them. Is that clip harness properly represented?"

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It was usually 5 minutes a turn and provided good exciting games. So, as a result, we had to be tough on the WYSIWYG rule...

You really didn't, nobody does.

I don't get where all the disagreements and arguments people are talking about could come from - did you not bother to keep your gang/warband sheets up to date? Because if so glancing at your opponent's sheet to check their gear is hardly much more effort than squinting down at the model to see what's stuck to its belt.

I expect that an opponent will go to the effort of making a warband where all the miniatures are visually distinct enough that you can tell the difference between them, but demanding people either make models that are just vaguely-humanoid lumps of glue and equipment, or that they hack apart their miniatures and rework them constantly through a campaign is just unreasonable. Especially when, again, the alternative is me taking a fraction of a second longer than otherwise to glance at their warband sheet.

We were trying to add an element of fog of war to the proceedings.

Yeah, you could check your opponents army list for equipment and so forth, but in real life, if you're fighting on the streets, and see an enemy 50 yards, and 1 story above you, and he darts away after 2 seconds, there's not much chance of you getting detailed info there.

That's why WYSIWYG + a time limit per turn, added an interesting dimension to the games we played.

Obviously, it was optional, YMMV and so forth, but there's more than one way to play a game...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

"I'm going to shoot at that model with the assault rifle and light armour".
"Actually he has Power Armour".
"OK, then I'll pick a different target".
"Sorry, you've already declared the target. No take-backsies."

This conversation has happened with this tool?

"Fine, that guy has light armor, as indicated by the model. Take your fething damage."

I get that you only have 1 other player in your gaming area/club. But his behavior as listed in this back and forth is unacceptable.

HIS problem is that he doesn't have the right models for what he wants to field. He's making it YOUR problem by making the game confusing through ignoring WYSIWYG and then penalizing YOU when a given model is representing something else.

I'd rather paint or hobby than play such a person. What you do is your choice, obviously.

I'm not upset with the WYSIWYG as I am the "Ha, ha! Gotcha!" BS he's pulling.

 Yodhrin wrote:
if people can't be bothered to remember the rough loadout for 5-10 guys, or hell can't be bothered to glance briefly at the warband sheet to refresh their memory, I'd say they're the ones with the issue.

For your opponents gang/warband? Do you also give your opponent a copy of your roster so that they can keep referring to it?

WYSIWYG is of great benefit for ease of play and it is also good for the aesthetics of the game. I adhere strictly to WYSIWYG, to the extent that I will alter models to match their equipment mid campaign, the only exception that I make are small items of auxiliary equipment (grenades and such that could be easily concealed within clothing).

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Right now I am waiting on Victoria Lamb models in order to do a neo-Victorian Van Saar gang.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

 kronk wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

"I'm going to shoot at that model with the assault rifle and light armour".
"Actually he has Power Armour".
"OK, then I'll pick a different target".
"Sorry, you've already declared the target. No take-backsies."

This conversation has happened with this tool?

Sorry, no. Its a hypothetical that I expect to happen based on past experience playing other games. Should have made that clear.

HIS problem is that he doesn't have the right models for what he wants to field.

HE doesn't have any models period. I'm providing an entire Warband for him (got ~12 or so already painted up, double what he needs to start so he's got a decent variety to pick from).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I always take a different approach to WYSIWYG. Rather than making models to fit the gang (or whatever), I'll make my gang fit the models.

Yes, thats what I'm doing. I've spent basically the last year preparing and painting up Warbands and terrain, and I assembled models for the various Warbands first and then wrote a list for what I've got.

The only exception to this were things that could be easily hidden or concealed (bionics, smaller HTH weapons, pistols, various bits of equipment, armour worn under clothing, etc.).

Having to WYSIWYG all your models after each round is impractical (guy has a bionic hand? Well now you have to convert that model you spent 6 months painting to perfection!). By the same token having a bunch of models with various rifles, pistols, axes and rubber duckies and saying "They're all shotguns" is equally as stupid.

Yes, I've made clear to them that I'm not trying to be draconian about it, I just want them to be reasonable. I.e. the look of a model should roughly approximate what its equipped with...A model with light armour and an assault rifle could represent a character with any sort of rifle sized weapon (rifle, assault rifle, shotgun, laser/plasma rifle etc) and wearing a variety of armours except power armour. But small items such as a pistol or light melee weapon (knife etc) are easily concealed and don't need to be represented.

What they're saying they want to is the latter example you give. In fact its even worse, its not "This bunch of models with various weapons all represent characters with shotguns". Its "This model with a rifle has a crossbow, this model with a shotgun and light armour has a composite bow and power armour, this model with a pistol has a chainsaw" etc.


My position is that we should at least some degree of WYSIWYG to keep things from getting too confusing.
Their position is we should ignore it entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 treslibras wrote:
OK, let me get this straight:

1. You are pushing a game into your gaming club.
2. The other people are pretty obviously not as enthusiastic about the game as you are. Otherwise they would be collecting the gak out of it, as you are doing, right? They are not wargamers (except one).
3. They agree to play with you, however.
4. You provide the miniatures, because 2.
5. Then you say "If you want to play, you need to invest serious money or only play by my - limited - rules!"

Did I sum that up correctly?

No, you didn't.

1. I'm not "pushing" anything. I'm providing everything. I'm providing the miniatures, the rulebooks, the terrain. The only investment they have to make is time. One player (the other wargamer) eventually decided to get his own miniatures and do his own Warband because he had a different theme in mind (and I'm somewhat grateful for that as it relieves pressure on me to provide a big variety of miniatures for him to pick from).

Its the way we do things in our club. We each invest in different games, and share them with the club free of charge. One person gets X board game, another person gets Y role playing game. Another person gets Z miniature wargame.

2. Oh trust me, they're enthusiastic. One of them (as mentioned above) likes it enough that he chose to make his own warband instead of using the one I provided for him. The reason they aren't all "collecting the gak out of the game" is not because they aren't enthusiastic, its because they just lack the time for the hobby side of miniature wargaming (assembling, converting, painting) due to work, life and education commitments. Its why I'm lending them my own miniatures, because I'd have just one opponent otherwise.

5. What? No, of course not. I've asked them to at least pay lip service to WYSIWYG. I'm not laying down the law here, I've made clear that its a request, not an order, and I've tried to explain that its a common convention in miniature wargaming, a courtesy to your opponent. They just don't seem to care.

Do you have people agreeing with you? Or are you the only one pushing for WYSIWYG? If it's just you wanting it, I'd drop it. If it's you and another person or two wanting it, but a majority don't care about it, I'd drop it. You could also just tell the guys if they want to use your models, they have to use them how they're outfitted. Another compromise is to model the figures the way the guy wants to play, so they're WYSIWYG and you're not trying to force him to play a way he doesn't want to, when he doesn't have the time/money (and/or possibly interest) to play the game otherwise anyway. I know they're your models, but it's just an idea.

Personally, hardcore-WYSIWYG annoys the crap out of me, but the other hand, where every single model has something completely different than what they're modeled with is really hard to keep track of - but that's in 40k. In skirmish games, it's not that hard to me, though I haven't played campaign-based ones where you have to constantly remodel your characters just to keep the game from slowing down fractionally, that doesn't even sound interesting to me at all, there's no way I'd be up for cutting up my models after every game just to change loadout.

Edit after seeing your last edit (happened while I was typing): If they don't care, you can't force them to. You can keep asking them to, but if they're not going to do it, it's just not going to happen. Nothing anyone on this forum says can change that. You might just have to let it go