nataliereed1984 wrote:
Out of sincere curiosity, and a desire to move things away from That Knight, how does everyone in this thread with pro-WYSIWYG views feel about improvised scenery? Like, using beer cans as "atmospheric treatment gas canisters", or spare codexes and books from other games as "hills" or "temples", that kind of thing, and how it interacts with modelling?

Honestly it creates enough terrain to do stuff in game so I'm find with it. Some stuff can be easy to make though. In the 3rd edition codex for Necrons, where was an EXCELLENT section on making Crystals with some styrofoam and painted carefully a very dark green with light green on the edges. Anyone got a scan of that actually?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Out of sincere curiosity, and a desire to move things away from That Knight, how does everyone in this thread with pro-WYSIWYG views feel about improvised scenery? Like, using beer cans as "atmospheric treatment gas canisters", or spare codexes and books from other games as "hills" or "temples", that kind of thing, and how it interacts with modelling?

Honestly it creates enough terrain to do stuff in game so I'm find with it. Some stuff can be easy to make though. In the 3rd edition codex for Necrons, where was an EXCELLENT section on making Crystals with some styrofoam and painted carefully a very dark green with light green on the edges. Anyone got a scan of that actually?

Do you have access to a 3d printer? It's actually really easy to print crystals with clear filament, stain them green with something like contrast paint (or use clear green filament) and put them over LED tea candles to make glowing crystals.

Also stuff like this is super easy to make:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3175093

Well, generally, I'm not a fan. It is hindering immersion, overlooking a huge part of the hobby, and it is just a shame to see miniatures with hours upon hours of creative work put into them sat down next to a coke bottle or a piece of bare styrofoam

Now, everything is context dependent. I remember a time my brother and I played games on a family holiday in a rented summer house on a small island in the Swedish archipelago. It might not have been perfect, we had to throw the dice over and over again because we didn't have enough, and it took an awful long time. Yet we had all day, we were out in the sun, and as such it was just pretty funny to try and remember which twigs were warp spiders and which were a falcon. We even ended up getting pretty into it and immersed too.

Now, that scenario is rather different than how things work in pick up plays in store, or at a tournament. As an opposing example, I remember a local tournament (it isn't running anymore.), where if you drew unlucky numbers in the first two rounds, or if you got your ass handed to you by some über beard and landed up far down the list... Then you ended up playing in the back of the hall, where the organizers ran out of good pieces of terrain and all the bright green bare tables and stuff ended up. It were remarkably less fun to play on (and not just because it felt like punishment). I remember one match where my opponent and I gave up on deciphering what kind of terrain those strange pieces of foam arranged on our assigned table were supposed to be, and simply called everything impassable. It is just bland and boring, and possibly breeding ground for conflict. Also, I can still remember the image of his very skillfully painted captain juxtaposed on a background of lime green wood and smudge grey styrofoam to this day

Well, my friend just used his nativity scene as his models, and he plays Chaos. So the Wise men were Daemon princes and the manger was a small building. I guess this is better than his Furby Daemon prince.

But this is just getting too silly. Someone call Monty Python.

Like I said, as long as it's clear and well demonstrated what is what, I generally don't have much of an issue. It's just the usual super try hard with his blue IH/RG army that I can't tell what is what.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
...Someone call Monty Python...

I did make a rabbit out of greenstuff and use the stats for a Daemon Prince for it once. Even though this was back in 4e it never got killed by a BT character with the Holy Orbs of Antioch, which was a disappointment.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Out of sincere curiosity, and a desire to move things away from That Knight, how does everyone in this thread with pro-WYSIWYG views feel about improvised scenery? Like, using beer cans as "atmospheric treatment gas canisters", or spare codexes and books from other games as "hills" or "temples", that kind of thing, and how it interacts with modelling?

Honestly it creates enough terrain to do stuff in game so I'm find with it. Some stuff can be easy to make though. In the 3rd edition codex for Necrons, where was an EXCELLENT section on making Crystals with some styrofoam and painted carefully a very dark green with light green on the edges. Anyone got a scan of that actually?

Do you have access to a 3d printer? It's actually really easy to print crystals with clear filament, stain them green with something like contrast paint (or use clear green filament) and put them over LED tea candles to make glowing crystals.

Also stuff like this is super easy to make:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3175093

AH a summoning core! Very lovely. I'm assuming that they're using some of those flying stands in the middle for the floating effect?

Wysiwyg is just made from players not from gw.
And even wysiwyg make nothing easier.
I know really know one and I never met one who knows all optics from6all weapons and so on.
you still have to say... That's weapon xy that's blah blah and so on just because of Noone knows all models for all weapons and all things that you can use.

[the thing I was replying to doesn't seem to be here anymore?]

Yes, flying stands or any clear acrylic rod can make the Necron stuff appear to float.

Nah, 8mm isn’t that small. WIP But I really like this game and having everything WYSIWYG makes it smoother.

Why does this forum keep rotating my pics?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Do any of the other terminator kits have the level of flexibility of CSM terminators?

Space Wolf Guard Terminators, I believe.

Spoiler:

- 4 Wolf Claw sets
- 1 Assault Cannon
- 4 Thunder Hammers/Storm Shields
- 1 Heavy Flamer
- 5 Storm Bolters
- 3 Power Fists
- 2 Chainfists
- 1 Frost Axe
- 1 Power Sword

versus Chaos Terminator's:
- 1 chain axe
- 1 chainfist
- 1 power sword
- 1 power axe
- 1 power maul
- 2 power fists
- 2 lightning claws
- 1 heavy flamer
- 1 reaper autocannon
- 5 combi-weapons

The Tartaros Terminators:
- 5 Twin-linked Bolters
- 5 Left-handed Power Fists
- 5 Chain-fist add-ons
- 5 Right-handed Power Fists
- 10 Lighting Claw add-ons
- Reaper Autocannon
- Heavy Flamer
- Power Sword
- Plasma Blaster
- Volkite Charger
- Grenade Harness

That's not just every option that the squad can take; you can't even field them with right-handed Power Fists. That bit exists soley for the Twin Lightning Claw option but they still put it on the sprue as two pieces for reasons. All my Intercessor Sergeant Power Fists came from the two boxes of Tartaros that I bought.

If I'm not mistaken the Cataphracii Terminator kit is similarly loaded.

Thread seems largely done but FWIW I think out and out proxying is bad.
And "here is my army made of scrap and weird stuff cobbled together over 20 years" is almost always worse even if it isn't modelling for advantage.
"My Ironhands are Blue because, you know" is a bit lame.

But at the same time, I find the "yeah, the optimal loadout is X, but we are only going to include 1 in the box" to be infuriating - and bad form from GW. It is just a money spinning exercise - either to GW or third party sources. I'm of the view that yes, you shouldn't have to convert Killa Kans to have rokkits because you only get 1 in the box - just say that they all have that. It can be a bit lame when people say "this melta is a flamer now" but... eh. I can live with it.

But then.. imo at least, just take 5 minutes to run through your army at the start. "This is a unit of Killa Kans, they all have Rokkits" - done. Takes about 5 seconds. Yes it may prevent "haha, gotcha, this unit's going to tear you into little pieces" - but I don't feel thats the best way to make friends.

Tbh though - and this might be book keeping on my part - I find WYSIWG is more useful for stopping cheating (either deliberately or by omission) than "confusion". It stops the "okay sure that guy has a lascannon, but I didn't pay the points for it". *1 hour later* - "yeah, now about that lascannon, lets fire that now."

Whereas to go with our Killa Kanz above - if they have rokkits, you are unlikely to suddenly go "wait, did I say rokkits, I meant Skorchas, obviously, yeah...."

Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

Yeah, blue with Ultramarines symbols and squad marking methology.


Wait a minute...

 Just Tony wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

Yeah, blue with Ultramarines symbols and squad marking methology.


Wait a minute...

The toilet seat is a generic symbol overall. Unless you're going over the top with Greek themes, who are you to say they aren't an Iron Hands successor?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

Yeah, blue with Ultramarines symbols and squad marking methology.


Wait a minute...

The toilet seat is a generic symbol overall. Unless you're going over the top with Greek themes, who are you to say they aren't an Iron Hands successor?

Why would ultramarines not be able to replicate the Iron hands warefare style to almost an exact Point, Or any marine chapter really should probably be able to replicate it. To many Unique rules seems to erode the marines narrative more than ad to it

Wasn't the point about someone using blue marines to represent Iron Hands, rather than one of their successors?

Though I guess in that case the player really should just say they're a successor who's rules function as IH...

Actually, that raises a good question:

Do y'all think it's fine to say that a custom chapter / regiment / forgeworld / cult / coven / kabal / craftworld / dynasty / WHATEVER counts as an established one? Like, I say that my AdMech from the fortress-moon of Phobos count-as Mars, and that's pretty easy to say is fine, since Phobos is literally the remaining moon of Mars and they wear very very similar colours (in my particular interpretation they do, anyway. I just use the darker Gal Vorbak red as the base for their robes), but…

…say I wanted to make some Imperial Guard who represent the Imperials garrisoned on Phobos (it's the principal hub of Mars' defensive perimeter, so it makes sense from both a "protecting our vital assets" standpoint and a "preventing Martian rebellion / secession" one for Imperials to be there too). Would it be fine for me to just say they count-as Cadians or Savlar or whatever, for the sake of rules?

I've always assumed that wouldn't bother anyone, but this idea of no-you-can't-have-blue-IH-successor is making me wonder…

T1nk4bell wrote:
Wysiwyg is just made from players not from gw.

If you weren't playing back then, please see this discussion of WYSIWYG for its description of the 40k 5th edition rules.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/213703.page

I think 3rd edition specified standards for upgrades, but my books are in a storage unit at the moment.

This has gone real long since last I checked in but I feel like things have taken an odd turn.

The only reason to be against WYSIWYG is because you want to be less than casual in the first place. As playing casual, I've never had an issue running my models as I set them up and still win more games than I lose.

Playing this game means how you set up troops and vehicles will often fluctuate a lot over the years from amazing, to crap, to hot to not.

There is no reason to not follow WYSIWYG outside of wanting to bring the most hurt. Now the random proxy to try stuff out to try out new models I think we've all done, I however have no issue just taking my forces as they were made good bad or kind middle of the road.

As a not so wise man once said, you fight with the army you have no the army you want.

It makes you have to play smarter and harder if you aren't always taking the most twinked net list, so why not just try and see what happens ?

If you play in an area where it's all take the best or not even play, I imagine they are already huge on tournaments and that means to keep up there you already need to spend a fortune min maxing your armies to compete so I don't see WYSIWYG as a problem then either as it will be enforced most of the time anyways.

Just as a side note, I'm neither an elitist nor am I mega rich. I'm just a guy, who doesn't feel the need to twink out my forces for every battle. ( My chimeras have multi laser turrets even ! and I use chimeras ! ). I think a vast majority of a list can be done up right though and I hold myself to that same standard.

The contents of the boxes has often and long been a lament but you can work around it if you try and if you can't, you can still win if you work at it. I'm hardly a GW super fan but on this I think we often over focus on what is the best.

Now if a whole unit is just awful forever, that is another story..

WYSIWYG - yeah, but no . . .

I can see the relevance in a skirmish game, not so much for a 100+ figure count game. At that point individual squad member equipment is not the generals/players problem. The squads are Tactical/Assault/Devastator in role.

Whether GW adhere to the concept simply to sell more figures is irrelevant - you either buy in to their version of the game, or play your own. Although from experience I have had no problem with largely ignoring WYSIWYG, if I tell my opponents in advance what the unit is and am consistent.

“All the Ork Boyz are Shootaz, except the black ones which are Sluggaz.”

Problems can arise when players rely on an opponents lack of information to produce a ‘Gotcha!’ moment. I believe this is bad for the game, and what we have Strategems for?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

They can be. They also might just happen to have a white inverted omega symbol. But when they start having things like "Macragge" or "Ultramar" or "Ultra" or any other word typically associated with the sons of Guilliman on their armour? Then they're Ultramarines.

In the same way a black armoured Space Marine could be a Raven Guard, Iron Hand, or Black Consul, or any other successor Chapter, reducing a Chapter to just their primary colour scheme isn't what people mean by "these guys are obviously XYZ Chapter", in the same way a plasma pistol and bolt pistol are different, despite both being one handed pistol weaponry.

WYSIWYG is also about immersion. People like the universe and like to see models and armies that reflect that universe and its lore. Part of that lore is sometimes that for instance Chaos Terminators, as veterans who have been fighting and looting for millennia, may well have different weapons to each other. Building cookie cutter lists of 6x5 man squads all with the same 2 special weapons is boring and against the spirit of the world.

I think for sure GW could do better with the sprue options they provide, and for sure GW could do better with their rules not making different options so variable in power level and then changing that on a regular schedule, but it is what it is. 40k as played by many people is a narrative game not a competitive one.

If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop the cavetching about models literally no one uses or has used for all of 8th? Until very recently is was an extremely overcosted and weak unit that was basically replaced by aggressors and primaris. They are now some of the worst units around. We might as well be complaining about how there is only one psycannon in the Grey knights paladin box. Who cares? No one uses them.

If we want to legitimately argue WYSIWYG then we need to argue current models being hamstrung by this. Here's an example:

Custodes have to buy a 100$ worth of models to make flags and shield captains with axes. Two Models.

A) It's not $100 for two characters, you're getting six Wardens to go along with them.
B) The Primaris characters are $35, that $100 only gets one more that Custodes.

...

C) It's actually $120 iirc, Wardens are a $60 kit.

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

obviously models with the drug 'upgrade' are painted with dilated pupils to achieve wysiwyg.

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

WYSIWYG is about modeling the wargear that comes on a sprue to represent the models in your list. There’s no way to differentiate between the different game effects of standard bearers but you are obligated to 1) make sure your standard bearer model is clear and 2) make sure opponent is aware of its in game effect.

Expecting an opponent to bring a legible, printed army list is also an accepted standard (and a rule for tournament play that I totally support even for casual play) but that’s discriminatory against people with bad handwriting or too poor for paper isn’t it? I’m sure you trust your opponent’s math and accept mental lists though.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit.

Have you been trampled under the rush of wargamers trying to tell you about markers being used to denote game states that can change from game to game, or that change during the game?

 solkan wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Wysiwyg is just made from players not from gw.

If you weren't playing back then, please see this discussion of WYSIWYG for its description of the 40k 5th edition rules.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/213703.page

I think 3rd edition specified standards for upgrades, but my books are in a storage unit at the moment.

3rd Edition rulebook, page 167 under Choosing an Army section, Weapon Options & Upgrades subsection, second paragraph.


And as far as the whole proxy Ultramarines as Iron Hands fethery, I'm done with disingenuous arguments set to excuse powergaming. I'm not dignifying your ridiculous counterpoints with a legitimate response.

Apple fox wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

Yeah, blue with Ultramarines symbols and squad marking methology.


Wait a minute...

The toilet seat is a generic symbol overall. Unless you're going over the top with Greek themes, who are you to say they aren't an Iron Hands successor?

Why would ultramarines not be able to replicate the Iron hands warefare style to almost an exact Point, Or any marine chapter really should probably be able to replicate it. To many Unique rules seems to erode the marines narrative more than ad to it

Which is a point I've made before about rules bloat causing several imbalances to begin with. I want more streamlined rules, these Supplements are the antithesis of that. I want 90% of that content gone, period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why can't an Iron Hands successor be blue?

They can be. They also might just happen to have a white inverted omega symbol. But when they start having things like "Macragge" or "Ultramar" or "Ultra" or any other word typically associated with the sons of Guilliman on their armour? Then they're Ultramarines.

In the same way a black armoured Space Marine could be a Raven Guard, Iron Hand, or Black Consul, or any other successor Chapter, reducing a Chapter to just their primary colour scheme isn't what people mean by "these guys are obviously XYZ Chapter", in the same way a plasma pistol and bolt pistol are different, despite both being one handed pistol weaponry.

Yeah that doesn't really exist outside things like the Honour Guard and certain weapon bitz or the Ancient (I think), so that's not an issue like it's being made to be.

Do y'all think it's fine to say that a custom chapter / regiment / forgeworld / cult / coven / kabal / craftworld / dynasty / WHATEVER counts as an established one? Like, I say that my AdMech from the fortress-moon of Phobos count-as Mars, and that's pretty easy to say is fine, since Phobos is literally the remaining moon of Mars and they wear very very similar colours (in my particular interpretation they do, anyway. I just use the darker Gal Vorbak red as the base for their robes), but…

Paint is paint. For the longest time people have even used the rules/wargear for special characters like Lysander in, say, an Ultramarines or Salamanders army which all come from the basic marine codex. Make a green thunderhammer/SS Terminator captain, call him Sammy the Salamander, and use his rules to represent your Salamander captain, not really an issue as your still using a codex entry with his wargear represented. Just choosing a regular storm Bolter/fist terminator and using Lysander’s rules is a different story.

The same went for using an army to represent another army. If someone wanted to use the basic marine book to make a Blood Angels army (forgoing all the units, rules, and wargear from the BA codex) then it doesn’t matter at all - you can paint your codex marine army red and call them Blood Angels, Blood Brothers, Bloods, Red Guys, the Arizona Cardinals, whatever. Actually in 4th ed 40k I think it was actually better to build your Blood Angels out of the regular marine codex...

People made Thousand Sons armies out of the 5th ed GK codex, so long as you modeled all of your guys with halberds or swords or the correct wargear and you’re not sneaking in allied demons again it doesn’t matter to me whether your models match your codex. People did chaos armies with the 5th edition Wolves codex by modeling their thunderwolf riders on juggernauts.

nareik wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

obviously models with the drug 'upgrade' are painted with dilated pupils to achieve wysiwyg.

No no no. You use dilated pupils for adrenalight, pinprick pupils for hypex, clammy sweat for splintermind, track marks for painbringer, and a scabby nose for grave lotus…

I'm confused, are we arguing painting schemes and modeling styles or narrative design choices? This thread is going all over the place.

There is such a thing as modelling for advantage. See: Kneeling Wraithlord kerfuffle.

There is such a thing a narratively built armies. See: All my blue space marine units aren't Ultras, they are a force called The Blues Who Use Salamander Traits.

The first is objectively not ok, and the latter is ok only with a discussion before hand, and not taken to extremes (Ala They are all blue paint for there are 3 different chapters, the Meltas are plasma, the flamers are HBs, and the spears are thunder hammers.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm confused, are we arguing painting schemes and modeling styles or narrative design choices? This thread is going all over the place.

There is such a thing as modelling for advantage. See: Kneeling Wraithlord kerfuffle.

There is such a thing a narratively built armies. See: All my blue space marine units aren't Ultras, they are a force called The Blues Who Use Salamander Traits.

The first is objectively not ok, and the latter is ok only with a discussion before hand, and not taken to extremes (Ala They are all blue paint for there are 3 different chapters, the Meltas are plasma, the flamers are HBs, and the spears are thunder hammers.

I think the latter is ALWAYS okay, if it's just a question of chapter colours. Ultramarines don't have a monopoly on blue armour! It's when they're blue, and their chapter icon is the U symbol, and their banners say "For Macragge", and they're trying to claim they're a Salamanders successor, that's when it gets stupid and annoying.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm confused, are we arguing painting schemes and modeling styles or narrative design choices? This thread is going all over the place.

There is such a thing as modelling for advantage. See: Kneeling Wraithlord kerfuffle.

There is such a thing a narratively built armies. See: All my blue space marine units aren't Ultras, they are a force called The Blues Who Use Salamander Traits.

The first is objectively not ok, and the latter is ok only with a discussion before hand, and not taken to extremes (Ala They are all blue paint for there are 3 different chapters, the Meltas are plasma, the flamers are HBs, and the spears are thunder hammers.

Welcome to this thread. The original idea was that GW designed the WYSIWYG rule then purposefully doesn't include every single possible wargear option in a box to get you to buy more boxes. This idea is kinda silly given that people will buy 3rd party plasma or melta guns, 3d print them, or simply convert them out of something else. The rule was also around before the Chapterhouse lawsuit back when GW included special characters or models that didn't have official models so players could convert what they'd like so long as the design of the model made it clear to their opponent what they're taking. Other game systems use the same standard because playing strangers in neutral settings shouldn't always devolve into a selfish "I play my way to maximize my convenience" mentality.

The idea of paint schemes and proxying different armies using another army's rules naturally came from the proxying wargear discussion. It's okay, things move quickly around here and the 5 paragraph essays you see in some posts for page after page make it hard to follow sometimes.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm confused, are we arguing painting schemes and modeling styles or narrative design choices? This thread is going all over the place.

There is such a thing as modelling for advantage. See: Kneeling Wraithlord kerfuffle.

There is such a thing a narratively built armies. See: All my blue space marine units aren't Ultras, they are a force called The Blues Who Use Salamander Traits.

The first is objectively not ok, and the latter is ok only with a discussion before hand, and not taken to extremes (Ala They are all blue paint for there are 3 different chapters, the Meltas are plasma, the flamers are HBs, and the spears are thunder hammers.

Welcome to this thread. The original idea was that GW designed the WYSIWYG rule then purposefully doesn't include every single possible wargear option in a box to get you to buy more boxes. This idea is kinda silly given that people will buy 3rd party plasma or melta guns, 3d print them, or simply convert them out of something else. The rule was also around before the Chapterhouse lawsuit back when GW included special characters or models that didn't have official models so players could convert what they'd like so long as the design of the model made it clear to their opponent what they're taking. Other game systems use the same standard because playing strangers in neutral settings shouldn't always devolve into a selfish "I play my way to maximize my convenience" mentality.

The idea of paint schemes and proxying different armies using another army's rules naturally came from the proxying wargear discussion. It's okay, things move quickly around here and the 5 paragraph essays you see in some posts for page after page make it hard to follow sometimes.

It's even more silly when it hasn't shown up in the main rulebook since 6th Edition. It's only event organizers who have perpetuated the rule. Still, I'm sure there are people who still think Necrons still have Phase Out as a loss condition.

I'm like 90% sure most GW stores stop you from trying to use non-GW bitz in a game if they get identified. The one I visited in New York when I loved on the east coast tried it at least. That's probably where that comes from too.

How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

It varies a lot store to store and also country to country since some countries have variation in their local structure and interpretation of GW rules. I know that in the past some even banned non-GW scenic bases for a time, but that's largely been squashed now. In general some staff are going to be more "hot" on it than others. Some might not care, others might not notice etc... It can really vary a lot. Best person to ask is your local GW store manager.

 Overread wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

It varies a lot store to store and also country to country since some countries have variation in their local structure and interpretation of GW rules. I know that in the past some even banned non-GW scenic bases for a time, but that's largely been squashed now. In general some staff are going to be more "hot" on it than others. Some might not care, others might not notice etc... It can really vary a lot. Best person to ask is your local GW store manager.

Thanks!

No worries - also note that it might even vary depending on how you present it. If you start loudly talking about these great 3rd party bits and basically advertising them in the store than the staff might well come down on you more so than if you'd just put the models down and answered if asked, but otherwise not made a big scene about it.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

How hard is it to tell the bit isn't official and what's the difference between a 3rd party bit and a custom conversion. Not a joke: back when I would convert Ork stuff with just plastic and cobbling together GW bits I'd get asked if the model was something new [humble brag]. I have since brought in 3d printed 8mm scale vehicles for AT bases along with 3d printed AT guns because the official weapons weren't available. I have made my own cannons, powerpacks, base material, terrain bits, etc with no problem at all in the past. If you bring in 3d printed HH shoulder pads from Shapeways it's going to be awfully hard to tell them apart from the official FW ones and I know for a fact they've been in our store. Recast FW stuff can be impossible to tell next to one another once they're painted and I've heard of people getting better quality resin casts from Russia or China than the quality FW is putting out these days.

I refuse to buy FW recasts. Regular GW is a different story but I haven't actually done so yet.

Just from a pragmatic standpoint I’d rather not give my credit card info to the Chinese or Russians tbh.

On WYSIWYG, what do people say about models/regiments no longer produced?

Steel Legion still has models, and I guess you could always use Kreig?

Mordian can be kitbashed with bits available through IG kits, although they will all likely have the same head piece.

Vostroyan were re-released briefly last year.

So what about Valhallan and Tallarn? Would you let people paint Cadians in the colors of other regiments? What about 3rd party bits? Or would you insist that people find the metal models on eBay?

What about old metal Cadians? Would you let them be stand-ins for other regiments or would you insist they be Cadians only?

What about Kasrkin? Would you let them be used as Scions? Insist they be Veterans? Insist that, as they no longer have rules, that they not be used?

What about someone (like me) who uses Fantasy or Forgeworld models as Crusaders?

All of those are IG. Kasrkin are absolutely Scions or Veterans (are Vets still in the IG book?)

My store refuses to allow anything not made by GW or FW (Still GW).

That all being said, Even if EVERYTHING in the army screams Ultras, but you want to try out Sallys, that's cool. IT's gonna be a slow game because I am going to ask you a lot of the same questions repeatedly.

But I DO think it's important that we all play to a standard, because winning is more fun than losing. Obviously the journey matters, but I'd rather eek out a close win the grind out a tough loss. That's just me.

Which is why I play Custodes, because I like winning....once every three months. But DAMN do mah models look sexah as HELL.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

Don't mention it, don't talk about it, and for the emperor don't loudly declare how much better the 3rd party bits you are using are, and you should be fine. If someone asks play it off like you made them yourself or they're from a weird kit and you're probably fine. If they insist shoot them a look and give the impression they need to shut up. Most managers don't know nearly enough about the game to call you out on a guardsman with a 3rd party head, gun, or backpack. And in my experience, a lot of the managers that CAN tell the difference don't care and won't call you out provided you're not openly discussing it or bragging about it. Really not much different that loudly bragging that you use recasts in a store for example.

Ironically, I've heard of the opposite problem, such as showing up with old 2nd edition models and having a manager call them out thinking they're recasts.

Unrelated, but I remember once I brought my guard army out at the FLGS. It has a mix of old 3rd edition metal cadians, starship troopers light mobile infantry (the movie guys) and some Victoria lamb Arcadians. I was casually talking about how I use a variety of stuff because the store was cool with it, only for the new player to pick up my actual cadians and go "yeah I can tell these are the 3rd party ones, look how chunky and old fashioned they look compared to the others".

If you're not a moron and loudly talking about how you're breaking the rules, odds are the average Joe won't even notice or care in the first place. Good rule to live your life by in a lot of cases really. And to be honest you're not doing anything wrong by buying 3rd party bits, it's just the equivalent of buying a big Mac and eating it in a burger king. Yeah you're not breaking the law, but it is kind of in bad taste when you walk into a store and loudly talk up their competitor. I feel like GW should license 3rd party companies to make "approved" to fill in the line from talented companies anyways so they make the best out of a situation instead of beating their head against a wall, but that's a discussion for another time.

Wait do non-GW FLGS have policies against using non-GW bits or models? Why on earth would another store care that you're using other product lines in an IG army so long as it's clear what they're armed with?

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Wait do non-GW FLGS have policies against using non-GW bits or models? Why on earth would another store care that you're using other product lines in an IG army so long as it's clear what they're armed with?

For the same reason as a GW store. THEY aren't selling it.

I must be missing something, there are stores that don’t let you use models you didn’t buy there? I’ve played in stores I just bring stuff to.

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

Of course I could. It's just not my job to manage your army. It's on YOU to show me which of your models has what upgrades. Refusal to do so means that you're one of the lazy/cheap/cheats.

On wyches & their drugs;
Our lone DE/Wych player simply has a color coded set of tokens (made from Poker Chips) printed with the names of the various drugs for each of his squads.
Each squad of wyches has a different color of rim on the base (red squad, blue squad, green squad, etc) & all of the tokens for that squad are of that color. Tokens not being used remain in the case.
There is no way that you're going to mistake what squad has what drugs. It's as WYSIWYG for this type of thing as you can get.

He learned it from a Tyranid player back in 4th who tracked his more or less invisible bio-morphs in a similar way.

And yet the lazy/cheap/cheats are trying to convince us all that it's impractical to model their pieces with the correct weapons - wich do exist in physical form....
They could also do exactly as our DE player & make tokens for each squads special/heavy weapons/wargear weapons. But they don't. Hmm, I wonder why?

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I must be missing something, there are stores that don’t let you use models you didn’t buy there? I’ve played in stores I just bring stuff to.

There are not. This is one of those constructed fantasy hate boners that don't really exist in reality.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Wait do non-GW FLGS have policies against using non-GW bits or models? Why on earth would another store care that you're using other product lines in an IG army so long as it's clear what they're armed with?

I've never met a 3rd party store that had that problem. Sorry I should've been more clear. That was intended for if you're using non GW stuff in a GW store.

I've brought armies that didn't have a single GW mini in them to play games at non GW stores and long as it's painted and looks good no one seems to care.

Hey, serious question for a second, if it's okay:

I'm building / painting up a Drukhari army right now, and I've got a Wych detachment. Currently it's just a patrol detachment for use with the "Raiding Party" and "Alliance of Agony" rules, and it doesn't have any duplicated unit types, but it would still probably be helpful for my opponent to have some reminder that the wyches are using grave lotus, the reavers have hypex, the hellions have painbringer, the beastmaster has splintermind, etc etc. *

Should I make little counters to put next to the unit? Or is it enough to just say which units are using which drugs at the beginning of the game, while I'm also explaining stuff like my Obsessions and pre-game stratagems, have it written down on my data sheets, and maybe just periodically remind my opponent who is high on what kind of goofballs?

* Note: Yes, I am smart enough to change this up on a game-by-game basis. Like I'm already running them as Cursed Blade, so I'd give the wyches adrenalight rather than grave lotus if I'm going to be using them against T3 units.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Hey, serious question for a second, if it's okay:

I'm building / painting up a Drukhari army right now, and I've got a Wych detachment. Currently it's just a patrol detachment for use with the "Raiding Party" and "Alliance of Agony" rules, and it doesn't have any duplicated unit types, but it would still probably be helpful for my opponent to have some reminder that the wyches are using grave lotus, the reavers have hypex, the hellions have painbringer, the beastmaster has splintermind, etc etc. *

Should I make little counters to put next to the unit? Or is it enough to just say which units are using which drugs at the beginning of the game, while I'm also explaining stuff like my Obsessions and pre-game stratagems, have it written down on my data sheets, and maybe just periodically remind my opponent who is high on what kind of goofballs?

* Note: Yes, I am smart enough to change this up on a game-by-game basis. Like I'm already running them as Cursed Blade, so I'd give the wyches adrenalight rather than grave lotus if I'm going to be using them against T3 units.

If you have no duplicates using different drugs and it is on the list your opponent has, I wouldn't say it was strictly necessary for good sportsmanship - but hey, you could always use it as a fun modeling project

nataliereed1984 wrote:

nareik wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

obviously models with the drug 'upgrade' are painted with dilated pupils to achieve wysiwyg.

No no no. You use dilated pupils for adrenalight, pinprick pupils for hypex, clammy sweat for splintermind, track marks for painbringer, and a scabby nose for grave lotus…

I humbly acccept your correction.

Back banners might be a fun interchangable way to visibly mark out which drugs a unjt is using. Throw in some dumb glamorising slogans, 'Grave Lotus Rave Folkers" or something.

Having counters or markers to denote which unit has specific buffs not modeled as wargear should always be appreciated by your opponent as you’re trying to make it clear. The Poorhammer crowd will object at having to spend money on something that’s extra to help you and your opponent keep track of things but I do it too.

Remember my Night Goblin Fanatics? I had a mushroom token as a unit filled in each of my NG blocks that I would turn over when fanatics were released to reveal how many were in the unit that had 0-3 under it. This way no one could say I was cheating by putting them in the most advantageous position.

I’ve made order counters for AT so it’s clear which of my titans have which order and I made my own magnetized 3D printed move dials for Aeronautica.

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Having counters or markers to denote which unit has specific buffs not modeled as wargear should always be appreciated by your opponent as you’re trying to make it clear. The Poorhammer crowd will object at having to spend money on something that’s extra to help you and your opponent keep track of things but I do it too.

Remember my Night Goblin Fanatics? I had a mushroom token as a unit filled in each of my NG blocks that I would turn over when fanatics were released to reveal how many were in the unit that had 0-3 under it. This way no one could say I was cheating by putting them in the most advantageous position.

I’ve made order counters for AT so it’s clear which of my titans have which order and I made my own magnetized 3D printed move dials for Aeronautica.

You'd think this would just be common courtesy. One dude brought in these gold hoops as wound counters, I was giggling as my Doombull had several hanging off his horns. Marking your transports if you have different squad types in identical transports, the like.


And Poorhammer? You can make markers out of the cardboard your soda 12 packs are made out of.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

GW sells Greenstuff.
If you get hassle for something as niggly as a pauldron, tell the accuser you made it yourself, using GW-bought Greenstuff.

If you headswap from 3rd parties, tell them you got it from a bitzbox you had from years ago. WHo can prove that a specific head DID NOT come from a GW kit you bought a decade ago?

nataliereed1984 wrote:
How common is it for GW stores to not permit models that have *cosmetic* bits from third party sources? Like not a whole third party model, which they obviously ban, but if you had, for example, a pauldron on one of your proper official chaos marines that came from a 3rd party, cos it helped tie the model to a particular power better.

Only if it was obvious and you couldn't claim to have made it from something else. But third party bits once painted should be nearly indistinguishable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to be fair I brought out an old metal Terminator. I was asked what third party made it! Fun moment

Being in a state with only one licensed GW store, and the next one being over 100 miles away, I generally try not to anger the bear. That being said I've seen guys be asked to put away their models, and if they give the slightest defense, asked to leave the store.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Being in a state with only one licensed GW store, and the next one being over 100 miles away, I generally try not to anger the bear. That being said I've seen guys be asked to put away their models, and if they give the slightest defense, asked to leave the store.

Then that store should be reported to corporate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Being in a state with only one licensed GW store, and the next one being over 100 miles away, I generally try not to anger the bear. That being said I've seen guys be asked to put away their models, and if they give the slightest defense, asked to leave the store.

Then that store should be reported to corporate.

Why? For enforcing a store policy that is pretty widely accepted around most GW stores? You aren't allowed to use any non-GW/FW models in a GW store. This isn't narrative, or "But muh furbies are daemon princes and I needs muh coke can rhino!" but being respectful to a store owner's attempt to run a business.

Yep, that's been a GW rule for...as long as I've visited GW stores and is entirely appropriate. The GW policy is simple:

A) We give you a place to play.
B) You are essentially advertising for us by using our models/games when people walk into the store.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Being in a state with only one licensed GW store, and the next one being over 100 miles away, I generally try not to anger the bear. That being said I've seen guys be asked to put away their models, and if they give the slightest defense, asked to leave the store.

Then that store should be reported to corporate.

Why? For enforcing a store policy that is pretty widely accepted around most GW stores? You aren't allowed to use any non-GW/FW models in a GW store. This isn't narrative, or "But muh furbies are daemon princes and I needs muh coke can rhino!" but being respectful to a store owner's attempt to run a business.

My impression was that it was regarding innocuous things like bits.

If people are rocking soda can rhinos then they shouldn't play there. A GW store front is the window for new customers into the hobby, so rocking weird, gakky models is bad for business. If its a model that is difficult to distinguish from GW then there isn't a good reason for the store to chuck people out, in my opinion.

Well, it's a rather clear distinction in every GW store I've been in, on both sides of the pond. GW doesn't allow anything non-GW on their tables.

Bits, bases, models, or sometimes even terrain. I tried to use my FLG ITC terrain set in a recent game, and the store owner said I couldn't, but he would let us use his terrain bits. Fine. Respectful and professional. He's here to sell his stuff, not someone else's.

Totally fair. The point is, what are you kitbashing that you can't make with 1st party materials? There is nothing that can't be made with greenstuff, as others have pointed out.

I hate to say this, but at the end of the day, if you want to play Super Mario, you can't bring me a chinese knock off called "Super Action Plumber Time" and say it's Super Mario.

If you want to play GW's game, in a GW store, you have to buy their toys. If you want to play with your friends at literally anywhere else, use whatever. Why has this gone on for 13 pages? What is the issue?

*Looks at title* OH. Yeah. WYSIWYG is GW Store only, unless it's GW bits, and then who cares, just don't be a jerk about it.

Why has this gone on for 13 pages? What is the issue?

Because I have my laptop with me at work and can post on it. I'm also holiday shopping so I get to wait in long lines with nothing to do, that's why you see weird errors in my posts as my phone does its best to autocorrect things. The word unit "filler" became "filled" in line at Safeway and I was too lazy to edit it.

Even if a third party model looks a great deal like a GW product - and they actually have to be pretty careful about doing that, since there's only so much visual overlap you can do before you expose yourself to a Chapter House style lawsuit - there's still the risk of a customer saying, "Wow! That's really cool! What model is it?", then finding out GW doesn't sell it, and… there you go, bad for business.

My GW knows I buy a lot of crap so I think that's one reason why no one bothers me.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

Why has this gone on for 13 pages? What is the issue?

Because I have my laptop with me at work and can post on it. I'm also holiday shopping so I get to wait in long lines with nothing to do, that's why you see weird errors in my posts as my phone does its best to autocorrect things. The word unit "filler" became "filled" in line at Safeway and I was too lazy to edit it.

Yeah, I think a lot of us are just on Holiday vacations and such and really bored. Maybe some people have even flown to visit family and are away from their gaming groups and models and jonesing for 40k talk? I don't know.

Besides, this thread gave me a chance to ask a couple questions clarifying what to expect if I go play games at the GW store in Burnaby rather than the LGS here in Van proper.

I could say if the model is not WYSIWYG then it is a "Proxy" or substitute for the "actual" representative model.

Even in the bad old days of cardboard "chits" representing units in board games you wanted a picture to at least be representative.

I guess you have to ask yourself the question: "why do you buy models in the first place"?
I have seen those who are happy to glue legs to a base and figure that is good enough if they can get someone to play.
I am OK financially but will use targeted magnets so I do not have to buy 3-4 of the same model unit so I can get all the options attached.
I take so long to paint that I am pretty darn committed to each model that shelving them due to not being optimal, is not always an easy choice.

"Forced" to buy extra models? I guess it depends on what you can kit-bash, buy used, or find a descent substitute (except for GW shop play) and be content with those alternative sources or methods.
It is always the fine choice of time or money for these kinds of things.

I take some offense and question the OP on being a gamer: There are NO "extra models", they are precisely the quantity you "need".

ccs wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
If you support wysiwyg don't play anyone that plays min squad wych cult units.

Combat drugs are invisible, and have to be different for each unit. If you can manage that you can manage other armies

Of course I could. It's just not my job to manage your army. It's on YOU to show me which of your models has what upgrades. Refusal to do so means that you're one of the lazy/cheap/cheats.

On wyches & their drugs;
Our lone DE/Wych player simply has a color coded set of tokens (made from Poker Chips) printed with the names of the various drugs for each of his squads.
Each squad of wyches has a different color of rim on the base (red squad, blue squad, green squad, etc) & all of the tokens for that squad are of that color. Tokens not being used remain in the case.
There is no way that you're going to mistake what squad has what drugs. It's as WYSIWYG for this type of thing as you can get.

He learned it from a Tyranid player back in 4th who tracked his more or less invisible bio-morphs in a similar way.

And yet the lazy/cheap/cheats are trying to convince us all that it's impractical to model their pieces with the correct weapons - wich do exist in physical form....
They could also do exactly as our DE player & make tokens for each squads special/heavy weapons/wargear weapons. But they don't. Hmm, I wonder why?

I don't play DE so thanks for calling me a cheater/lazy/cheap. I play my Ultramarines, they have their transfers, they are Ultramarines full stop. They're wysiwyg, I prefer it but it's not necessary for the game it's simply gate keeping

You're right though I could call my friend out for being lazy for not taking the time to mark his units but that's not my responsibility like you said. I just want to play the game against him regardless of the quality.

So how would Spears of the emperor work then? Primaris don't have access to power lances/spears but that's their entire gimmick. In order to be wysiwyg I wouldn't be able to play them according to this thread

From what I can tell the USA division of GW has a very different style to that of the UK; with the USA being a bit less friendly. I put it down to the UK staff often being recruited from gamers who just hung around the store long enough to get employed; whilst in the USA I'd guess that they've gone a more corporate hiring approach.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Hey, serious question for a second, if it's okay:

I'm building / painting up a Drukhari army right now, and I've got a Wych detachment. Currently it's just a patrol detachment for use with the "Raiding Party" and "Alliance of Agony" rules, and it doesn't have any duplicated unit types, but it would still probably be helpful for my opponent to have some reminder that the wyches are using grave lotus, the reavers have hypex, the hellions have painbringer, the beastmaster has splintermind, etc etc. *

Should I make little counters to put next to the unit? Or is it enough to just say which units are using which drugs at the beginning of the game, while I'm also explaining stuff like my Obsessions and pre-game stratagems, have it written down on my data sheets, and maybe just periodically remind my opponent who is high on what kind of goofballs?

I would make the tokens.

ccs wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Hey, serious question for a second, if it's okay:

I'm building / painting up a Drukhari army right now, and I've got a Wych detachment. Currently it's just a patrol detachment for use with the "Raiding Party" and "Alliance of Agony" rules, and it doesn't have any duplicated unit types, but it would still probably be helpful for my opponent to have some reminder that the wyches are using grave lotus, the reavers have hypex, the hellions have painbringer, the beastmaster has splintermind, etc etc. *

Should I make little counters to put next to the unit? Or is it enough to just say which units are using which drugs at the beginning of the game, while I'm also explaining stuff like my Obsessions and pre-game stratagems, have it written down on my data sheets, and maybe just periodically remind my opponent who is high on what kind of goofballs?

I would make the tokens.

If there''s a serious upside to my dalliance with Warmahordes, it's that I have no shortage of dry-wipe tokens to use in other games and just rolled good practice from that game into... everything else.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I must be missing something, there are stores that don’t let you use models you didn’t buy there? I’ve played in stores I just bring stuff to.

There are not. This is one of those constructed fantasy hate boners that don't really exist in reality.

Not really constructed. Basically the attitude was:

Elbows wrote:A) We give you a place to play.
B) You are essentially advertising for us by using our models/games when people walk into the store.

The store didn't start out that way, but soon after they started doing that, well... Let's just say that their store space was eventually devoted to other interests.

That's why it's usually not considered a good idea to try and enforce it.

 fraser1191 wrote:
.

So how would Spears of the emperor work then? Primaris don't have access to power lances/spears but that's their entire gimmick. In order to be wysiwyg I wouldn't be able to play them according to this thread

Yeah I just modeled a Primaris Captain with a Trident. Would people really say I can't use him other than as a decoration?

Arcanis161 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
.

So how would Spears of the emperor work then? Primaris don't have access to power lances/spears but that's their entire gimmick. In order to be wysiwyg I wouldn't be able to play them according to this thread

Yeah I just modeled a Primaris Captain with a Trident. Would people really say I can't use him other than as a decoration?

In real life? No. In this thread? People will adopt any contrary adversarial position for internet points...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
.

So how would Spears of the emperor work then? Primaris don't have access to power lances/spears but that's their entire gimmick. In order to be wysiwyg I wouldn't be able to play them according to this thread

Yeah I just modeled a Primaris Captain with a Trident. Would people really say I can't use him other than as a decoration?

In real life? No. In this thread? People will adopt any contrary adversarial position for internet points...

Aww, I wish internet points were for stuff like "do an ollie on a skateboard" or "name all the Soviet cosmonauts that have been to space". :-P

Arcanis161 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
.

So how would Spears of the emperor work then? Primaris don't have access to power lances/spears but that's their entire gimmick. In order to be wysiwyg I wouldn't be able to play them according to this thread

Yeah I just modeled a Primaris Captain with a Trident. Would people really say I can't use him other than as a decoration?

Well, let's see;
Lazy? - Nope, you've modeled the weapon. At the minimum you've modeled him holding a close combat weapon....
Cheap? - Nope, you've modeled the weapon
Cheating? - Nope, you're not hiding (intentionally or otherwise) which model has the weapon. I look across the board & I'll SEE a guy holding a trident.

The cheating is the big one. Over nearly 30 years of minis gaming I've seen an awful lot of "invisible" weapons magically shift back & forth within squads. (not just in 40k) Sometimes to take advantage of LoS, sometimes range, during casualty removal, depending upon stationary/moving restrictions.... Heck I've even seen them jump squads & swap ends of the battlefield when it was convenient. I'm sure there's no strat for that.
And that's why we do WYSIWYG for weapons. So everyone knows at a glance where things are & there's no disagreements.

To all the people here saying it's either a conspiracy or incompetence please consider it's most likely neither. GW as a company just doesn't care enough about the competitive community to include the kits they need, and honestly do you expect them to do something that would negatively impact sales?

As others have said you have options when it comes to bits, you can craft your own (Blue Stuff molds) or buy them individually online, so there is really no point in complaining about this.
We'll see full kits when we see full testing (the two things go hand in hand), and judging from the 20+ thread on the subject i'd say that's never going to happen.

 Archon Sinter wrote:
To all the people here saying it's either a conspiracy or incompetence please consider it's most likely neither. GW as a company just doesn't care enough about the competitive community to include the kits they need, and honestly do you expect them to do something that would negatively impact sales?

Perhaps GW understand that (as the thread topic and title) if people have to buy multiple kits because they only have one competitive option in the box for said unit, they sell more product? Perhaps GW also realise that when they make another option for said unit stronger/most optimal they then force players to purchase more of the same product, if they want to use the unit at it' best?

Just a thought. I'm quite certain they "care" about the competitive community in so far as they care about making money from it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Archon Sinter wrote:
To all the people here saying it's either a conspiracy or incompetence please consider it's most likely neither. GW as a company just doesn't care enough about the competitive community to include the kits they need, and honestly do you expect them to do something that would negatively impact sales?

Perhaps GW understand that (as the thread topic and title) if people have to buy multiple kits because they only have one competitive option in the box for said unit, they sell more product? Perhaps GW also realise that when they make another option for said unit stronger/most optimal they then force players to purchase more of the same product, if they want to use the unit at it' best?

Just a thought. I'm quite certain they "care" about the competitive community in so far as they care about making money from it.

Nail meet head, if you think any for-profit company wouldn't you're deluding yourself.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Even if a third party model looks a great deal like a GW product - and they actually have to be pretty careful about doing that, since there's only so much visual overlap you can do before you expose yourself to a Chapter House style lawsuit - there's still the risk of a customer saying, "Wow! That's really cool! What model is it?", then finding out GW doesn't sell it, and… there you go, bad for business.

So like...Half my stuff at this point, but they're all GW official models, sooooo...

"Cool eldar army, what models are those?"

"Well these are howling banshees from mostly rogue trader and 2nd ed, these rocket hat dudes are the first idea someone had for dark reapers. These shining spears you can still buy but now they're made of fossilized shaving cream instead of metal that will melt over the course of a couple years. The farseer's rogue trader, the guardians are a kit that's always been just arms and heads, so technically you have to kitbash them together to make the unit but don't tell GW."

 Fajita Fan wrote:
I must be missing something, there are stores that don’t let you use models you didn’t buy there? I’ve played in stores I just bring stuff to.

There are FLGSs that won't let you play game systems they don't sell there (one of my locals wouldn't let people play the GoT Kickstarter in-store until it was released to retail, for example), and people exaggerate...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, it's a rather clear distinction in every GW store I've been in, on both sides of the pond. GW doesn't allow anything non-GW on their tables.

Bits, bases, models, or sometimes even terrain. I tried to use my FLG ITC terrain set in a recent game, and the store owner said I couldn't, but he would let us use his terrain bits. Fine. Respectful and professional. He's here to sell his stuff, not someone else's.

Totally fair. The point is, what are you kitbashing that you can't make with 1st party materials? There is nothing that can't be made with greenstuff, as others have pointed out.

I hate to say this, but at the end of the day, if you want to play Super Mario, you can't bring me a chinese knock off called "Super Action Plumber Time" and say it's Super Mario.

If you want to play GW's game, in a GW store, you have to buy their toys. If you want to play with your friends at literally anywhere else, use whatever. Why has this gone on for 13 pages? What is the issue?

*Looks at title* OH. Yeah. WYSIWYG is GW Store only, unless it's GW bits, and then who cares, just don't be a jerk about it.

It's 100% at the discretion of the store manager in my experience. Since that's the only store in 100 miles, he can pull that kind of stuff and everyone has to suck it up. But in a more competitive area, no one would play at that store.

In my area with 4-5 other FLGS, the GW store is very loose with their rules. You can come in any time to paint, play, bs, socialize, etc without buying anything.

No one asks questions about your kitbashed models as long as they're not straight 3rd party models or recasts. People can make custom terrain and assemble models in the store. No one's gonna be put on the cross for using 3rd party bases (especially flight stands!). The hobby is actually *encouraged* and the manager has done a great job creating a local hangout.

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, it's a rather clear distinction in every GW store I've been in, on both sides of the pond. GW doesn't allow anything non-GW on their tables.

Bits, bases, models, or sometimes even terrain. I tried to use my FLG ITC terrain set in a recent game, and the store owner said I couldn't, but he would let us use his terrain bits. Fine. Respectful and professional. He's here to sell his stuff, not someone else's.

Totally fair. The point is, what are you kitbashing that you can't make with 1st party materials? There is nothing that can't be made with greenstuff, as others have pointed out.

I hate to say this, but at the end of the day, if you want to play Super Mario, you can't bring me a chinese knock off called "Super Action Plumber Time" and say it's Super Mario.

If you want to play GW's game, in a GW store, you have to buy their toys. If you want to play with your friends at literally anywhere else, use whatever. Why has this gone on for 13 pages? What is the issue?

*Looks at title* OH. Yeah. WYSIWYG is GW Store only, unless it's GW bits, and then who cares, just don't be a jerk about it.

It's 100% at the discretion of the store manager in my experience. Since that's the only store in 100 miles, he can pull that kind of stuff and everyone has to suck it up. But in a more competitive area, no one would play at that store.

In my area with 4-5 other FLGS, the GW store is very loose with their rules. You can come in any time to paint, play, bs, socialize, etc without buying anything.

No one asks questions about your kitbashed models as long as they're not straight 3rd party models or recasts. People can make custom terrain and assemble models in the store. No one's gonna be put on the cross for using 3rd party bases (especially flight stands!). The hobby is actually *encouraged* and the manager has done a great job creating a local hangout.

Our local GW is pretty loose on painting and the like but not sure about 3rd party bits I would like to get a 3D printed bit to replace the cage on the invictor warsuits to look more like dreadnoughts to fit in with my army theme better but it would suck to not be able to use them at the store. I have some time as the warsuits are out of stock online and the GW got hit by a tornado in September so it will be a little while before the building is safe to open back up.

My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

Yeah, if my GW had a painting REQUIREMENT, I'd not be nearly as invested into the hobby as I am now.

The manager encourages painting and helps anyone who needs it, but it's not mandatory.

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

You clearly never seen a badly painted model IRL. Maybe mediocre, but not bad. If you saw an actually bad painted model you wouldn't enforce it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
My local GW seems pretty solid it seems then.
Painting requirements are just 3 colours.

Model requirements are “majority GW parts” only.
See tons of head swaps etc and no one blinks an eye at it.
Also seen models used for unreleased kits as a stand in and they don’t mine either (that was a while ago though)

Your GW has painting requirements?

Even clubs can have painting requirements. It's basically there to encourage people to actually paint their models rather than just having armies of grey on the table all the time. Typically a store won't punish newbies or those new to the area (who might be newly returned or joined to the hobby); but they will encourage and enforce it. The idea is to get people putting paint on the models so that the game looks better for both players and also advertises a more interesting game to passers by. For a shop this is important; for clubs it also helps recruit and retain new players to their local scene.


Painted models, even badly painted, typically look way better than just legions of grey (or undercoat white/black) models.

You clearly never seen a badly painted model IRL. Maybe mediocre, but not bad. If you saw an actually bad painted model you wouldn't enforce it.

The internet example of truly badly painted models is not something I've ever personally seen IRL, just as with the fabled CAAC and WAAC tournament-only player. Generally speaking, even badly painted models are preferable to grey miniatures because encouraging an environment where models are painted encourages people to improve their painting in my experience. Nowadays it seems everyone's first models are miles better than mine were because the internet is a fantastic resource for helping newbies learn.

I would honestly be interested in a Dakka poll - for whoever is good with this crap:

What percentage of games that you play in 40k/AoS happen inside a licensed GW store? Not a store that carries GW products, but a literal GW store?

I'm guessing the majority of casual players DON'T play in a GW store, and the majority of competetives do. That being the case, is there actually a problem? I don't ever see people being "stifled" with their creativity in stores, unless it's flagrant assshatery.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would honestly be interested in a Dakka poll - for whoever is good with this crap:

What percentage of games that you play in 40k/AoS happen inside a licensed GW store? Not a store that carries GW products, but a literal GW store?

I'm guessing the majority of casual players DON'T play in a GW store, and the majority of competetives do. That being the case, is there actually a problem? I don't ever see people being "stifled" with their creativity in stores, unless it's flagrant assshatery.

Can we drop the casual and competitive titles? Not all players are one or the other.
While I enter a fair few tournaments, I play a ton of casual matches.
That’s the perks of being able to tone down lists.
As for playing inside an actual GW, I’d say maybe 20% or so of my games are there depending on what they are hosting.
I play slightly less there now due to them holding an AI night and my work hours shifting, but I still get a mix of competitive and casual games there depending on what’s on the roster.

Way too many people seem to think you can only be one or the other.
To me, it’s all about the mood I’m in at the time.
If it’s been a long week I’m happy to have a few drinks with friends and some games.
If theres a tournament on and I’ve had a decent week I’ll happily enter that too.




Edit:

Sorry JNAP, didn’t see your post.
As a rule, the painting requirements generally stand only for tournaments or campaigns.
A newer player or someone adding to an army is happily allowed to play though with half painted/bare models.
It is however encouraged to try and paint models and the staff are always happy to help.

To give an example, a younger player wasn’t allowed to spray models at home, so the manager asked him to bring them in and he undercoated them in the store for him. (Without the lad having to buy the paint either)

As I said though, I’m pretty lucky as the guys (and gal) at my local GW are actually pretty damn decent.

I feel that WYSIWYG is meant for purists. There really is no reason to be that strict. The casual onlooker likely has no idea how a plasma gun vs a flamer vs a boltgun is supposed to look. So do we really need to buy 4 boxes of Havocs just to get one squad of chain reaper cannon Havocs ?

If the kit comes with all the stuff available, maybe I might be ok. But these days, kits don't come with all the possible weapon options. So, if that's the case, is it really fair to require us to buy multiple boxes just for the weapon?

And I am the type of person who doesn't like to magnetize. I don't want a box with a million magetized bits in it. I just assemble a model as it is, and I glue everything fast so that it doesn't easily fall apart. I even glue the doors of my Rhinos shut. Makes it less likely I might drop a part during transportion and then end up losing a weapon or worse, the arm connected to the weapon.

Also, these days, the kits don't make it so easy to swop out weapons even if you want to magnetize them. Like the Havocs squad. I just gave up and choose the most common weapons I would likely use, and then I would just agree with my opponent beforehand what they were for.

I mean, as an opponent, if you require me to buy like 6 to 12 boxes of havocs just because you insist on WYSIWYG. then I would rather not play you, because I am so not going to buy that many boxes of havocs lol.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I feel that WYSIWYG is meant for purists. There really is no reason to be that strict. The casual onlooker likely has no idea how a plasma gun vs a flamer vs a boltgun is supposed to look. So do we really need to buy 4 boxes of Havocs just to get one squad of chain reaper cannon Havocs ?

If the kit comes with all the stuff available, maybe I might be ok. But these days, kits don't come with all the possible weapon options. So, if that's the case, is it really fair to require us to buy multiple boxes just for the weapon?

And I am the type of person who doesn't like to magnetize. I don't want a box with a million magetized bits in it. I just assemble a model as it is, and I glue everything fast so that it doesn't easily fall apart. I even glue the doors of my Rhinos shut. Makes it less likely I might drop a part during transportion and then end up losing a weapon or worse, the arm connected to the weapon.

Also, these days, the kits don't make it so easy to swop out weapons even if you want to magnetize them. Like the Havocs squad. I just gave up and choose the most common weapons I would likely use, and then I would just agree with my opponent beforehand what they were for.

I mean, as an opponent, if you require me to buy like 6 to 12 boxes of havocs just because you insist on WYSIWYG. then I would rather not play you, because I am so not going to buy that many boxes of havocs lol.

The only people who couldn’t tell the difference between those weapons is someone just getting into the hobby.
It’s hardly a “purist” to have a conformed unit either.
But to be fair, you will only see weapon min/maxing in tournaments, so if you are an every day casual player you don’t need to max out on the best options.

If the kits came with all the options it would push prices to an insane level.
So either the kits double in price or they remove a ton of options, I don’t like either of those ideas.
Take the harlequin troupe as an example.
You would need to add double the options alone of several weapons to make this possible.
No one is ever going to use every one of those options so like a dual kit, you pay a tax on additional parts.

For the most part I won’t magnetise either.
I do so for flying stands mainly to prevent breaks and occasionally on bigger models so I’m not paying the above tax for a single option.


If you are playing a min/maxed unit then you are likely in a competitive environment.
In which case, uniformed and coherent units are a big thing as it avoids confusion and speeds up games which are generally limited on time too.
When you are against the clock and trying to track several units that aren’t what they look like then it will slow it down.
In that environment, people will know what weapons are on that unit by looking at them.
They shouldn’t have to check constantly if units are as they appear.

If you want a unit with all the same weapons just sell off what you don’t need and take to eBay or bits sites like others do.

In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.

Yes, exactly!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because some of the options are fundamentally different from each other, and some people enjoy the fun of trying different configurations (with multiple data points) or are playing a specific theme to their army, etc.

This problem of not being able to tell what something is equipped with is a massive Nothing-Burger. If the play group is sufficiently friendly, you can just take your opponent’s word for it, and if it’s a tournament setting, everything is clearly spelled out in the Registered Army List and vía Squad markings.

So if all cases are covered, it really is just a personal preference. One that GW is happy to (and should! Their profitability helps our hobby!) exploit.

The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

T1nk4bell wrote:
The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

It's not there just for your opponent its also there for you as well to remind the player which unit is armed with what. Because its ever so easy to forget which unit has what, esp if you vary your army a lot; or perhaps you always run the same army and then change it one week. All aspects of the game visual side are for BOTH players to work with and to aid them both. Furthermore its much easier for an opponent to learn your army (long and short term) if the visuals remain the same (or at least similar with the same design ethos). Sure your friend might only know 2 ork weapons now, but given time they can learn the other 6 because they remain the same things every single time. A consistent experience and visual identity. If its always changing they've got no hope.

T1nk4bell wrote:
The point is wysiwyg makes no sense if not all people know all models of weapons etc.
Had the same discussion with a friend, he is a how important is wysiwyg guy.
I showed him 8 bitz of ork ranged weapons, he knew 2 of them.
He failed what's kustom shoota, big shoota, shoota, and so on.
So wysiwyg don't works of people don't know every single model. And sorry who knows that all?
There are old weapon models and so on

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

Equally, saying we should throw out any attempt to represent things and hope you can remember/trust your opponent to know/remember is not a good take. WYSIWYG has been convention for decades or wargaming for a reason.

Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

T1nk4bell wrote:

And there are models that have so many option like ork nobz
You need 460 arms to show every option in a 10 man squat that's nonsense

I agree it is nonsense to arm ever Nob differently. Especially if the Ork player is not playing wysiwyg. If you say the Ork player wont also get confused about which nob has what then I think you give that player too much credit.
The exception would be this one odd model out is just like the rest or this one's armed like the other two so I will keep all three of them together and that's the first one I will remove when one of them is destroyed.


I am pro wysiwyg, all of my armies are built that way. A proxy/count as from time to time is fine, maybe a player what's to roll out something they had in mind before they commit to building it as a kit but playing against a pile of count as in every game is not very fun. I bought built and painted the army I wan and if another player can't be bothered to do the same then it is unlikely we will play to many games against each other especially if they are just using it as an excuse to change to the "new hotness every week." It's just not entertaining enough to be worth my time and energy. It's no loss to me.

Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

No. It's almost like you don't understand the social contract going on between players. These game works on trust as much as it does on rules...suck as they may.
Part of what wysiwyg is important is that as a kind of standard it helps the social contract and a fair game, even if I don't at first know one of the other players models from another with wysiwyg they will essentially be the same units in the next game and after that.

What is always the question is the part of me that likes the spectacle of the game is constantly being kicked by the part of me that is more competitive.
The entire motivation to build/paint faster IS to get that optimal unit out.
You see, the competitive guy wants to win or lose by his decided best strategies and tactics, to "settle" for a lesser unit or load-out will always raise the question if I do lose, was it "legitimate" or because I settled.
You would also never say these things in front of your opponent!

Looks ARE important or I would play board games instead.
I REALLY do not like proxies but on the other hand, there has been some awesome "counts-as" stuff out there I have zero issue with.

I am learning how badly many of us deal with "suppression" so WYSIWYG can be very important.
What pops into your mind when you see these? Now say the colour of the word real fast correctly: RED YELLOW BLUE

What is worse is that the game requires a fair bit of attention and all these "fussy" details get pretty hard as they add up like "those are melta, not plasma...".
This is why across all armies I have, I keep painting the weapon types almost the same: it is as much for me as my opponent.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

This is of course just my take, and feel free to disagree all you want, but I personally find it truly, truly perplexing that some players put so little stock into the miniature side of the hobby that the models matter less than the playable options. I mean, most if not all arguments against wysiwyg makes pretty much as much sense in proxying whole models than in proxying miniature armaments. If it is unimportant for the flamer to represent a flamer, why is it then less unimportant for the terminator to represent a terminator?

And yes, proxy the hell out of everything to your hearts content. Truly, please do, but don't try to claim it has equal value to models modeled to represent what they are supposed to represent or that tournaments and clubs should automatically just be swell about it (this is the loophole "counts as"-conversions gets through unto the good side of things btw ;-) ).

Also, yes, it should be easier to get access to weapons to arm out your squad exactly how you want, but I don't really get the idea that a purchase of a miniature equals access to the total range of possibilities within a unit entry in a codex or army book. It has never been so before, so where does this expectation come from? You buy the miniature with the armament it has. If you want another armament it is up to you to change it. That is not some evil corporative strategy (although they might like it), it is how miniature wargaming has always been?.

And lastly, price. Yes. It sucks that this is an expensive hobby. It truly does. And in friendlies and to some extent in tournaments this should most definitely be taken into accounts when passing judgement from situation to situation., But again. The argument against WYSIWYG makes as little sense with the flamer as it does with the Warlord Titan.

Now, gentlefolk, happy New Years.

 Overread wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

Ye and if you play and someone say these unit has weapon xy you will se Ever thing with a picture before playing?
Think everyone is using some kind of army list, and there is no issue to give the list to you're opponent and he can see what unit have Wich weapon and so on. Much more eysier then try to show pictures and so on

Don't get me wrong I like wysiwyg but really 460 arms needed for one unit? Hell no.....
Choppa + choppa
Choppa + klaw
Choppa + big choppa
Choppa + stabba
Choppa + saw
Combi rock
Combi flame
Choppa slugga.
And so on... And we are talking about one model.
For a whole squat where you can all equip different we are talking about 250 dollar for just have 10 man squat wysiwyg options.

And the next things, options go different with new codex and so on. Nobz with kustom shoota yay, but now no....
Just one thing to show how dumb it can be to try to have everything wysiwyg.

 Talizvar wrote:
What is always the question is the part of me that likes the spectacle of the game is constantly being kicked by the part of me that is more competitive.
The entire motivation to build/paint faster IS to get that optimal unit out.
You see, the competitive guy wants to win or lose by his decided best strategies and tactics, to "settle" for a lesser unit or load-out will always raise the question if I do lose, was it "legitimate" or because I settled.
You would also never say these things in front of your opponent!

My approach is to do my best with the stuff that I have. Just like in real life, sometimes the conditions are not optimal. This is the gear that is available; perhaps you would like to have plamaguns, but Munitorum only delivered bunch of grenade launchers and one meltagun, so those have to do.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Overread wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Well you could - most Battletomes/codex show photos in them of most of the army - and ALL the models are on the GW Website for the modern ones whilst there are plenty of references for old models around the net. So you can very easily open a book and have a look or open the GW website and have a look if you thought your opponent was cheating like that.

Plus this assumes a closed environment where your opponent is the only person playing an army; its very possible that most larger groups will have mutltiple people playing the same army so you can very easily see when one person is making stuff up about models that everyone else plays and says are a totally different model.

Ye and if you play and someone say these unit has weapon xy you will se Ever thing with a picture before playing?
Think everyone is using some kind of army list, and there is no issue to give the list to you're opponent and he can see what unit have Wich weapon and so on. Much more eysier then try to show pictures and so on

Don't get me wrong I like wysiwyg but really 460 arms needed for one unit? Hell no.....

You keep saying 460arms like a person has that many different weapons to learn for one unit - they are not all unique weapons with their own profile.

They are
As statet above
You need for on nob
One slugga arm
Two choppa arms
One klaw
Two saw
One power stabba
One combi flamerone combi rocket
One big choppa arm
One shoota
One kustom shoota
If you magnetize
11 different arms for one nob dude...

The point is where the hell you want to get all these bitz?


And every nob can have every option

Yes but that's only 9 different weapons for your opponent to identify not 460.

Yes if you want to have every single nob able to take every single weapon, but that's a separate discussion, though not invalid to consider.

Dude it's 11 bitz needen for one nob... And Avery nib can get every option and double

Ye it's not 460 ( was just sad for damn a lot)
It's about 110 arms needed for on squat

T1nk4bell wrote:
Dude it's 11 bitz needen for one nob... And Avery nib can get every option and double

Ye it's not 460 ( was just sad for damn a lot)
It's about 110 arms needed for on squat

But why is this particularly important? Do you feel the absolute need for every option to be within your disposal at all times in order to make a unit playable?

Well yes, if you want to play wysiwyg and you want play it a lot of years you damn it need every single one because one edi option x is good one edi option x is crap and so on.

There is just no problem to say these nobz has all double choppa / and the model has stabba choppa on.
The most people have never seen a stabba

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because thematically Red Butchers should all have Chain Axes, Power Axes, or Chainfists and you can't do the default loadout for the unit. Why should you insist someone play their army non-thematically?

sieGermans wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because some of the options are fundamentally different from each other, and some people enjoy the fun of trying different configurations (with multiple data points) or are playing a specific theme to their army, etc.

I can see that, but that's just the same in my eyes as proxying a unit to see how it plays. And that's fine, testing out things to see if they're good, if they're something you like, etc - short term proxies - is all fine.

It's when you have people taking things that were clearly "meta" or whatever in previous editions, and then just taking the current "meta" options without doing anything to their models. By all means, enjoy the game how you like, I encourage you to! But if your own enjoyment is stifled by other people proxying, you also have every right to refuse to play them.

For me personally, if you're just going to ignore the visual aspect of the game, I think you're missing out on several other dimensions of the hobby. That's not to say you're doing it "wrong" at all - if you don't like the modelling/painting, you shouldn't feel forced into doing it or anything! I'm just interested to know why some people are so willing to throw out that part of the hobby.

So if all cases are covered, it really is just a personal preference.

Yeah, it really is a personal preference at the end of the day - it really just boils down to whether you prioritise the aesthetics, or the in-game effectiveness. Both are just as valid as eachother - but that doesn't mean they're always compatible.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Except it's not hard to google or even look in a codex to see what something is supposed to look like.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well yes, if you want to play wysiwyg and you want play it a lot of years you damn it need every single one because one edi option x is good one edi option x is crap and so on.

If you're not willing to compromise and equip a slightly worse option, even thought it was good last year or whatever, that's not your opponent's problem.

I have squads that were pretty well armed in previous editions. Now they're not so optimal. But I'm okay with that, and if I asked my opponent "hey, I know they're modelled with all of this, but it's actually good in this edition to have them with XYZ, so I'm arming them with that", I'd fully expect them to say "what's wrong with having a slightly worse weapon?" - and that's something I'd deal with.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because thematically Red Butchers should all have Chain Axes, Power Axes, or Chainfists and you can't do the default loadout for the unit. Why should you insist someone play their army non-thematically?

Red Butchers can be armed with whatever they like. There's no rule saying they *need* to have those weapons. I'm sure that there's Red Butchers out there with power fists and lightning claws. It'd be like saying "all White Scars are Bikers" - there's clearly exceptions to the stereotype.

The box is a Chaos Terminator box, not a Red Butchers box.

Obviously, I would *like* every weapon option. However, I feel that even *if* every weapon option, or even every default option were included in the box, there would still be people saying "yeah, these guys are *modelled* with <insert meta weapons from two editions ago>, but they're actually armed with <insert meta weapons from current edition>".
Though, I suppose that's more an issue I have with that kind of mindset than the proxying itself.

I think a lot of people downplaying the usefulness of WYSIWYG because "you can't know every single weapon in the game" is forgetting something important.

I know Jack squat about nids. I cannot name most of their weapons and the few I can I don't exactly know what they look like. But if my opponent is WYSIWYG, I can still get a rough idea of what a unit does at a glance. Let's say there's some big monster in the backline with a cannon the size of a telephone pole. I may not know exactly what it is, but I can take a safe bet and figure it's AT, or maybe an artillery weapon. That means it's shooty and probably won't move, and might not want to be in melee. In a glance of a couple of seconds, I have got a rough tactical plan and can go back to what I'm doing, because I'm running 100 infantry and 10 tanks because I'm guard and I need to constantly be moving if we want this game done in 3 hours. But if that model is a proxy for a nid with some big stabby weapons, I at a glance don't know that.

"BUT YOU CAN JUST ASK!" Yeah, I can.
"Hey, what's this guy do?"
"Which one, the trygon or the carnifex"
"That one with the big cannon"
"Oh he's a melee carnifex, I just don't have one handy"
"What kind of melee weapons?"
"These big crushy claws for killing tanks."

You know what would've also told me that info and not wasted 30 seconds of my time? A nid with big stabby claws glued on it

And I can ask for that tiny unit of gribbly dudes over in the corner, and the unit in the building, and the other big guy across the table. That 30 seconds of asking for each unit adds up very quickly and gets old fast. And that's if the opponent had the courtesy of identical loadouts, heaven help you if he decided each squad is going to have different loadouts with the same models (the dreaded "these flamers are meltas but THESE flamers are plasma") Games already take hours to complete, especially with a little bit of friendly chat. You waste a lot of time when I ask you "what's that unit?" and you've got to thumb through battlescribe to figure out what it's armed with and what it does because you didn't bring a codex either. And you're getting an advantage because now I'm spending time remembering what a unit actually is, especially if I'm familiar with your army and know what it is actually armed with. I have to constantly remind myself "that's not a battlecannon, it's a punisher cannon" and stuff like that. I know it sounds pedantic but if the game is going to continue to be played at 2k by God we need as little extra hassle added to the mental effort as possible.

My opponent doesn't need to know the fine details for each of my tank cannons. He can probably rub enough brain cells together to know that the tank with the Gatling cannon has lots of antiinfantry shots and the tank with humongous stubby cannon is a short range heavy hitter. That's the purpose of WYSIWYG, so that you can save your questions for more important and pertinent info like "what's the range on that gun" or "how fast do those winged guys move?" Playing with a lot of proxies because you can't afford the models sucks, I get that, but it's common courtesy. If you are playing this game solely for rules and you don't like the hobby side you're insane, there are so many better games out there mechanically. If you don't see a point in at least trying to match the models what is the point? Computer games are cheaper and better balanced and you don't even have to paint.

Keep in mind I've got no issues with 3rd party models and conversions as long as they look the part. A tank with a Gatling cannon still has something that looks like a Gatling cannon. Your space marine standin still looks like a big dude in heavy armor, etc. My issue is when a leman Russ is a basilisk or a meltagun is now a flamer. Just to be clear on that bit

Very good post Mr Moustaffa, agreed completely!

Sometimes when I don't like how the official weapon looks, I might built something else, I try to make sure it still visually conveys what sort of a weapon it is. (Usually combining several bits, so it doesn't look exactly like some existing weapon either,)

For example I don't like how stormbolters look on Battle Sisters, so I built a sort of machine gun looking big bolter for one of them out of primaris auto bolt rifle and some additional bits. I think it still conveys the idea of a fast firing bolt weapon.

Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@ OP:

Wysiwyg exists to sell models?!

Nope, it exists to further the high art of the hobby which is modeling and painting your minis. Otherwise little Timmy & his bozos would play with bottle caps.

I am a fan of WYSIWYG, and even more so of people painting their minis, but this slippery slope is just silly.

nareik wrote:
Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

T1nk4bell wrote:

nareik wrote:
Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Exakt, that's what I ment!

Wysiwyg is beautiful, but I don't think a must have.
To say no I don't play with you because you don't have the time, the money, or whatever to bring fully wysiwyg is pretty crappy.
So what's the point of the discussion.
There is no rule of wysiwyg
The is no rule for self made wysiwyg weapons and stuff.
It looks nice if someone can bring full wysiwyg
There is no problem if it's not all wysiwyg.
Never met an army where wrything is not wysiwyg.
Sometimes well these captain has a power sword and it don't have on the model. That's no problem.
Deny a game because of that? No.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

nareik wrote:
Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

 warhead01 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

nareik wrote:
Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

It's because this all boils down to imbalance causing these issues. Some of the weirdos here can say pick up games are the problem, but pickup games ARE the majority for people, and more importantly pickup games are what eventually creates those groups instead of telling everyone to invest $500+ into something you have to edit yourself.
I personally never turn down a game as someone could be new to the area and needs to get that fix. Other times it's someone's first game and being told you're doing it wrong is bad. The only people doing anything wrong are GW themselves and y'all need to hold them responsible like I do.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because some of the options are fundamentally different from each other, and some people enjoy the fun of trying different configurations (with multiple data points) or are playing a specific theme to their army, etc.

I can see that, but that's just the same in my eyes as proxying a unit to see how it plays. And that's fine, testing out things to see if they're good, if they're something you like, etc - short term proxies - is all fine.

It's when you have people taking things that were clearly "meta" or whatever in previous editions, and then just taking the current "meta" options without doing anything to their models. By all means, enjoy the game how you like, I encourage you to! But if your own enjoyment is stifled by other people proxying, you also have every right to refuse to play them.

For me personally, if you're just going to ignore the visual aspect of the game, I think you're missing out on several other dimensions of the hobby. That's not to say you're doing it "wrong" at all - if you don't like the modelling/painting, you shouldn't feel forced into doing it or anything! I'm just interested to know why some people are so willing to throw out that part of the hobby.

So if all cases are covered, it really is just a personal preference.

Yeah, it really is a personal preference at the end of the day - it really just boils down to whether you prioritise the aesthetics, or the in-game effectiveness. Both are just as valid as eachother - but that doesn't mean they're always compatible.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well you have no other chance of you don't know all Modells he still could say whatever he want and you diddent notice

Except it's not hard to google or even look in a codex to see what something is supposed to look like.

T1nk4bell wrote:Well yes, if you want to play wysiwyg and you want play it a lot of years you damn it need every single one because one edi option x is good one edi option x is crap and so on.

If you're not willing to compromise and equip a slightly worse option, even thought it was good last year or whatever, that's not your opponent's problem.

I have squads that were pretty well armed in previous editions. Now they're not so optimal. But I'm okay with that, and if I asked my opponent "hey, I know they're modelled with all of this, but it's actually good in this edition to have them with XYZ, so I'm arming them with that", I'd fully expect them to say "what's wrong with having a slightly worse weapon?" - and that's something I'd deal with.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In my opinion, I think it's just as easy to just play with what you've got modelled, even if it's not as powerful, as it is to tell them that actually, they've all got XYZ.

I don't understand why people can't just play with different weapons that might not be the top choices in a casual game.
In a tournament, sure, you wouldn't want to do that, but similarly, in a tournament, most seem to strongly advocate for WYSIWYG.

What would be the most fair is, if you're playing against someone with "proxied" (not really a proxy, but I'm sure you get what I mean) weapons is play two games - one where they get to equip whatever they want, WYSIWYG be damned, and another where you ask them to stick to what their guys are actually carrying.

Because thematically Red Butchers should all have Chain Axes, Power Axes, or Chainfists and you can't do the default loadout for the unit. Why should you insist someone play their army non-thematically?

Red Butchers can be armed with whatever they like. There's no rule saying they *need* to have those weapons. I'm sure that there's Red Butchers out there with power fists and lightning claws. It'd be like saying "all White Scars are Bikers" - there's clearly exceptions to the stereotype.

The box is a Chaos Terminator box, not a Red Butchers box.

Obviously, I would *like* every weapon option. However, I feel that even *if* every weapon option, or even every default option were included in the box, there would still be people saying "yeah, these guys are *modelled* with <insert meta weapons from two editions ago>, but they're actually armed with <insert meta weapons from current edition>".
Though, I suppose that's more an issue I have with that kind of mindset than the proxying itself.

You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

 warhead01 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

nareik wrote:
Someone that doesn't use WYSIWYG mentioned their opponent wasn't able to label the different ork weapons.

I think this is a disadvantage of non-wysiwyg - changing the rules for a model each time you play prevents your opponent from being able to learn which weapon does what nor what that weapon should look like, and this puts them at a disadvantage when they do get into a wysiwyg match.

How you came to the think that I don't use wysiwyg?

I play wysiwyg but I think the idea to tell my opponent that want to play shoota boys and just have slugga boys " no I don't play with you blah blah" there is no problem of he do so

Heh. Queue the quick response "you can refuse a game with anyone!!!!!1!" which is ultimately toxic by itself moreso than not following WYSIWYG.

Please explain what is toxic about turning down a game. From my point of view if I do not think I will have fun I will not be playing.

You're game fun is so bad that if you're opponent playing a primaris squad moddeled with bolter and he want to play stalker bolter ( and pay for the points) that you shut down the match?
That's just..... Blah dude

 Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

Oh please, if you're buying FW in the first place why is it an issue to get combi bolters, (which are literally two fething bolters strapped together. You're telling me as a CSM player you don't have 10 bolters lying around? Pull the other one) which is pence on the pound in the grand scheme of things?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

T1nk4bell wrote:


You're game fun is so bad that if you're opponent playing a primaris squad moddeled with bolter and he want to play stalker bolter ( and pay for the points) that you shut down the match?
That's just..... Blah dude

My fun is important to me and it goes beyond just the models or set of count as units but to the person I might play against and there personality. As far as I know the game should be fun for both players. If two people wont enjoy the time spent around the table in each others company then why bother. Your example is very clever but misses the point as well. A bolter counting as another bolter isn't a tactical marine counting as an OP unit the player does not actually have. It's not the same thing as this unit had one more model, which I forgot at home and this guy is standing in and will be the first one I pick up when they loose a model. There are reasonable exceptions that I would be fine with to have a friendly game.
But I would turn a game down rather than stand around a table in a poor mood or in unpleasant or irritating company.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Slayer? If you're committed to some thematic build then get the parts and model it.

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

Oh please, if you're buying FW in the first place why is it an issue to get combi bolters, (which are literally two fething bolters strapped together. You're telling me as a CSM player you don't have 10 bolters lying around? Pull the other one) which is pence on the pound in the grand scheme of things?

You're clearly missing some information somewhere so I'm gonna allow you to clarify what you're babbling about, also you forgot the cost of FW stuff for the most part.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

There is absolutely no reason that all Red Butchers need to be equipped that way. But if it is so super important to you that they are, then get the bloody parts.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Chain-Axes
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Legion-Tartaros-Terminator-Power-Axe-Set

These might help. You're welcome!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

You like to think you're so woke and above everyone else.

Maybe try not making mountains out of molehills?

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The parts are already part of the default loadout for the squad, one that cannot be made from the kit. Why should anyone buy FIVE kits to make the default loadout of Combi-Bolter + Chainaxe?

There is absolutely no reason that all Red Butchers need to be equipped that way. But if it is so super important to you that they are, then get the bloody parts.

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Chain-Axes
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-FI/Legion-Tartaros-Terminator-Power-Axe-Set

These might help. You're welcome!

You aren't answering the question why the main Chaos Terminator Box shouldn't have the basic squad loadout, and why it's okay to force WYSIWYG due to poor layout of that kit plus various others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You clearly don't know anything about the Red Butchers. They're Combi-Bolters + Power Axe or Chainaxe, with the ability to replace the Bolter for another Power/Chainaxe or Lightning Claws for both, and then the Sarge gets access to Chainfists.
So how am I stereotyping the dudes when that's literally how they're supposed to be?

If you want to build them "how they're supposed to be", buy the Red Butchers Squad from FW.

Otherwise, build whatever Terminators you like, and call them Red Butchers. The important part about them is how they're basically just maddened Astartes locked inside their armour, and released at the enemy like wild animals, instead of as a bodyguard for Angron, not that they have a love of chainaxes. Obviously I think they're super flavourful, but your implication of "they're not REAL Red Butcher if they aren't only carrying chainaxes" simply ain't true.

Just equipping your guys with chain weaponry doesn't mean they need to be Red Butchers. The stratagem for them only specifies Terminator Squad, not that they need to "only carry chain weaponry". Therefore, you can absolutely have flavourful Red Butchers with ANY loadout from the box.

You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

You like to think you're so woke and above everyone else.

Maybe try not making mountains out of molehills?

If someone is going to enforce WYSIWYG that strictly they need to be called out on it.

The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.



If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

Jackal90 wrote:

The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.



If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

Dude wouldn't have lasted five minutes in this hobby 15-20 year ago.

Oh noes? You have to convert something that is not in the box!?!?! What ever am I to do?

Jackal90 wrote:

The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.



If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

So a kit isn't supposed to build a default loadout for the unit? Are you really arguing this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

The set includes 5 multipart plastic Chaos Terminators, each of which can be equipped with a variety of melee and ranged weapons. The following weapon options are included in the kit.

I’m not seeing where the set is designed to build red butchers.
The whole idea of using that as an argument is just plain stupid.
FW sell red butchers, use those.

Complaining about a kit because it doesn’t contain parts to build models (that it’s not supposed to build) is just plain amusing though.

So what’s next, a 40k vehicle kit is bad because it doesn’t build every known vehicle now? Lol.



If you want to make something using similar base models then by all means, but don’t complain out of laziness or unwillingness to buy the actual models.

Dude wouldn't have lasted five minutes in this hobby 15-20 year ago.

Oh noes? You have to convert something that is not in the box!?!?! What ever am I to do?

That's not the argument whatsoever. A better equivalent would be the Attack Bike missing the Heavy Bolter, which is the default weapon. Why should someone have to do something to a kit that should've contained said part in the first place?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You aren't answering the question why the main Chaos Terminator Box shouldn't have the basic squad loadout, and why it's okay to force WYSIWYG due to poor layout of that kit plus various others.

Because there was not enough space for all the possible combinations, and rather than have just several duplicates of one weapon they chose to have variety of weapons as the kit is more fun to build that way. And because the default loadout is just arbitrarily chosen and has no greater importance than any other possible combination. And because WYSIWYG is important for the clarity and immersiveness of the game, and because only WAAC care about having the optimal loadout all the time.

I hope this is clear now.

Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

Eldenfirefly wrote:

I mean, as an opponent, if you require me to buy like 6 to 12 boxes of havocs just because you insist on WYSIWYG. then I would rather not play you, because I am so not going to buy that many boxes of havocs lol.

All I require is that as my opponent you play you're models with the weapons you've built them with.
How you manage that is your problem.
You can buy 6-12 boxes. You can buy bitz off ebay/etc. You can scratch build. You can learn to make bitz molds via greenstuff/silicon/etc. You can magnetize weapons/arms. You can ue a 3d printer.....
Or, God forbid, you could just spend the next three-five turns using whatever you've actually modeled the things with.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

So do you not have friends to trade bits with or other kits to chop and change with? That is quite literally one of the main strengths of the SM line, the cross compatibility of kits.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, how dare people try to play well! The horror! /s

People who know how to play well don't need to min-max so desperately in the armybuilding stage.

And a good general still makes units with a goal in mind.

A hodge-podge of random gear does not work well. And doesn’t look good either.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And a good general still makes units with a goal in mind.

A hodge-podge of random gear does not work well. And doesn’t look good either.

If you care so much then get the required bits. It is now easier than ever. People did it back when all models were monopose metals.

Red butchers aren’t a default loadout.
They are a specialised unit.

So what, you want a single box of terminators with enough parts to represent every single specialised terminator unit?
Sure.
So we also now need a character that comes with enough parts to be built as a librarian, tech marine, apothecary, Sgt, captain, commander and a chaplain.

Oh, wait, there are space and cost restrictions.
Sure, let’s have every option in a box, if you don’t mind payin ban additional 100% cost per box.
You’re complaining about not having enough parts and it costing more, yet to add them would do the same.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

Give me a good argument, and I'll give you a good answer.

You're complaining that you can't make *insert unique unit* out of a generic box, when, if you were so bothered, you could make a far more accurate version with a different one, and also wilfully ignoring the fact that you can easily make *insert unique unit* out of what the box gives you.


As I've already said, I'd like if GW gave all the generic options. My gripe is with the idea that "you must let me proxy things, because the box doesn't give me what's meta" when you could easily just play with what you've got modelled, and suck up about not having the ultimate tools for the job. In this hypothetical scenario where that's happening, it's probably a casual environment, not a tournament, because in tournaments, WYSIWYG is usually a strict requirement.
So, this is a casual game - why do you need to take the best weapons? Can't you settle for whatever you've got modelled on?

I suppose, more than anything, it comes down to *why* you're complaining about not every weapon being available in the boxes.
Is it because you actually really like the look of those weapons, or they fit the fluff/theme of your army? Or is it because that's the meta option right now?

The Deathwing Terminator kit can build every NON-tartaros or Cataphractii Terminator kit minus the fact you get one thunder hammer. (I know it's been years GW but you were literally four hammers from perfection.)
Should I whine I about not having enough hammers?
Should I go on eBay or a bits store and get some?
Use some assault Terminators for hammers?
Go to Forgeworld?
Maybe grab some metal rods and greenstuff and convert?

There are many options to get your models up to wysiwyg. Also don't go be me the Ork complaints. Tau battlesuits have a ton of non represented or under represented options it's the way it is.
Should GW do better? Well if you look at the old dreadnaught entry and the one now. They cut off many options. Is that what you want convert it or use a consistent stand in. It's just good manners

Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

Give me a good argument, and I'll give you a good answer.

You're complaining that you can't make *insert unique unit* out of a generic box, when, if you were so bothered, you could make a far more accurate version with a different one, and also wilfully ignoring the fact that you can easily make *insert unique unit* out of what the box gives you.


As I've already said, I'd like if GW gave all the generic options. My gripe is with the idea that "you must let me proxy things, because the box doesn't give me what's meta" when you could easily just play with what you've got modelled, and suck up about not having the ultimate tools for the job. In this hypothetical scenario where that's happening, it's probably a casual environment, not a tournament, because in tournaments, WYSIWYG is usually a strict requirement.
So, this is a casual game - why do you need to take the best weapons? Can't you settle for whatever you've got modelled on?

I suppose, more than anything, it comes down to *why* you're complaining about not every weapon being available in the boxes.
Is it because you actually really like the look of those weapons, or they fit the fluff/theme of your army? Or is it because that's the meta option right now?

Dunno wich tournements you play but I have never seen wysiwyg as a hard restriction.
There where scrapjets like UFOs in itc.
Self made mek gunz everywhere and so on Noone relay Noone complain

Played in competitions with my Orks. RT figures including mono pose metal, multi part, the works. Of course, very few would qualify now as WYSIWYG miniatures - care to guess’s how many complaints I got?

Seems the Rule of Cool still trumps WYSIWYG, which itself seems to be a rule to stop ‘Dick Waac’ from springing ‘gotcha!’ moments on unsuspecting opponents, rather than a way of screwing extra money out of players.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You like to really purposely miss the point don't you?

Give me a good argument, and I'll give you a good answer.

You're complaining that you can't make *insert unique unit* out of a generic box, when, if you were so bothered, you could make a far more accurate version with a different one, and also wilfully ignoring the fact that you can easily make *insert unique unit* out of what the box gives you.


As I've already said, I'd like if GW gave all the generic options. My gripe is with the idea that "you must let me proxy things, because the box doesn't give me what's meta" when you could easily just play with what you've got modelled, and suck up about not having the ultimate tools for the job. In this hypothetical scenario where that's happening, it's probably a casual environment, not a tournament, because in tournaments, WYSIWYG is usually a strict requirement.
So, this is a casual game - why do you need to take the best weapons? Can't you settle for whatever you've got modelled on?

I suppose, more than anything, it comes down to *why* you're complaining about not every weapon being available in the boxes.
Is it because you actually really like the look of those weapons, or they fit the fluff/theme of your army? Or is it because that's the meta option right now?

Dunno wich tournements you play but I have never seen wysiwyg as a hard restriction.
There where scrapjets like UFOs in itc.
Self made mek gunz everywhere and so on Noone relay Noone complain

You have no clue as to what you were seeing, or why it was OK, do you?

I have exactly clue, just a lot of self builds at the torunements that I played, there was never a problem to use things like that.
I played VS warglaive dreads, trukk mek gunz, other where playing vs pure exodites Aeldari self made, and so on.
Not one player complain about that and not one to shut a game down because of self made things. And they are all not wysiwyg they are all self made things

No one is complaining about conversions. You're confusing things.

Nah it's exactly the same, a self made scrap jet that looks like an ufo, with fantasy guns is just not wysiwyg.
So that's no problem?
But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem? Common...

Someone played shoota boys ( with choppa slugga) on last itc torunement Noone had a problem

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

I’m good with a squads basic load out being non-WYSIWYG if you just declare what they all are. The special weapons are what tend to be a PitA. Vehicles with a basic load out would be pretty easy to understand as well.

To me, WYSIWYG is a way to avoid confusion for opponents in a tourney setting. Sometimes it’s hard enough to distinguish the tiny weapons on models from across a table without then having to remember that that’s really not what that squad has.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Nah it's exactly the same, a self made scrap jet that looks like an ufo, with fantasy guns is just not wysiwyg.
So that's no problem?
But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem? Common...

Someone played shoota boys ( with choppa slugga) on last itc torunement Noone had a problem

No, because they are different things.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

The bolter example seems specifically chosen and used to ignore that there are some exemptions to wysiwyg that most people find acceptable.
The intent seems to be that if the bolters are fine then why can't any random flamer be a plasma gun. It's an argument for it's own sake. "If this thing is fine then why not this other thing".
Or it's trolling.

 alextroy wrote:
Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

How about the normal CSM kit, which doesn't have enough bolters or chainsword/bolt pistols to equip the whole squad? Eldar War Walker, having one of each weapon, even the default? Havocs sping to mind too, although I'm less concerned that there's not enough of each heavy weapon to outfit each guy than I am that the one new weapon was only offered once, vs the rest's twice. Chaincannons are easy enough to convert though.

 alextroy wrote:
Must we go on and on about the Chaos Terminator kit? It doesn't contain enough of any melee weapon to arm the full squad with any specific weapon. Therefore GW, in their infinite wisdom, selected the cheapest of the options as the default option. No evil scheme to get you to purchase multiple kits to arm a full squad. Just as many options as they felt comfortable placing on the sprue along with all the parts to assemble the unit. Notice how you do get enough head, torso, arms, legs, and combi-bolters to build 5 models?

Chaos Terminators are the cherry picked out. And when asked to rationalize the situation they throw out all the other kits that do have multiple options already mentioned previously. They're arguing against themselves and they don't even know it.

It seems clear to me that GW opted to a "two sprue" standard for cost cutting measures. I'm really sorry that its hard to build the "default", but literally no human being with a budget is going to buy 5 kits just to arm 5 models with chain axes. Cut grooves in the power axe, poach from other kits, and get creative. Anything else is just grandstanding.

 captain collius wrote:
The Deathwing Terminator kit can build every NON-tartaros or Cataphractii Terminator kit minus the fact you get one thunder hammer. (I know it's been years GW but you were literally four hammers from perfection.)
Should I whine I about not having enough hammers?
Should I go on eBay or a bits store and get some?
Use some assault Terminators for hammers?
Go to Forgeworld?
Maybe grab some metal rods and greenstuff and convert?

There are many options to get your models up to wysiwyg. Also don't go be me the Ork complaints. Tau battlesuits have a ton of non represented or under represented options it's the way it is.
Should GW do better? Well if you look at the old dreadnaught entry and the one now. They cut off many options. Is that what you want convert it or use a consistent stand in. It's just good manners

Let's see, 2nd ed dreadnought rules:

Power Claw and Stormbolter
Lightning Claw and Heavy Flamer
Heavy Flamer and Storm Bolter
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter
Heavy Plasma Gun
Assault Cannon
Missile Launcher
Twin lascannon
Multi-Melta

Seems like you now lack the heavy flamer+storm bolter and the lightning claw. But, you can now do powerfist with heavy flamer. Also, they added twin autocannon, and you no longer require a Techmarine in your army to field a dreadnought.

Also, the double-gun variants are now on a separate profile of the Mortis Dreadnought. but they still exist.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

The bolter example seems specifically chosen and used to ignore that there are some exemptions to wysiwyg that most people find acceptable.
The intent seems to be that if the bolters are fine then why can't any random flamer be a plasma gun. It's an argument for it's own sake. "If this thing is fine then why not this other thing".
Or it's trolling.

Nah no trolling, it's because someone sad on torunements is " strikt" wysiwyg.
That's simply not true. Noone cares about things like bolter / stalker bolter. The same guy wrote he would shut down a game if someone use stalker bolter and has normal bolters in Modell because he has no game fun than, just wanted to show how overextended it was.

BTW how someone like that handle relic weapons? ')

Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

It's in the rule book? Where?

It's been in the rulebook before. It might not be in there now, but then GW is currently in a VERY "here's some rules you can use them if you want, but we don't force you to use them" attitude when it comes to questions like this.

Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

T1nk4bell wrote:

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

And you don't need to use all of those options.

Ofc no you don't have to, but a lot of people want to?
You will never see a squat of nobz with 10 original power stabba.
The point is there is one in the box so everyone build his own stabba, so every stabba will look different so no point for wysiwyg
It makes no different to say these choppa count as stabba or these self made Plastik things are stabbas

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

 jhnbrg wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

Because he must use the most... efficient... option... that.... the.... meta... demands... to eke out every single point from a list.

Most people who are against WYSIWYG and vehemently dig their heels in are just pissed some options they built are now second best.

Well that's you're feeling not mine.
At home with friends people want to try things before buy so no wysiwyg needed.

In competetiv play the " competetiv" hobby even don't need models. Just barrels or chess sticks with count as stickers would be enough.

Wysiwyg is beautiful but in my eyes never a need. It easy goes without it


And Ou even get me wrong!!
I play wysiwyg!
I love wysiwyg
It looks cooler
It looks clear.
But it's no prob to play without it

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

What did you do to denote which model in the squad has which weapon somewhere the other player can see it?
WYSIWYG is "The models are each carrying a model piece that either is or looks like the model piece that represents that option. In other words, you can tell which trooper has the laser cannon because that model has a laser cannon." Twenty five or more years of people trying to solve the problem of "I don't have the right parts to build what I want to build" have led to all sorts of creative solutions like "Use a similar part someone else made", "Make your own similar part", and so on.

If someone doesn't want to use wysiwyg, then they have to answer the question "So what are you doing to allow the other player to easily tell which trooper in the squad has each option/weapon?" There are all sorts of acceptable and reasonable answers, and there are a whole bunch of answers aren't acceptable or that don't work in practice.

"I'm going to ask you to remember which is which" will be met with "So you won't mind if I use a marker/a piece of paper/some other indicator and put it on that model so that we both know what it's supposed to be?" If that's not acceptable, then the result is going to be failure to play the game.

It's the same situation if you've got fifty models on the table that are five units of ten. If you're going to play, both players are going to need to be able to tell which model's in which unit.

I tend to want to play the models as they appear and wish that the rules system would support that...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

They're really not. Let's go over the similarities of every bolt rifle build:
30", with a +/-6" either side.
Always S4.
AP -1, with a +/-1 either side.
D1, barring one variant, which is D2.
Heavy, Rapid Fire, or Assault, with shots appropriately.

Versus flamer and plasma:
8" versus 24"
S4 versus S7/S8
D1 versus D1/D2
AP0 versus AP-3
D6 hits versus Rapid Fire
Autohitting versus overcharge

That's way more different, in aesthetics (at least all bolt rifles have roughly the same core aesthetic - they're built from the same rifle body), in function, and in impact on the game.

So, Flamer versus Plasma have 7 changes-Strength, Range, Damage, AP, Shot count, Weapon type, and one rule.

Bolt Rifles have 5-Range, AP, Shot Count, damage, and Weapon type.

I get that there’s MORE differences, but that’s still a lot of differences between the bolts.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?

Scroll back through the thread, I pointed EXACTLY where it was in the 3rd Ed. rulebook. If not, then I assure you that either Google is a thing or find a copy and look yourself.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

Most sane people would simply pick a nice middle of the line build and stick with it. If you have to own literally every single option for every single model in every single unit of every single army, then that is a YOU thing, not a GW games thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

They're really not. Let's go over the similarities of every bolt rifle build:
30", with a +/-6" either side.
Always S4.
AP -1, with a +/-1 either side.
D1, barring one variant, which is D2.
Heavy, Rapid Fire, or Assault, with shots appropriately.

Versus flamer and plasma:
8" versus 24"
S4 versus S7/S8
D1 versus D1/D2
AP0 versus AP-3
D6 hits versus Rapid Fire
Autohitting versus overcharge

That's way more different, in aesthetics (at least all bolt rifles have roughly the same core aesthetic - they're built from the same rifle body), in function, and in impact on the game.

Those differences affect preferred targets and Stratagems. So no you're still wrong.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

Because he must use the most... efficient... option... that.... the.... meta... demands... to eke out every single point from a list.

Most people who are against WYSIWYG and vehemently dig their heels in are just pissed some options they built are now second best.

Nah, that’s ridiculous.

If someone owns 2k worth of Orcs and have modeled their 90 nobz with melee weapons, and now want to play their nobz as gunners for a different theme, only a ridiculous elitist would push the glasses up their nose and say “no, I understand you spent over $80 on THOSE nobz, but you’re going to have to spend another $80 on MORE nobz and model them to an outrageous WYSIWYG standard.”

And only a truly WAAC player would pretend to feign utter confusion when a player in good faith can reliably and consistently advise on the load out of their units, which in all other respects are clearly what they are meant to be.

Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting, VG?

Because I would MUCH rather play against a polite opponent who proxies everything and has either badly painted or gray plastic models, then a rude jerk who insults me.

Actually I'm pretty sure its only online people get this silly about it. In the real world it resolves itself pretty quickly. Even in this you can see most of those going "I expect WYSIWYG" still accept people using proxies.

It's mostly when things get a bit bent out of shape with people taking really polarised extreme viewpoints. These often generate the most chatter because they often go against the established normal and thus get a more pushback - which results in far more back and forth. That's before you throw in one or two stirring the pot because they can (trolling/having a laugh).

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

Can't believe people even complain about this.

if you care so much about optimum buiild you should pay the price to get the correct models, it's as simple as that.

Ironically many people also complain about Primaris having a lack of customisation even though all the parts you need come in the kit, thus avoiding any problems like this entirely.

And yes, if anything, constant whinging will probablty force GW to change the wargear selection for units in the future to only allow what comes in the kit. Imagine how bad that would be for many factions. At least my Primaris, AdMech and Custodes won't be affected :-P

This topic must surely be a troll? lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Can't believe people even complain about this.

if you care so much about optimum buiild you should pay the price to get the correct models, it's as simple as that.

Ironically many people also complain about Primaris having a lack of customisation even though all the parts you need come in the kit, thus avoiding any problems like this entirely.

And yes, if anything, constant whinging will probablty force GW to change the wargear selection for units in the future to only allow what comes in the kit. Imagine how bad that would be for many factions. At least my Primaris, AdMech and Custodes won't be affected :-P

This topic must surely be a troll? lol

Well that isn't the case for all the armies in regards to weapons in the kit. So it's understandable. Some units the difference between optimal and garbage is massive too in both price and performance. So I have some sympathy. Take the hammerhead for example (which actually comes with the ioncannon) but the railgun used to be better. So almost everyone had railguns on those tanks. The difference in performance is so silly that I could never make someone use the railgun over the ioncannon if it was modeled that way. As long as it's not silly and it's a simple explanation like...all 4 of these railguns are actually ion cannons...Its not even a question. We all know why GW does it. It is to make money. Like the new havoc kit...it only comes with 1 reaper chain cannon! Which is both the coolest looking and best weapon they have access to. Should players actually be forced to by 4 havoc kits to run the unit they want?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

You mean no standards. I don't hold up others to my modelling or painting standards, merely to most rudimentary basic standards that have been a normal part of the wargaming hobby far longer than 40K has even existed. Assemble your models, try to maintain at least rough WYSIWYG, give your models at least a simple basic paintjob. Not unreasonable. Also, you are very easily insulted.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

You’re just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

I’m not hurt-random internet shmoes shouting insults doesn’t get to me. But you cannot in good faith say that that’s polite. Or anything other than outright rude and insulting. I don’t mind if you only play with fully painted models that are 100% WYSIWYG. That’s your choice, and if that’s how you have fun, I wouldn’t expect you to not have fun by playing another way.

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect you to be polite-and part of being polite is not supporting blatantly insulting posts. You could’ve said “I agree that models should be painted and WYSIWYG, but there’s no need to be rude,” or similar. But you didn’t-you agreed with the insults.

 Crimson wrote:

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

I’ve played against that, in a tourney, with WYSIWYG in the rules, three color paint also in the rules, called a judge, got a lame shrug. This was the second day of the tourney so the kid had had time to glue the gak together.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

It was once in the rulebook (up to 5th Edition, and dropped with 6th) and some events still hold to it tightly, so some take it to the extreme everywhere else. A lot of people are very focused on the events, and so spread it everywhere else. I haven't seen an event regarding historicals since Flames of War died in our meta, and that was a D-Day event 5-6 years ago.

To be fair, the possible weapon mix you're likely to have in a historical unit won't be as robust as you'd likely see in a Space Marine Tactical Squad, and have several with the same model representing different things across the literal board.

JNAProductions wrote:Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

Okay, did I miss something? What part of that post was insulting? I mean, quote it directly or bold it within the quote because I'm not seeing anything insulting in there.

 Crimson wrote:

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

Done and done. Crimson was not themselves insulting, just supporting an insulting post.

Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

But that doesn't fit the narrative. Best to forge one...

Considering VG's posting history, I'm inclined to think it's not sarcasm.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear Valentine's thoughts on this.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

It's also a point of pride in just how exactly historically accurate you can be.

 ValentineGames wrote:
But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Yup.

WYSIWYG exists to make the game easier to play, so that anyone playing can tell what something is at a glance.

And GW has been removing options from the game because they're giving us fewer and fewer modelling options with their kits, so the idea that it's there to sell more models is absurd. If that were true GW would be piling on the weapon options for everything.

I like WYSIWYG because I don't like subbing things in. I want something to look the way it's armed. The other day I played a game where I subbed a Carnifex w/Crushing Claws and Scything Talons for a Screamer Killer because I only have one Carnifex with two sets of Talons (I do have two 2nd Ed Carnifexes I could have used, but I wanted to use the fancier minis). My opponents were fine with that, but it drove me nuts all game. I wanted to take a Flyrant with two sets of Talons, but the only Flyrant I have built has a Venom Cannon, so I gave it a Venom Cannon. That's just the way it is.

Generally speaking though if I don't have something, I just won't field it. I own 30 Leman Russ tanks of various descriptions. I tried to get just about every combination I could. Then GW updated the rules for Russes and suddenly they could get Multi-Meltas and Plasma Cannon sponsons on everything, not just Demolishers. And there were new turret types.

Now I just have every combination of hull/turret mount, so I'll have to make do. Outside of converting the minis or buying new ones (as I said, I have 30 Russes... I don't want any more!) I'll just live with the fact that I can't do everything these days.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Considering VG's posting history, I'm inclined to think it's not sarcasm.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear Valentine's thoughts on this.

As a ‘Citizen of the Empire’ (Retd), I should point out the whole ‘poo head’ thing is the typical six-year-old, school yard insult that should be taken in jest.

The originator should be sat on the Naughty Step for failing to point this out, and Sent to Bed for allowing the Colonials to misunderstand.

Bad Zut. Naughty Zut.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting, VG?

Because I would MUCH rather play against a polite opponent who proxies everything and has either badly painted or gray plastic models, then a rude jerk who insults me.

At what point have I insulted you?
I think you may of read into something as more than a sarcastic general comment.
Which is not my problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

At least someone noticed

I will always prefer models representing what they are supposed to represent. Its very jarring to have to remember all of the proxied weapons someone is running amuk with. "These spears are power fists", "this boltgun is a plasma gun", etc.

The title of the thread is correct though, it does force meta chasers to buy new models regularly or not be running optimal builds.

Nobody should care about Meta chasers.
They bring it upon themselves by taking gaming to be life or death.
Nobody cares about those morons.

If anything punishing optimizers and meta chasers is a good thing.

Nurglitch wrote:
If anything punishing optimizers and meta chasers is a good thing.

ABSOLUTELY. I was punished myself by trying to rebuild my Crimson Fists to take advantage of different builds available during 5th, and to also work within Kantor's rules. ALL that has passed me by, so I got what I deserved. Luckily I went back to 3rd, so I already know what works or doesn't, what I like or don't and with the exception of the mutable genus crap from Tyranids, Chaos 3.5, and the IG doctrines, I can count on a balanced game with no unmodeled surprises.

Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

 Crimson wrote:
Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

And why shouldn't you be able to?

Just throwing my penny in. Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask if GW did weapon selection kits? It couldn't hurt to have a 'Guard sprue' or a 'CSM sprue' with 2-3 of each of the relevant weapons. I mean, it's not like they don't already do singular versions of that. For example.

I've got a slight side question with conversions\proxies for models that are out of production, e.g. things like the Salamander vehicles or the Macharius Omega from the Guard perspective. Are the percentage GW guidelines any more relaxed for things like that?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

And why shouldn't you be able to?

It's a bit boring? But you know the reason why there are no more weapons in the kit, not enough space. Now one way they could have avoided this was to make Rangers and Vanguards separate kits. That way neither would have needed to include the redundant bits. This is actually the direction they're going these days, dual kits are rare.

But if you for some reason feel all sniper ranger force is something you must absolutely have, then you need to put in some effort. Procure bits or convert. Leftover longrifles from dragoons/ballistari are a good source of longrifle bits. The kit comes on hand held and one holstered rifle, so you will always have at least one leftover. (I'd convert the tip of the gun to look more like the ranger arquebus, as that is the most noticeable difference between these two weapons.)

Steiner wrote:
Just throwing my penny in. Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask if GW did weapon selection kits? It couldn't hurt to have a 'Guard sprue' or a 'CSM sprue' with 2-3 of each of the relevant weapons. I mean, it's not like they don't already do singular versions of that. For example.

Yeah, upgrade kits are something I wish the would do more. They them for several marine chapters, but they could easilly do more generic ones too. They could even throw in some fancier bits to represent relics etc.

I've got a slight side question with conversions\proxies for models that are out of production, e.g. things like the Salamander vehicles or the Macharius Omega from the Guard perspective. Are the percentage GW guidelines any more relaxed for things like that?

I'd expect you to use (probably convert) something that is roughly the same size and shape and has correct(ish) weapons. In this specific instance replacing main guns of a normal Macharius with some sort of a giant plasma weapon shouldn't be too hard and would be easily magnetisable as well.

Seems like people are more strict depending on how easy they think the conversion is. For example, marines have 0 excuse for things like plasma/melta guns when GW sells 5 packs for $10. My Tau are WYSIWYG because crisis weapons are available all over ebay and 3D printed CiBs make up for only having 1 in the Commander kit. The sheer existence of multiple people selling 3d printed CiBs is proof that WYSIWYG does drive purchases.

On the other hand, things like cultists are only available in packs of 3 ranged and 2 melee and doesn't even come with the mandatory cultist champion so "All my cultists are ranged and the pinkest idiots are the champions" is pretty reasonable. For cultists, people seem to prefer conversions/proxies instead of following WYSIWYG. Tau firesight marksmen are another very common conversion since people don't seem to want to buy 3 packs of sniper drones to get a full set.

WYSIWYG drives the secondary market. Nobody is going to buy $275 worth of havoc kits just so they can have 5 reaper chain cannons.

For clarity purposes "all of X have weapon Y" is way less problematic than, "This X has weapon Y but this X here has weapon Z and those X have weapons Å."

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

And why shouldn't you be able to?

It's a bit boring? But you know the reason why there are no more weapons in the kit, not enough space. Now one way they could have avoided this was to make Rangers and Vanguards separate kits. That way neither would have needed to include the redundant bits. This is actually the direction they're going these days, dual kits are rare.

But if you for some reason feel all sniper ranger force is something you must absolutely have, then you need to put in some effort. Procure bits or convert. Leftover longrifles from dragoons/ballistari are a good source of longrifle bits. The kit comes on hand held and one holstered rifle, so you will always have at least one leftover. (I'd convert the tip of the gun to look more like the ranger arquebus, as that is the most noticeable difference between these two weapons.)

Steiner wrote:
Just throwing my penny in. Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask if GW did weapon selection kits? It couldn't hurt to have a 'Guard sprue' or a 'CSM sprue' with 2-3 of each of the relevant weapons. I mean, it's not like they don't already do singular versions of that. For example.

Yeah, upgrade kits are something I wish the would do more. They them for several marine chapters, but they could easilly do more generic ones too. They could even throw in some fancier bits to represent relics etc.

I've got a slight side question with conversions\proxies for models that are out of production, e.g. things like the Salamander vehicles or the Macharius Omega from the Guard perspective. Are the percentage GW guidelines any more relaxed for things like that?

I'd expect you to use (probably convert) something that is roughly the same size and shape and has correct(ish) weapons. In this specific instance replacing main guns of a normal Macharius with some sort of a giant plasma weapon shouldn't be too hard and would be easily magnetisable as well.

You don't seem to realize, in your ignorance, the Skitarii kit comes with only one of each Special Weapon (not even two, just one!). Your "not boring" is just a hodgepodge unorganized mess, and VERY unaesthetically pleasing. On top of that it's bad on the tabletop.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You don't seem to realize, in your ignorance, the Skitarii kit comes with only one of each Special Weapon (not even two, just one!)

I know what is in the kit, I've build a bunch of them. If you buy three booxes for your troops, you can have three squads of ten, each with three of one of the special weapons. This seems perfectly fine to me. Now given that the minumun squad size is five and at that size you can have two special weapons, I agree that that it is mildly annoying that there are not enough weapons to arm them in such a situation. I resolved the matter by using the leftover Dragoon rifles like I explained earlier. Not that it is always necessarily to have any special weapons on your troop slot fillers.

Your "not boring" is just a hodgepodge unorganized mess, and VERY unaesthetically pleasing. On top of that it's bad on the tabletop.

And if you find this to be an issue for you then you need to to procure the needed bits somehow.

Why we keep having this discussion? None of those things you whine about are necessary, they're just things you want to have. If you want a thing, you need to buy or build the thing. Not a hard concept.

 Crimson wrote:
Why we keep having this discussion? None of those things you whine about are necessary, they're just things you want to have. If you want a thing, you need to buy or build the thing. Not a hard concept.

Instant gratification, entitlement, and the convenience of everything in one neat box. Pretty much the same thing that's slaughtering retail vs. online shopping right now.