Hey folks! This is COMPLETELY a hypothetical situation. I just want to feel out how other folks think.

Marine Codices have traditionally been something that players can swap codices between - with a "These are Black Templar today!" switching to "These are Space Wolves today!" with a bit of model switching. I've seen Ultramarine Blood Angels, and completely red space wolves that were painted (and usually played to be Blood Angels).

Grey Knights are the first Marine codex that I'm aware of where swapping codices with the same models isn't really possible. Grey Knights don't have the same wargear, weaponry, special weapons that other armies do.

I wonder how many people are using "counts as" Grey Knights with their other marine armies?

So what happens if a GT has a WYSIWYG rule, and you face off against an opponent who plops down an odd collection of Space Wolves or Blood Angels or Regular Marines....and hands you a GK army list? A variety of responses have come to mind, but I don't know what the appropriate response is.

"Uh...your army list says Nemesis Force Halberds but those guys all have bolters."
"Uh...your list says psycannons, but all I see are two missile launchers."
"Uh...so I take it that your army is on another table and you grabbed someone elses' by mistake?"
"Uh...none of that is WYSIWYG. I'm not playing against it - its not my job to remember an entire army proxy. Didn't you read the event rules?"

What *is* appropriate? I just went through a couple weeks of *heavy* conversions, revamping 90% of my army to be appropriate to fit into their appropriate WYSIWYG. When I start the GT circuit, my junk is going to *be* WYSIWYG. Either I have it, or I converted it into something reasonable (like LOTR Wargs + Tyranid Scything Talons = Khymerae). I'm having trouble imagining tolerance for people who didn't bother doing the same are and using "counts as" for their other marine armies to be Grey Knights.

What's your attitude? TOs, how would you deal with this situation? If you kick off your event, and a player calls over a judge and complains that their opponent's army isn't WYSIWYG, what do you do?

I don't mind conversions, or even a bit of counts as - especially when models don't exist. But I'm having nightmares about entire "Counts as" GK armies.

I agree with your responses-- in a true WYSIWYG environment, Tacs (or Grey Hunters, or CSMs, or Assault Marines) are not going to cut it as Grey Knights. At minimum, I would expect to see power swords and storm bolters on normal Marine bodies. While that isn't really WYSIWYG-- the Nemesis force weapons look quite different from standard power weapons-- it would be close enough to satisfy me in that respect. Similarly, I would expect psycannons in such an army to be converted, probably either from heavy bolters or assault cannons (on Terminators), and certainly not missile launchers.

"Your army does not appear to be WYSIWYG. We may have to call over a judge/TO."

That's probably what I would say because I can be a pushover sometimes (most of the time).

I concur that merely swapping out SM-models will not really cut it. I can understand Grey Knights not painted as Grey Knights but they ought to be equipped as Grey Knights.

"Your army does not appear to be WYSIWYG. I'm sorry, but we have to call over a judge/TO."

I could see accepting a certain degree of counts-as, but a sword is not the same as a halberd. A bolter is not a storm bolter. Etc.

Mannahnin wrote:"Your army does not appear to be WYSIWYG. I'm sorry, but we have to call over a judge/TO."

I could see accepting a certain degree of counts-as, but a sword is not the same as a halberd. A bolter is not a storm bolter. Etc.

This is exactly my take on it. I don't even mind a storm bolter and power weapon on a normal marine body. But if someone puts down a Tactical Marine with a bolter, I'd have to draw the line, and I'm someone that doesn't even mind proxies for most games. But at a GT where I've likely spent a lot of money and put a lot of time into my own preparation, I think I'd probably feel more than a little insulted if someone set up an army full of proxies across from me, especially if it's not the first round, meaning no one spoke up, or no judge saw fit to enforce the rules of the event before that point.

Edit - All that above said, I've seen some pretty cool Custodes as Grey Knights conversions using a chopped up Halberd and Bolter to look like the old style Nemesis weapons. I'd totally allow that.

Pretty much +1 to all the above responses. Politely calling a judge/TO over would be completely justified. If the models don't have Stormbolters and PWs then they aren't WYSIWYG.

If it's a Wysiwyg event, they'd apparently be going against the rules. First off, the TO should have spotted that and done something to fix it, second off, if tht happens, call a TO over. Either they play it as the army it is, get some Grey Knights, or forfeit the match- and probably the tourney.

Then I hope that no TOs are weak-willed enough to have WYSIWYG as a rule, then let it pass if they get put on the spot to make a decision about it. I don't mean that to sound confrontational, I promise - I can't think of another way to put it.

One can kind of understand the spot they'd be in. At a big event, people have often traveled a significant distance, and it sucks to have to DQ someone for the weekend.

Really, TOs should have a loaner army on hand for just such an occasion. If someone shows up at an event with an unpainted or non-WYSIWYG army, they get to either re-make their list into something they've brought which is actually painted and WYSIWYG, or they get to use the loaner army.

Some years back there was a nightmare story at a GW GT where a kid showed up with a "Dark Eldar" army which was mostly just proxies from Empire models. Down to a great cannon pretending to be a Ravager. Downright disgraceful. And the GW guys let him play with it. It was an absolute travesty, but one understands (a little bit) how it happens.

I ran into this on Friday at my FLGS.

First guy was running rogue era marines painted in 5 different color schemes combined with a walker from dust tactics as grey knights... The guy was new to the group so I just grinned and said why not. Second game of the night was against an honest to god grey knights squad with a plethora of old 2nd/3rd gen terminators painted as blood angels.

Needless to say I'd love to actually play against grey knights and will no longer be playing against "Counts as" grey knights as its not my job to know what proxies for what for an entire army.

Mannahnin wrote:

Really, TOs should have a loaner army on hand for just such an occasion. If someone shows up at an event with an unpainted or non-WYSIWYG army, they get to either re-make their list into something they've brought which is actually painted and WYSIWYG, or they get to use the loaner army.

That's a good idea; especially the re-making the list part, which saves trouble all around. But what about the game being interrupted? Tournament clock is ticking down, and I would be EXTREMELY pissed if my super fast army only gets through two turns because my opponent had to create a new list because they were too lazy to abide by the GT rules and bring a WYSIWYG army.

If the TO mistakenly allows the army in and you encounter it mid-tournament, obviously there's no time for remaking the list. If a loaner army and list are immediately available they should be employed immediately, and extra time put on the clock to compensate if at all possible.

That being said, I rather doubt that a loaner army is going to be right on hand if the TO was disorganized enough to allow the non-WYSIWYG army into the event in the first place. At that point, the fairest option is probably a forfeit for the non-WYSIWYG player for that round. The opponent gets a Win if it's a straight W/L or W/L/D event, or a Win with battle points equal to the max which any other player scored in that round if it's battle points. That way they don't lose ground for it, but they don't get unearned bonus points over people who had to actually play.

I think when an entire army is not what it appears to be , its unfair for the person to keep track, which would allow alot of potential cheating.

I have a question tho. At a GT im bringing 6 Wave Serpents all with "Bright Lance" Turrets. My list says all my wave serpents have scatter lazers, and because all of my serpents have the same wep I dont see the bright lances as being a problem because there all the same. Is this an actual problem I have to fix? Because Idk where to get 6 turrets.

Ugh. Yeah, I'm sorry to say, but it is a problem.

I'd recommend picking up scatter laser turrets (or just a dozen scatter lasers) online and converting the tanks to have swappable gun options.

Mannahnin wrote:Ugh. Yeah, I'm sorry to say, but it is a problem.

I'd recommend picking up scatter laser turrets (or just a dozen scatter lasers) online and converting the tanks to have swappable gun options.

yea well 6 vehicles with the same weapon. Dont see how its a problem lol.

Yea short of spending 350 on new tanks I havent found a way to actually get turrets or weapons.

Smitty0305 wrote:I think when an entire army is not what it appears to be , its unfair for the person to keep track, which would allow alot of potential cheating.

I have a question tho. At a GT im bringing 6 Wave Serpents all with "Bright Lance" Turrets. My list says all my wave serpents have scatter lazers, and because all of my serpents have the same wep I dont see the bright lances as being a problem because there all the same. Is this an actual problem I have to fix? Because Idk where to get 6 turrets.

Well, hit up the Warstore for some Scatter Lasers? They ship bits fast. Friend with some maybe??

I know that a *HUGE* no-no in tournaments is saying, "This melta is a flamer" or "This bright lance is a scatter laser" or "This missile launcher is a lascannon." That's why post-codex release for BA, IG, SW there was such a HUGE rush on missile launcher devastators, melta guns...I remember 'Ard Boyz last year or two years ago, GW was out of stock of melta gun bits. For EIGHT WEEKS because everyone and their brother was trying to get ready for the tournament - where you need WYSIWYG.

That stuff definitely gets crunched down on.

Either convert it, get the bits quickly, or build your list according to what you actually have. But in terms of the Alamo, with a WYSIWYG in the door policy, if your wave serpents have twin bright lances on them, and you say, "No, those are scatter lasers" your opponent is going to say, "No, those are bright lances...and your list is incorrect and apparently has too many points in it too."

An army list is a description of the models you have on the table - not a guide to explain what the models on the table count as.

With my Dark Eldar...I hit local events using "counts as" because the new stuff wasn't out yet. Subbed in some other stuff. They're ok with it because its a local event - and those are not usually particularly stringent on standards, just a base guideline unless its getting abused.

At a national event...you simply CANNOT show up without the models that are in your list.

FW makes wave serpent turrets. Six of them won't run you anywhere near $350, they're maybe $20 each.

Is it harsh that you need to do this? I don't think so. WYSIWYG is explicitly defined as a game rule. Play in your basement with your friends, do what you want. Play at a tournament where your opponent has paid an entry fee, and possibly a hotel and travel costs as well and they should expect to face an army that meets the rules.

Event rules are posted for all to see well in advance. I don't feel bad for a player who travels to an event with an army that doesn't meet the rules, I feel bad for their opponent. The player who fails to meet the rules should be asked to leave before pairings are even posted, not coddled and allowed to play - that's unfair to their opponents who are not only paying customers, but presumable paying customers who are actually following the rules.

I'm not sold on providing them alternative armies either. TOs have enough to worry about when organizing an event. Bringing extra armies for people who cannot follow simple instructions should not need to be another concern. "Sorry, you don't meet the requirements to play in this event." And if they paid for travel, maybe next time they'll learn to read beforehand.

Smitty0305 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Ugh. Yeah, I'm sorry to say, but it is a problem.

I'd recommend picking up scatter laser turrets (or just a dozen scatter lasers) online and converting the tanks to have swappable gun options.

yea well 6 vehicles with the same weapon. Dont see how its a problem lol.

Yea short of spending 350 on new tanks I havent found a way to actually get turrets or weapons.

The War Store's Battlewagon Bitz section has scatter lasers for $4.99 each. GW sells the whole eldar heavy weapons sprue for $6.60. You may be able to get them cheaper trading with other players or buying them on Ebay or elsewhere online. Seriously, it costs $60 if you go the laziest possible route and don't already own any. And if you have Eldar stuff, you certainly already have some Scatter Lasers.

Something else that I thought of that is generally applicable to everyone...

There *is* a degree of "Counts as" and "Proxying" and "conversion" that works in GTs too. at the SVDM last year, I had 30 Lootas. 20 of them were Lootas, and 10 of them were very heavily converted big shootas - such that no one could POSSIBLY confuse my converted Lootas with big shootas. That was the requirement to meet the WYSIWYG rule for the tournament. Since I was doing custom work, I even contacted Mikhaila, told him what I had done, got further guidance on making them acceptabe....might even have sent pictures.

I've converted my own DE venoms. They're based on other vehicles - but cannot POSSIBLY be mistaken for any other vehicle - since the WYSIWYG features are not replicable on any other vehicle in 40k. You CANNOT look at one of my Venoms and say, "Oh, that's a XXXX."

Not having Scatter Lasers on your Wave Serpents is something you could get away with...IF...whatever you *do* have on your wave serpents doesn't look like anything else. Not EMLs, not bright lances, not shuriken anythings....something unique, preferably looking like what a scatter laser does; whether made out of plasticard, cardboard, or whatever...the WYSIWYG is meant to present visually distinct representation of a model.

Because if you don't - if you play your 6 bright lance wave serpents as scatter lasers...what happens when you win the roll to go first against someone...who has a land raider, and they reserve it. Turn 2 they come in from reserves, and you're shooting your scatter lasers elsewhere and he says, "Wait...those are bright lances." And you say, "No...those are scatter lasers. I told you at the beginning." And he says, "I didn't hear it...I only reserved my land raider so that you wouldn't throw six twin-linked bright lances at it."

The game just broke - because your opponent presumed what he saw is what you were equipped with. In the best interpretation, you've burdened your opponent unfairly and have an extremely unfair advantage. In the worst interpretation, you're cheating. The difference between the two can get pretty narrow. It really *is* one of the most important issues at tournaments. Important enough that I'd even make a thread asking what to do if someone dared to try ignoring WYSIWYG to play a "Counts as GK" army because they're so used to just swapping marine codices with their models. I've never actually had anyone *not* be WYSIWYG in a GT game before.

I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

augustus5 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

It doesn't necessarily, though, as Dash's example illustrates. It puts an unreasonable burden on your opponent.

You could just as easily say that a Space Wolf player could use all lascannon models in his army but play them as missile launchers. Or an IG player have all the meltaguns in his vet squads represented by plasma. Sorry, but that's not going to fly.

augustus5 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

Where do you stop? Where's the line? If every guardsman on the table is an identically equipped Grey Knight Paladin, it removes any kind of confusion. If every square chimera shaped piece of paper is an identically equipped chimera, there's no confusion there either.

It's very clear (ok, most of the time). If a tourney packet indicates all models must be WYSIWYG, then the offending player should not get a pass, period. If the TO will not enforce the rules in their own packet, then that is where you advise them after the event you will no longer be able to support their event for such reasons. If the TO folds on this very simple ruling, what other rulings are they failing on?

Folks who are trying this, just stop. Folks can spot the difference between conversion work and simply using proxies b/c you think you've built the uber winner army, but couldn't be bothered to model it properly.

And finally: No, Brightlances can not and should not be counted as Scatterlasers in a GT setting. Period, end of story.

I understand the point about not wanting to DQ someone who traveled a long distance to get to a big tournament, but I also don't understand why someone who's willing to travel that far wouldn't check their list and army over and over again to make sure it didn't all foul of the rules laid out for the tournament. Yeah, it would suck, but it's REALLY annoying even in local games to have to go back and ask EVERY turn what the grenade launchers, flamers and plasma guns really were in that squad (we have some local IG players that do this). In a tournament, where time matters, it's just not right.

I think it boils down to the entitlement attitude that seems to be pervasive in our society nowadays. I don't see being able to play as any codex you want at any time as a right; you need to put the time/effort/money into an army to get it legal if you want to play that codex. If you don't have the models, sorry. Save up your pennies, get them painted, and ten show up with that codex.

(I'd also like to blame video games, rock music and methamphetamine</old man rant> )

Lorek wrote:(I'd also like to blame video games, rock music and methamphetamine</old man rant> )

Nice

Yeah... wysiwyg. There are little areas you can let slide, but weapons aren't one of them...

I could handle paint jobs not looking the same... my blood angels and codex marines are both red for swapping purposes.... but the models i use are all WYSIWYG in terms of wargear.

To be honest my attitude is does it look right fitting into the army. Do the counts as make sense? Can they be confused for anything else? I've happily attended tournaments with my Trolls counting as Minotaurs as there is no other creatures of vaguely the same shape in the list. None of my opponents had much of a problem as they looked right (and frankly are far nicer than the Minotaur models). Equally I refused to use my flys as Harpies as their just to small to counts-as adequately.

Mannahnin wrote:"Your army does not appear to be WYSIWYG. I'm sorry, but we have to call over a judge/TO."

I could see accepting a certain degree of counts-as, but a sword is not the same as a halberd. A bolter is not a storm bolter. Etc.

This is what I think too Dash. GK are not just another Marine dex, although they die as easily as regular Marines . If you want to run a counts as with GK at a TOURNAMENT then you better have magnetized weapons and such so your ML can become Psycannons. In this situation it has stopped being Counts As and has become a Proxied Army which is not tolerable at a tournament.

I'm generally more of a player than a painter/modeler, but I show up with fully painted and converted armies. By "fully converted" I don't mean everything is perfect... You'll see the wrong shoulder pads (covered in a uniform single-color coat of the right armies color), storm bolters made of 2 bolt pistols and some green stuff, warhammer fantasy weapons that uniformly are as close as you can come to the right 40k hand weapon (sorry if the midget arms look silly- empire simply aren't the same size as space marines!), ect.

My theory is that my opponent deserves to play something that looks like an army. My opponent shouldn't have to ask "what is that?" more than once a game unless he doesn't know the codex. It should all be self explanatory and fairly uniform. If, however, my opponent wants to stick his face closer than 18 inches from my models and get silly about details I'm going to lose sportsmanship scores due to my reaction. It's all there down to the melts-bombs... With twitchy hands like mine I'll never win a Golden Daemon so I don't get too bent out of shape about the details and do some definitely sloppy conversions.

I love ruberic-based painting scoring:

Is this Army painted to a 3 color standard? (5 points)

Are these models based and flocked? (3 points)

Does this look like an army (IE is there an overall color scheme with units differentiated in some way?) 3 points.

Are details such as eyes, boots, grenades and such picked out? (3 points)

Has there been substantial conversion work done? (3 points)

Subjectively, is this army exceptional in appearance? (3 points)


So I lose 3-6 points/percent next to the Golden Daemon winner who is going blind from hours spent with a magnifying glass, a dremel, and single-hair fine brushes. I'm OK with that. I checked most of the boxes and got almost as good a score, now let's play.

IMHO Grey Knights are not a Marine dex. They are not wearing power and terminator armor, they have special armor. Similar, sure, but they are distinct. Almost none of their weapon options overlap with other marine codexes, You can't just say a random termie with TH/SS is now a grey knight.

Personally, I see very valid paths for a unifying armor scheme for almost all the major marine codexes as long as the few unique units are modeled, but Grey knights just doesn't fit. I hope TOs don't succumb to crying of unfair and burdensome proxies.

As for heavy weapons... Personally, I support magentizing and swapping out the correct parts. I also support swapping dudes so they hold the right weapons. I feel it is easy and cheap enough to get the bitz from online stores and eBay. As for your Lootas Dash, that is a clear example of 'counts as' as they care clearly no longer BS and a Deffgun is the closest set of rules available for the model. There is a distinct difference between using 10 stock BS as deffguns and using 10 converted BS as deffguns, especially since lootas may take stock BS as a valid weapon choice.

As for people swapping to whatever heavy weapon is best... I think for tourneys it should be WYSIWYG. You can explain something 100 times, but the whole point is you shouldn't have to. Ina competitive setting, I think there is something to be said for fielding a clear WYSIWYG army and fairness to opponents.

After making all the effort I have made to get all my needed combi-meltas, the correct number of missile launchers, and have all models painted/WYSIWYG before Nova I think I will probably be very unforgiving when it comes to my opponent not doing the same. For instance I put off doing the combi meltas for a year now because small FLGS tournaments in the area do no really care about small things like that. However I feel that if the person wants to compete in GT's then they should be required to go above the norm when it comes to tournament preparation.

augustus5 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

Agreed. If all bright lances are scatter lasers then I'd not see an issue. I would see an issue if brightlances were csomewhere else in the army list as brightlances.

As an aside the Eldar heavy weapons sprue is available.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440245a&prodId=prod1290046


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

It doesn't necessarily, though, as Dash's example illustrates. It puts an unreasonable burden on your opponent.

You could just as easily say that a Space Wolf player could use all lascannon models in his army but play them as missile launchers. Or an IG player have all the meltaguns in his vet squads represented by plasma. Sorry, but that's not going to fly.

Ok...and?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I really don't see a problem with the bright lances counting as scatter lasers, IF every bright lance on a wave serpent counted as a scatter laser. This removes any kind of confusion.

Where do you stop? Where's the line? If every guardsman on the table is an identically equipped Grey Knight Paladin, it removes any kind of confusion. If every square chimera shaped piece of paper is an identically equipped chimera, there's no confusion there either.

Yep. And?

Frazzled, I'll forgive you because you're relearning how to play 40k.

We're talking about WYSIWYG requirements in an event not being met...not whether it is ok to have non WYSIWYG outside of an event requiring it.

I'm a pretty easy going guy, and I can generally keep track of things like "all long fang weapons are missile launchers." It's when things get more complicated that I start to object.

I also think that the WYSIWYG rule exists for a very good reason. It's not enough to "key" every model to a rule (all flamers being meltas, for example), but to allow for a visual read of the battlefield. Not all players have the same abilities to remember variations from the visual.

While I wouldn't ask for DQ in normal circumstances, I feel that a properly run event should not allow it.

Dashofpepper wrote:Frazzled, I'll forgive you because you're relearning how to play 40k.

We're talking about WYSIWYG requirements in an event not being met...not whether it is ok to have non WYSIWYG outside of an event requiring it.

I hears ya DOP. I am just disagreeing its a big deal in the eldar instance. I've played against such in tournaments and it wasn't an issue.

I agree more on the GK side though especially if the heavy weapons are getting out of hand (if there's a pun there I claim it!). I could see GK minis more being used as regular marines though as they are quite excellent for the tac troopers or modified. I'm suddenly envisioning a mix of halberd bearers and jump pack marines for a tripped out air assault unit.
Curse you marines. So many conversion opportunities, yet so mariney.

I'll play a bottlecap army if it's in the store or in my nerd closet. Probably if it's a local tournament as well. I'm not unreasonable.

If it's at Adepticon, or 'Ard Boyz, (the two major things a year I do), then it BEST be WYSIWYG. It's insulting for the other person not to spend 10 hours the day or two before rushing around getting everything they need to get their army up to code when the rest of us do. I've put up with it before, and come to regret it. I'm going to be an ass about it if it happens again.

Polonius wrote:I'm a pretty easy going guy, and I can generally keep track of things like "all long fang weapons are missile launchers." It's when things get more complicated that I start to object.

I also think that the WYSIWYG rule exists for a very good reason. It's not enough to "key" every model to a rule (all flamers being meltas, for example), but to allow for a visual read of the battlefield. Not all players have the same abilities to remember variations from the visual.

While I wouldn't ask for DQ in normal circumstances, I feel that a properly run event should not allow it.

What he said.

Polonius wrote:While I wouldn't ask for DQ in normal circumstances, I feel that a properly run event should not allow it.

I agree with this completely.

I've never seen anything that was really crazy attempted to get past the WYSIWYG requirements either though. I can understand people being mad about it if they take a lot of pains to get their army looking nice and then having to play against someone who's just using their old models and saying that the weapons on them are actually something else.

daedalus wrote:I'll play a bottlecap army if it's in the store or in my nerd closet. Probably if it's a local tournament as well. I'm not unreasonable.

If it's at Adepticon, or 'Ard Boyz, (the two major things a year I do), then it BEST be WYSIWYG. It's insulting for the other person not to spend 10 hours the day or two before rushing around getting everything they need to get their army up to code when the rest of us do. I've put up with it before, and come to regret it. I'm going to be an ass about it if it happens again.

I'm far more foriving of minor stuff. If somebody make any effort to show combi-meltas, even if they're painted garishly, I'm happy.

As a pretty savvy tournament player, I'm hip to the "standard" builds I see. So when you're tactical squad has melta, combi-melta, multi-melta, it's an easy thing to remember even if not fully WYSIWYG. Ditto even swaps like an ACHB speeder for MM/HF.

When things get murky (these flamers are meltas, but these flamers are actually meltas) or are counter-intuitive (my sergeants all have combi-plasma), then it's harder for me.

As much as I hate being TFG; for a GT I would have to draw the line at this level of cross-dex proxying.
It's one thing to have a good looking converted army that was designed as a proxy army (like Hulksmashes AdMech-Daemon army...it was logical as to what model represented what unit), but to just drop standard models down and call them something else?

I put some thought into my army and make conversions (albeit simple ones) where required (cutting off the Multi-Melta front section and adding an IG Heavy flamer front end to make SternGuard Heavey flamers for example). Obviously their is some leeway, for example if all of your Tac Sgts are kitted the same (combi-melta, Power Weapon) then using a standard AoBR model is good enough...you can tell hes the sarge and their is no reason to distinguish between the different units.
Even if i'm still working on a new model, i'll get at least basecoat, some highlites, and some drybrush/wash on it to make it somewhat presentable on the table.
For the level of play at a GT, I would expect the same respect from my opponent.
If you want to bring a primered counts as army to a game, stay at your FLGS and Ard Boyz.

dkellyj wrote:As much as I hate being TFG; for a GT I would have to draw the line at this level of cross-dex proxying.
It's one thing to have a good looking converted army that was designed as a proxy army (like Hulksmashes AdMech-Daemon army...it was logical as to what model represented what unit), but to just drop standard models down and call them something else?

I put some thought into my army and make conversions (albeit simple ones) where required (cutting off the Multi-Melta front section and adding an IG Heavy flamer front end to make SternGuard Heavey flamers for example). Obviously their is some leeway, for example if all of your Tac Sgts are kitted the same (combi-melta, Power Weapon) then using a standard AoBR model is good enough...you can tell hes the sarge and their is no reason to distinguish between the different units.
Even if i'm still working on a new model, i'll get at least basecoat, some highlites, and some drybrush/wash on it to make it somewhat presentable on the table.
For the level of play at a GT, I would expect the same respect from my opponent.
If you want to bring a primered counts as army to a game, stay at your FLGS and Ard Boyz.

Alternatively I respect this viewpoint as well. My love of converted counts as armies is balanced by my hatred of the infamous GREY ARMY THAT NO PAINT HATH TOUCHED.

Dashofpepper wrote: If every guardsman on the table is an identically equipped Grey Knight Paladin, it removes any kind of confusion. If every square chimera shaped piece of paper is an identically equipped chimera, there's no confusion there either.

You are correct.

So, I'm steadily working on painting and converting for the Nova Open. This thread is of particular interest to me, because I am using some converted models for Lootas. Specifically, I'm running my Shooty Kan Wall with 3 mobs of 15 Lootas.

Part of the problem I have is that the Loota Box, which claims to have 5 lootas/burnas, in reality only has 4, then has either a KMB Mek, a one armed Rokkit Boy, or a one armed Big Shoota boy.

So, I'm converting stuff to use as Lootas, all based on Ork models. So far, I've bought and assembled 4 boxes of lootas, but I simply don't have the time to do the rest as the "real" Loota model, so instead I'm trying to get stuff that will have the Loota feel to it.

Mob 1 is 15 Lootas from the Loota Box.

Mob 2 is 15 Lootas converted from Big Shootas and Shootas. I've extended the barrels by at least 50% over a standard big shoota in order to differenciate them. This, when included with the fact that you can't have a 15 strong mob of big shootas, I feel is sufficient to represent Lootas.

Mob 3 is the one I'm worried about. It's 15 Lootas from a veriety of sources. I am treating all as lootas, but am not entirely comfortable with the mob because there exists a possibility for confusion. The models are:

4 KMB models. I'm using the KMBs from the Loota box along with nob backpacks from the boyz sprue to help differentiate them from KMB Meks. The heads are baldy heads with no mek or cybork like appearence to them. So I'm keeping away from the mek look as much as possible.

7 Rokkit Boyz. Rokkits, Rokkit backpacks, they look like boyz with rokkits.

4 Converted Big Shootas as per Mob 2.

Please know that I've already put over 100 hours into these models, and have at least 50 more hours of painting to go to finish them.

So, if you faced me at the Nova Open, would you have an issue with any of the above mobs? If so, why?

I've already contacted MVBrandt, and his response was (paraphrased) "It doesn't sound like it will be an issue. However, If someone complains, a judge examines your models, and finds difficulty in telling they are lootas, you may be DQ'd."

Considering that between the Wife and I, I will be spending in excess of $1,000 just to go to the Nova Open, you can see why I'm a bit nervious.

I'd stick something non-rokkity on the Rokkit ones, just to differentiate them from Tankbustas. Also, snip off the wire bits and the gas bulb from the KMBs, maybe add a big hose or cable to the back going to the backpack to help show 'big gun' and 'heavy weapon' better. Same with the rokkits, you'll need something more than 'rokkit on stikk', maybe like, well, I don't know.

Best way to do Lootas, in my opinion, is to do them like Fluff says- take some Heavy Weapons from other races (or Orks) and give them to some Boyz.

At the very least, make sure the Rokkits have a second barrel or more rokkits on the 'gun', to signify More Dakka.

Good thread Dash,

What's everyone's thoughts on my using a Farseer (the one with two swords) as Eldrad? Would that be acceptable at a GT, or do I really need to get my hands on the Eldrad model.

Fluffwise she's just meant to be a really really good Farseer, not actually eldrad.

Btw, I spent a good couple of hours at the weekend to magnetising EMLs for my wave serpents, so I am making the effort..

Thanks, Hang

Well, Eldrad is supposed to have a Staff, isn't he?

Which is why I bring it up. Would that be a problem for you? It's a special character as opposed to a squad and Eldrad is/was a farseer.

Would it make difference if I lopped a sword and replaced it with a staff?

Hangfire wrote:Which is why I bring it up. Would that be a problem for you? It's a special character as opposed to a squad and Eldrad is/was a farseer.

Would it make difference if I lopped a sword and replaced it with a staff?

I seriously don't think that would be an issue.

Hangfire wrote:Which is why I bring it up. Would that be a problem for you? It's a special character as opposed to a squad and Eldrad is/was a farseer.

It wouldn't be a problem for me, but someone could conceivably hassle you about it.

Hangfire wrote:Would it make difference if I lopped a sword and replaced it with a staff?

That's probably the path of least resistance.

This is a pretty classic case of WYSIYWG. You have Eldard, and you should represent Eldrad in some way. If you don't like the official model, I think you should at least convert something to make it look:
1) more like eldrad, and
2) less like a stock farseer

The difference between a basic seer and Eldrad is huge, and should be made more apparent.

Mob 3 is the one I'm worried about. It's 15 Lootas from a veriety of sources. I am treating all as lootas, but am not entirely comfortable with the mob because there exists a possibility for confusion. The models are:

4 KMB models. I'm using the KMBs from the Loota box along with nob backpacks from the boyz sprue to help differentiate them from KMB Meks. The heads are baldy heads with no mek or cybork like appearence to them. So I'm keeping away from the mek look as much as possible.

7 Rokkit Boyz. Rokkits, Rokkit backpacks, they look like boyz with rokkits.

4 Converted Big Shootas as per Mob 2.

I am going to have to say 'no' to this squad. KMBs have rules and would need to be converted to not be confused with legal KMBs. Same with the BS. Rokkits have no place in a loota squad conversion or otherwise. A squad with 7 rookits and 4 KMBs looks a lot like a str8 all shooty unit called TANKBUSTAZ and if you were 'counts as' that would be a much better fit for the KMBs mixed with rokkits. Especially since you are making the 3 loota units TOTALLY DIFFERENT, it breaks the number one rule of friendly proxies 'all may this counts as this'.

Please know that I've already put over 100 hours into these models, and have at least 50 more hours of painting to go to finish them.

So, if you faced me at the Nova Open, would you have an issue with any of the above mobs? If so, why?

PERSONALLY, this is how I would do it:
*I would drop the 7 Rokkitboyz and find imperial weapons to swap in. Imperial weapons become deffguns simply via 'counts as' as long as it is not rokkity or flamey. I find Imperial tanks come with so many extra weapon options it is reasonably cheap to buy bitz or trade.
*I have also seen Burnas converted into Deffguns by removing the burna top and replacing the end with an imperial weapon or just a series of shooty stuff. So maybe your burna bitz can make up the difference, even convert some of the backpacks into ammo hoppers
*I would MIX every squad to have different types of deffguns. Sounds like you have 16 Deffguns, 16 BS conversions, 4 Converted KMBs which makes 36 solid Deffguns. By mixing units so they have some BS, some Deffguns and maybe 1-2 convered KMBs. By mixing the squads, then all 3 squads look 'the same' and have a few of the correct weapon to key opponents in to the unit type. I think that is less confusing than a whole unit of correct deffguns and two others of totally different models. A unifying paintscheme goes a long way.

I would say drop the rokkits and cross-polinate your units. I think Burna arms with imperial weapons may be better than rokkits. I think a large group of rokkits in the same unit may scream tankbustaz and opponents may have a legitimate beef.

(I might be able to hook you up with some bitz from my ork bitz box to replace your rokkits or maybe some plasticard replacements.)

I have to agree with the above. Never use weapons from the same range to represent something else from that range.

The easiest way to do makeshift lootas is to use gunz from other armies. You know, looted gunz. Using other ork gunz isn't looting.

Redbeard and Nkelsch,

Thank you for the feedback. The reason I'm putting all of the rokkits and kmb's in the same squad is because, unfortunately for me, these can be taken as legitimate upgrades to loota squads. This pushes the squad well over the maximum of those upgrades, which would be used to differenciate.

I have right now:

16 Lootas - All in process of being pianted
21 Modified Big Shootas - 17 painted, 4 in process
7 Rokkits - all in process
4 KMB - 2 painted, 2 in process

I really like the idea of adding a cable from the backpack to the kmb and modding it a bit. I'm thinking of extending the barrel and removing the "orb" bit, and plugging the cable into the orb.

That would give me, without the rokkits, 41 total lootas. So, one more box, and I'd be gtg.

Thank you for the feedback and ideas. Now, I only have to hope I can get it all done before the Nova Open (and mostly done before Wargamescon).

To Do List:
30ish Lootas
17 Shoota Boyz
20 Grotz and 2 Runtherders
3 Deffkoptas
1 Warbiker Warboss
3 Killa Kans

It's taken me a year to get:
17ish Big Shoota Lootas
17 Shoota Boys w/ 2 Big Shootas and PK/BP Nob
2 Big Shootas and PK/BP Nob
KFF Big Mek
6 Killa Kan

I've also done things that I won't use, like two 30 strong units of choppa/slugga boys and a looted land raider battlewagon.

I'm just a slow painter, which is my biggest holdback. It takes me 15 minutes just to do the scab red detailing on one deffgun. Then you have highlights, and all the wires, metal bits, glyphs, etc.

Heffling wrote:

I'm just a slow painter, which is my biggest holdback. It takes me 15 minutes just to do the scab red detailing on one deffgun. Then you have highlights, and all the wires, metal bits, glyphs, etc.

A wise man once said, "Slow and Steady wins the race." His obituary notes that he had never won one.

I agree with having to follow WYSIWYG, I just started my space wolves not three months ago. Have myself about 750 points looking at me from my desk right now. I've ordered all the missile launchers I need, banners for the wolf standard, meltaguns for the combi/melta and other troops and even this little 750 points army has cost me quite a few. Reading all the responses to the thread does bring a little question to mind concerning the WYSIWYG rule. Should I have to model each of my GH to have the BP, CC, and Bolter on the model? It seems that I might be required according to some of the responses thus far.

A wise man once said, "Slow and Steady wins the race." His obituary notes that he had never won one.

My counter is "Jesus saves, but the Devil is on the Rebound."

I'm a bit more lenient on certain things on WYSIWYG such as not having purity seal, grenades and so on the small stuff, but Proxing models and pieces in a tournament is a no no to me as well as how I run the tournaments in the past and in the near future.

Heffling wrote:I'm just a slow painter, which is my biggest holdback. It takes me 15 minutes just to do the scab red detailing on one deffgun. Then you have highlights, and all the wires, metal bits, glyphs, etc.

Just get them to the 3 color minimum and based, and then go back and do the details as slowly as you want! That's what I've been doing with my armies for years.

Hello,
I think the worst case when asking someone WTF is that is the chance it will be what ever they need it to be, especially if it some wierd looking, non-thought out, bad conversion. Then if you call them on it you as thier opponent become TFG, for simply asking them to better clarify thier models. If your just starting and playing a "grey" (I am talking just assembled, or just primered) army or a loaner army, then hell I understand, especially if your trying to get into the game or experimenting with army selection. THat said if your in that situation you probably should not be in a tourney anyways. I have seen many IG armys with LRs without turets (or side sponsons, yet they have them), or SM armys that apparently were all assault, yet were 2nd and 3rd gen tac marines (talking monopose here). I smiled and asked them what things were and if I did not feel it was a burden for me to keep track, I let it go. However when you see a person just following the flavor of the month army, and saying oh this is that army with this equipment, I just tell them no thanks and point them in the general direction of the register to buy appropriate models.

Regards, TFG,
Carl

With the exception of a couple people, myself included it seems all the players in my area are flavor of the month. The guy who generally wins is one of those guys too...Granted, he knows his tactics, but he plays a little fast and loose for me. I see dice tossed on the board and some go this way and that, I don't even have time to see them. And then of course nobody paints and if they do it's a base-coat. BA and GK of course were the most played armies, and none of them were painted to a standard other than this is red and for the GK player hell they just left them bare...they're grey, RIGHT?! I just spent the past 4 hours kit bashing my Sternguard so they would have the appropriate combi-meltas (commander sprue) combi-flamers (My own design) and the various other accoutrements I desired. Granted, this took a lot of time, but i am proud my armies hold the appropriate gear. i put it there, I painted it. I guess I think more people should take pride in this whole thing. I love the game, but I love putting things together and painting it too. Makes it yours, might even make you value each and everyone of those Tac-marines that got tank shocked by the weaponless ork buggy... WYSIWYG is what i prefer but what I get is a lot less.

Sarpedon_702 wrote:but he plays a little fast and loose for me. I see dice tossed on the board and some go this way and that, I don't even have time to see them.

Stuff like that is easily avoidable - check out the tournament guide in my signature, you might find it quite useful.

In this case, I explain to every opponent at the start of our game that when I roll die, I pick up the misses and leave the hits on the table for inspection. I ask them to do the same - if they ever don't, I remind them firmly that they need to leave hits on the table and pick up their misses. There's a gaggle of stuff that I do that I ask my opponents to do as well to insure that there are no extra dice, extra inches, mis-measurements...stuff like that.

Since I've ironed out my pre-game speech, I've found virtually no issues in any game since then.

Right-On...I am rather new to tournaments well RTT and such. I am a veteran of M:TG but decided i wanted a more adult hobby that would still drain my checking account akin to crack cocaine. That's a great idea and will introduce it in my playing.

All weapons must be modeled. If you converted your tac marines to all be holding storm botlers, and then gave them holstered swords, you're good to go. If you didn't convert them, nope.

Heck, even if the storm bolters are Inquisitor/Dark Heresy/Horus Heresy Era twin-weapon style with over-under barrels, that's fine. Just not bog standard bolters.

Monster Rain wrote:

Heffling wrote:I'm just a slow painter, which is my biggest holdback. It takes me 15 minutes just to do the scab red detailing on one deffgun. Then you have highlights, and all the wires, metal bits, glyphs, etc.

Just get them to the 3 color minimum and based, and then go back and do the details as slowly as you want! That's what I've been doing with my armies for years.

I just died a little, inside.

Dashofpepper wrote: But I'm having nightmares about entire "Counts as" GK armies.

The problem is you're focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but... AS A MATTER OF COMMON PRACTICE, IF YOU FEEL THE NEED FOR A DISCLAIMER ABOUT NOT MEANING TO BE RUDE BEFORE A GIVEN STATEMENT, ODDS ARE GOOD THAT THE STATEMENT IS RUDE, AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DAKKA DAKKA.

Heffling wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Heffling wrote:I'm just a slow painter, which is my biggest holdback. It takes me 15 minutes just to do the scab red detailing on one deffgun. Then you have highlights, and all the wires, metal bits, glyphs, etc.

Just get them to the 3 color minimum and based, and then go back and do the details as slowly as you want! That's what I've been doing with my armies for years.

I just died a little, inside.

I don't follow you.

Your models can still be presentably painted without excruciating attention to detail in a relatively short period of time and then retouched over time. I never consider any of my armies "done." There's always something I can find to touch up more, or highlight better etc. Indeed, when the last Space Marine codex came out I had to switch over wargear, convert and re-paint models that I no longer had any use for.

Norserune wrote: Should I have to model each of my GH to have the BP, CC, and Bolter on the model? It seems that I might be required according to some of the responses thus far.

If it's standard equipment then most people don't worry about it. So if hunters have those things listed a base equipment I wouldn't sweat it (I don't play wolves so I don't know what is standard and what isn't).

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: But I'm having nightmares about entire "Counts as" GK armies.

The problem is you're focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but... AS A MATTER OF COMMON PRACTICE, IF YOU FEEL THE NEED FOR A DISCLAIMER ABOUT NOT MEANING TO BE RUDE BEFORE A GIVEN STATEMENT, ODDS ARE GOOD THAT THE STATEMENT IS RUDE, AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DAKKA DAKKA.

I hate to say I agree. How big of an issue is this really?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Norserune wrote: Should I have to model each of my GH to have the BP, CC, and Bolter on the model? It seems that I might be required according to some of the responses thus far.

If it's standard equipment then most people don't worry about it. So if hunters have those things listed a base equipment I wouldn't sweat it (I don't play wolves so I don't know what is standard and what isn't).

A related question, why are people ok with not having to put BP, CC and Bolters (all standard equipment) on Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters, but to be Grey Knights, they have to have Storm Bolters and Swords?

whitedragon wrote:
A related question, why are people ok with not having to put BP, CC and Bolters (all standard equipment) on Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters, but to be Grey Knights, they have to have Storm Bolters and Swords?

Because it's not a matter of missing some of the weapons, it's a matter of not having ANY of weapons. And then on top of that, all the weapons they do have are wrong. Finally, there are about 5 different melee weapons they could have, and each one is individually configurable. How would that not cause confusion on bolter marines?

whitedragon wrote:
A related question, why are people ok with not having to put BP, CC and Bolters (all standard equipment) on Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters, but to be Grey Knights, they have to have Storm Bolters and Swords?

It's not realistic to expect people to model 3 weapons onto a model with 2 hands. Also, I'm not 100% sure the kits support enough bits for all models to have all 3.

Here's a tangent. My Tyranid army and WYSIWYG; Most of my models are 2nd edition style so don't even compare with modern equivalents, because of this I needed to re-jig a lot of the list to make my models work with the modern edition.

My list;

Winged Hive Tyrant; 2nd edition Hive Tyrant with 2nd edition Blood Thirster wings. The old HT model is significantly smaller then the current one. No one has raised an issue with it yet, since it's a 100% WYSIWYG GW model, but the issue could crop up in larger scale tournys then i usually attend....legal?

Hive Guard; 2nd edition Tyranid Warriors with venom cannons. They used to be my heavy support warriors with multiple heavy weapons, but that kind of squad doesn't exist anymore. They are the only Tyranid warrior models in my army, the only venom cannons in my army, and neither the warriors nor the cannons are post 2nd edition models, so 95% of players probably won't even have seen them before.....legal?

Ymgarl Genestealers; 2nd edition genestealers with exactly the same model as the other 2 dozen genestealers in my army, but are painted a different color...legal?

Tervigon; No GW model exists. I use a Carnifex + the conversion kit from Chapter House...it looks pretty awesome too....legal?

Of the above 4 examples, 2 don't have GW models, so I make due with what i have, 1 is an older edition model with a smaller physical size that I could get called out for modelling for advantage on, and the last one is clearly a case of counts-as. IMO, 3 out of the 4 are okay, and the Hive Guard could get me in trouble at some point. Agree/Disagree?

The big issue is tournies... unless you're running a compeditive army (SW/IG/Ba) you're probably screwed really... If all the lists were balanced people could just collect what they wanted to rather than 'having' to collect a 'tournament' army.

The way I see it is that in a tournament you shouldn't use 'cross-dexing' (e.g. SW represent BA/BT/DA), because you could end up in the 'kid with the empire DE' style scenarios

UNLESS there is no sensible codex available. E.g. a lot of people field Lamenters SM as BA, which is fine, or mechanicus armies as GK Henchmen spam. But no making a khorne berserker army using ork rules, or daemons using guard models or other silly things.

As for smaller details as WYSIWYG, Say a meltavet squad has 4 melta models and 2 plasma models, providing that the opponent's army list clearly states there are no plasma guns in that squad, I can deal with it, of course, if the guy tries to cheat and claims there are plasma in there when the army list says otherwise I will happily complain. So in the 'bright lance scatter laser' scenario mentioned earlier, I wouldn't mind so long as bright lances on wave serpents ONLY proxied scatter lasers, and my opponent a) made me very aware of this and b)didn't try to cheat.

I guess the long story short, is that it's quiet in work and I need something to occupy my time and I'm not to bothered as long as no dirty tricks come into play.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Marine Codices have traditionally been something that players can swap codices between - with a "These are Black Templar today!" switching to "These are Space Wolves today!" with a bit of model switching. I've seen Ultramarine Blood Angels, and completely red space wolves that were painted (and usually played to be Blood Angels).

Funny you say that - in Orlando most people just leave their marines a plastic Gray or bare metal so they don't have to stipulate which type of marine they are (Red, Blue, Black, Light Green, or Dark Green). Sad thing is that they bring it to the tournaments in this fasion.

I'm ok when I see an army that doesn't have the Rhino Doors and front glued on yet because I know that they are ordering forgeworld doors but after 3 months of seeing their stuff in a partially put together state I get irritated and since we are playing True Line of Sight, I always bring that up - I can see through your tank so I guess you get a cover save...

I don't have a problem with a Blood Angel that has a bolter being used as a Space Wolf that has a Bolter, but if you are using blood angels and their equipment as a counts as grey knight army, then I should be allowed to use my Tyranids as Sisters of Battle.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: But I'm having nightmares about entire "Counts as" GK armies.

The problem is you're focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?".Mod Edit - removing stuff that's already been removed!

What matters to one may not matter to another. You may think that having kids is the greatest thing ever. Dash does not. He has other priorities. Does that mean your priorities are more important than his?

Who's to say your way is more important or the better way to be? Your "right track" could be wrong for someone else. Mod Edit - Please, responding rudely to rudeness doesn't help - use the Mod Alert Button - thanks!

I'm new and still building my own army using the BA codex. I've played my fair share of friendly games where everything is as far from WYSIWYG as you can get. I am looking to eventually try my hand at some local tournaments and making my army WYSIWYG.

but...

I HATE a lot of the BA models. As I have 2 main rules; everyone wears a helmet and no nipple armor . So I have been converting other GW models to fill the rolls. My current project is turning a Emperor's Champion into Mephiston. I've added all the correct weapons and it is being lovingly painted. Would there be an issue with this?

Dashofpepper wrote:

I'm ok when I see an army that doesn't have the Rhino Doors and front glued on yet because I know that they are ordering forgeworld doors but after 3 months of seeing their stuff in a partially put together state I get irritated and since we are playing True Line of Sight, I always bring that up - I can see through your tank so I guess you get a cover save...

I agree with that there -_- I may be new to the warhammer games but I've seen my share of combats and I've witnessed someone with a drop pod who would glue his doors shut so that it blocked LOS. Which led to me asking him how his guys got out of the drop pod in the first place. Well... maybe this isn't similar to that scenario

//edited for unintentional quote in a quote

Carnage43 wrote:

whitedragon wrote:
A related question, why are people ok with not having to put BP, CC and Bolters (all standard equipment) on Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters, but to be Grey Knights, they have to have Storm Bolters and Swords?

It's not realistic to expect people to model 3 weapons onto a model with 2 hands. Also, I'm not 100% sure the kits support enough bits for all models to have all 3.

Some people only model 1 weapon, ie grey hunters with just Bolters, and we just all know they have CCW's and BP's. Going off that premise, most people probably wouldn't mind if a Grey Hunter had a two handed awesome grip on his sword, with no bolter. Heck, several other marine models have this already.

Now, as for a Grey Knight, would someone be offended if he was just modelled with a storm bolter? We can assume he has a Nemesis Force Sword since it's part of his standard gear right? What about if the Grey Knight was just holding a sword, and for whatever reason the owner didn't put the storm bolter on. (It got in the way of the pose, didn't like the big mag sticking out, whtaever). So a Grey Knight holding just a sword or halberd or whatever would be fine right?

Well, would that model also be fine as a grey hunter in a counts as army? Or the other way around, would our Grey Hunter with 1 sword and no bolter be plausible as a Grey Knight counts as?

I'd say so, considering some of the more wacky counts as out there.

All of my CSMs are modeled with at least two of their three weapons.

If a GK player accurately models at least two of their weapons, that sounds fine to me.

Mannahnin wrote:All of my CSMs are modeled with at least two of their three weapons.

I'm very proud of you.

So then 2/3=good!

1/2=bad!

I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

its odd that peoeple don't mind remembering these details but do mind rembering that all the weapons in one sqaud are the same even if they are not modeled the same. (like mixed heavy weapons counting as rockets, for long fangs).

Also If I had combi melters but modeled as bolters, but then put a big red counter on each stand. Saying to my oppenant, this is a combi wepon, when I fire it I will remove the counter. surly thats easier to follow in game then a modeled combi weapon.

I agree that armies should be wsywig to a point. I don't think combi weapons should be a requirment. I don't want to ruin my models trying to hash together a conversion, when conversion are not my strong point.Also my codex says they can look like anything, so why not a a bolter? I would much rather do what I describe above.

I think that at the end of the day it comes down to a gut feeling, much as the lawyer/rules lawyer in me wants it to be otherwise. The question about 2nd edition tyranids is a great example... I have no idea how i'd feel about them until I see them. Supreme court justice Potter Stewart said

"I shall not today attempt to further define... (hard core pornography)... And perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

Be honest with yourself when you build an army- Does that weaponless chimera really look like a tiny Land Raider once you stick three devastator lascannons and some Reaper miniatures gun on the sides with Elmers Glue? Do you really need to call a TO over to complain because one of your opponents assault marine arms fell off last round and now it "ruins your immersion" to be forced to play against a clearly-handicapped One Armed Man as though you were The Fugative?

It's a gentlemans game. Be a gentleman.

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Personally, as I have stated before I think people should model what they play, I understand it can be expensive, but you should know that coming into this hobby, it's a slow, tedious, and ultimately rewarding process. If you are a flavor of the month player I can only hope you are independently wealthy, but willing to at least toss a semi-decent paint job minus the details. And make sure their models have what is in the list and very few if any counts as. I have a Pedro Cantor model, but He is not a Souldrinker, I have him painted as a Souldrinker and counts as Pedro Cantor but in my army he is Sargeant Luko. I guess he is an Imperial Fist successor chapter same as Souldrinkers are so prior to their Excommunicatis why wouldn't he show up and help out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:All of my CSMs are modeled with at least two of their three weapons.

I'm very proud of you.

So then 2/3=good!

1/2=bad!

Let me expand on that a little. Each two-armed model has at least two of the three weapons (some have all three, with the third slung, sheathed, or holstered). Each squad clearly shows all three weapons- bolters, bolt pistols, and close combat weapons. All optional upgrade models are strictly and accurately modeled with the correct weapons.

I suppose I'd be okay with a couple of models in a GK unit having only the storm bolter, or only the NFW, as long as the unit as a whole clearly displayed all the appropriate weapons, and the individual models were generally properly armed. And, of course, any optional upgrades were clearly and properly modeled.

One difference between grey hunters and CSM, and the grey knights, is that the bolt pistol/CCW either can't be upgraded (for the CSMs) or definitnly need to be modeled (power fist, plasma pistol).

With grey knights, they can freely swap nemesis weapons squad wide, not just as a "special."

Meaning, the "default" gear is still carried by a solid chunk of the squad. With Grey Knights, nobody has to carry default gear.

Are people missing we are talking about WYSIWYG at a tourney? And the only correct answer is to ASK YOUR TO.

If you are using COUNTS AS, PROXIES, OVERMODELING or SOME GUYS HAVE IT modeling, all of those are technically not WYSIWYG... which means....


ASK YOUR TO.

In friendly games, it is ask your opponent.

When I see people saying 'I leave my army grey to help codex swap' it means nothing per this convo as that unpainted army won't be allowed at most events. If you can’t even meet the threshold for participation, I am not sure there is any point to discussing the WYSIWYG validity of tourney play of those armies.

Personally, I find the WYSIWYG space wolf models of last year being the NON-WYSIWYG GK of this year disturbing for tourneys and I hope TOs enforce standards as GK is drastically different enough from the other multi-marine codexes to burden opponents and impact gameplay. At serious events that shouldn't be forced on players.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

You really don't understand the difference between following the rules for certain wargear and using the wrong models for weapons?

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote: But I'm having nightmares about entire "Counts as" GK armies.

The problem is you're focusing on the things in life that don't really matter. When I was a kid I had hopes and dreams. We all did. But over time, the daily grind gets in the way and you miss the things that really matter, even though they are right in front of you, staring you in the face. I think the next time you should ask yourself "Am I on the right track here?". I don't mean to be rude but... AS A MATTER OF COMMON PRACTICE, IF YOU FEEL THE NEED FOR A DISCLAIMER ABOUT NOT MEANING TO BE RUDE BEFORE A GIVEN STATEMENT, ODDS ARE GOOD THAT THE STATEMENT IS RUDE, AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DAKKA DAKKA.

I'm glad that someone had the common sense to moderate your typing for you so that I can respond without being offended at what was probably rude. =p

You asked: Am I on the right track here?

Lets put this into perspective. I'm not talking about a FLGS tournament here. I travel all around the country to play in Grand Tournaments. I spent $3,000 last year on the SoCal Slaughter in Space *ALONE*.

I'm going to six GTs this year, none local, possibly a 7th depending on what my vacation time looks like in Semptember/November. Every one of them involves travel cost, hotel reservation, food, and most of them involve vacation.

Here's an example: Nova Open 2011

Plane Ticket: $400
Wife's Plane Ticket: $400
Hotel Room for 4 days: $500
Meals and drinks for 4 days: $400
Tournament Entry Fee: $65
Invitational Entry Fee: $50
Weekend Pass: $35
Two Fifths of Captain Morgan: $50

That's $1900. That doesn't include any snacks, taxi, metro cost to get around (like from the airport to the hotel), tips, airport parking costs, laundry at the hotel, another $200 for shipping my army across the country and back...

I expect the Nova Open to cost me $2500 in total to attend. To ATTEND.

Now, I've got a side wager against an opponent for another chunk of cash that I've agreed to not disclose with him. There's a significant chunk of change tied into winning that game. There's another $2,000 on the line for the Nova Invitational. Not to mention the 256 person GT itself...with the potential for validation of some of the theories on tactics I put forth as solid truth here on Dakka being able to be used successfully, batrepped, and spread around to the masses.

Ah, then there's opportunity cost. I'm the Project Manager for Nuclear Valve Construction at my manufacturing company. Opportunity cost of vacation being used in terms of my salary is another significant cost.

Tie all that together, and I have a *HUGE* financial commitment to this event. And this is only one out of SIX+ events I'm going to. And it could all be blown by someone who was too lazy to model their army after what it it really was. Perfect example: I lost a GT game early last year to Vulkan marines. I saw two land raiders that were called Redeemers. I didn't know what that meant in particular, but I saw two lascannons on each side of them. I was like, "Eh...so he'll lascannon a couple orks down if my powerklaws fail. My orks all disembark from their battlewagons (this is before the Deffrolla FAQ) and go charge the land raiders. No hits get through, but I'm not concerned because I'm set up in such a way that he can't get forward and deploy his assault marines even with a tank shock, hed have to turn back. The following turn, he proceeds to lay down two land raiders worth of redeemer flamers on my Orks. I literally said, "Wait, WHAT?!? Those are flamers?!? I thought those were lascannons!" I *NEVER* would have gotten my Orks out of their battlewagon to charge AV14 multi-flamer toting land raiders. I had boarding planks and a KFF.

To be fair, I think he did have redeemer flamers on there, but I had never seen them before. they were about the length of lascannons. I lost a game because of confusion in a model's equipment. That time it was my own fault. A game ending mistake.

What if it had been my opponent's fault? If they had actually been lascannons as "counts as" redeemer flamers? What if you have $3,000 to $10,000 tied up in an event, and your chances of winning are abruptly cut short because of something like this?

Lets take the Eldar example that is *real* here. 8 Wave Serpents armied with twin-linked bright lances. Plays against a BA army that has two land raiders with assault terminators and a couple of dreadnoughts. Eldar player wins the roll to go first and deploys all his vehicles. Tells the BA player that all the wave serpents are armed with scatter lasers. The BA player says, "Ok." He knows what a bright lance looks like. Every wave serpent has a twin-linked pair of them. It has underslung guns too, which he reasonably presumes are the scatter lasers. Seeing no choice to avoid a turn 1 alpha strike against his land raiders, he puts everything into reserve. Turn one drops a pod in with a dreadnought whoagainst the Eldar. The Eldar spend their turn two movement moving fire dragon serpents up to the deployment edge so that the reserves coming in would be shooting at wave serpents with 4+ cover - giving those fire dragons plenty of opportunity to nuke those two land raiders when they come in. BA player gets one land raider on turn 2; it moves on, shoots at a wave serpent and whiffs - at which point fire dragons get out and explode it. The terminators get out and you start rolling scatter lasers against them. 4 Dice, twin-linked.

At this point, the following conversation takes place:

BA: "Hold on, what are you doing? You only get one shot at them."
Eldar: "No, scatter lasers are four shots twin-linked."
BA: "Oh, right - sorry, I thought you were firing the lance at me, I forgot you had the scatter laser too."
Eldar: "Huh? No, I don't have bright lances. Those are scatter lasers."
BA: "What? I thought those were bright lances on top and your scatter lasers were the guns on the bottom under the cockpit?"
Eldar: "No, the bright lances are counting as scatter lasers, and the gun under the cockpit is a shuriken catapult."
BA: "Dude, I reserved my army because I saw that you had 8 twin-linked bright lances to shoot at me."
Eldar: "Dude, I'm sorry but I told you that I had scatter lasers."
BA: "Yeah, you did - I thought those were the guns under the cockpit because the ones on top are obviously bright lances."

So the Eldar player is winning their game because misinformation led to the BA player making tactical decisions based on that information. Not everyone knows your own codex as well as you do, and you cannot burden someone with the expectation that they can track counts as, proxying, etc - ESPECIALLY when large sums of money are on the line. That's why following the rules is CRITICAL.

Lets play nice as this is a bit tangential to the topic eh guys?

Coyotebreaks wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

It's a matter of drawing the line in the sand and saying enough is enough. You already have to remember to move each unit, shoot each unit, what enemy squads are in what vehicles, what turn it is, what the objectives for the scenario are (Adepticon at least always has a startling number of them per mission), potentially how many wounds are on characters if you're not marking them, how far squads were relative to each other last time you got to measure (can I move my terminators back a full 6 and fire, or can I only move them 5), the name of the chick you chatted up at the bar the night before, and so on.

Point is that you shouldn't HAVE to remember which one of the identical bolter marines has the combiweapon. You've got far too much going on otherwise.

Coyotebreaks wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

Monster Rain wrote:You really don't understand the difference between following the rules for certain wargear and using the wrong models for weapons?

You really don't understand the point he is trying to make? He is saying that there is a burden on the player to "remember" which combi-weapons have been fired just as if someone would have to remember what count as were in play during the game. He is saying it's odd that one is accepted while the other sometimes is not. Are you still having to remember a critical piece of information that could potentially affect the game?

Dashofpepper wrote:

BA: "Hold on, what are you doing? You only get one shot at them."
Eldar: "No, scatter lasers are four shots twin-linked."
BA: "Oh, right - sorry, I thought you were firing the lance at me, I forgot you had the scatter laser too."
Eldar: "Huh? No, I don't have bright lances. Those are scatter lasers."
BA: "What? I thought those were bright lances on top and your scatter lasers were the guns on the bottom under the cockpit?"
Eldar: "No, the bright lances are counting as scatter lasers, and the gun under the cockpit is a shuriken catapult."
BA: "Dude, I reserved my army because I saw that you had 8 twin-linked bright lances to shoot at me."
Eldar: "Dude, I'm sorry but I told you that I had scatter lasers."
BA: "Yeah, you did - I thought those were the guns under the cockpit because the ones on top are obviously bright lances."

So the Eldar player is winning their game because misinformation led to the BA player making tactical decisions based on that information. Not everyone knows your own codex as well as you do, and you cannot burden someone with the expectation that they can track counts as, proxying, etc - ESPECIALLY when large sums of money are on the line. That's why following the rules is CRITICAL.

How is this any different from the Marine player having multiple Sternguard squads with 10 combi-meltas? You could make the same argument in reverse that the Eldar player didn't advance towards a squad of sternguard because he didn't want to get melta'd, to which the marine player casually replies, "I told you already, they were all spent".

At this point the marine player is "winning".

You could also make the argument about the transport shell game as well.

As to your point about the financial aspect, I'll only state that the player on the other side of the table has just as much money/time/opportunity cost invested to have a fun game with their models that they also have invested financially in. As we all agree that counts as is acceptable in some circumstances, it isn't too inconceivable to think that the other player's stuff is consistent with whatever is reasonably accepted in their locale, and they are just as entitled to not having to be badgered about a few "scatter lasers".

A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

Are people saying a Kombi weapon reverts to a bolter after being fired? there are huge complicated WAC implications for NOBZ based upon that argument.

If the event requires WYSIWYG you have 2 options: magetize or model with the 'popular' option you see yourself using most.

Assuming your NON-WYSIWYG will fly or should be allowed at an event that requires it is arrogant and reeks of 'rules don't apply to me'. We all like to be reasonable but we all also like to participate in events where everyone follows the rules laid out to them months in advance.

Which is why ASK YOUR TO is the answer to any and all questions... If you don't want to risk it, then learn to love strict WYSIWYG!

nkelsch wrote:A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

That's right, but its incumbent on the opponent to remember that it had fired already, and what is being asked is, how is that different from remembering that a lascannon counts as a missile launcher for this game?

Is there an official list of official depictions of official weapons?

There used to be about half way through 4th edition, I don't know about now.

whitedragon wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

Monster Rain wrote:You really don't understand the difference between following the rules for certain wargear and using the wrong models for weapons?

You really don't understand the point he is trying to make? He is saying that there is a burden on the player to "remember" which combi-weapons have been fired just as if someone would have to remember what count as were in play during the game. He is saying it's odd that one is accepted while the other sometimes is not. Are you still having to remember a critical piece of information that could potentially affect the game?

Thanks, thats the point I was trying make, all be it badly.

There used to be a book called wargear back in 4th. It had tons of rules gaffes, but it was a great all around reference for 40k weapons and what they generally looked and acted like.

Side note: As a long time xenos and GK player, it makes me laugh to see all the people who played counts as cheese wolves the last year and a half do mental gymnastics to try and field a counts as GK army. Simply put, these are models that MUST be wysiwyg because of the staggering amount of unique wargear that can exist within the army. Its not like grey hunters where you can just shove an extra special weapon and sargeant model in there and call it done.

Coyotebreaks wrote:Thanks, thats the point I was trying make, all be it badly.

I see what you're saying.

A combi-melta is still a combi-melta after it is fired, but I understand your point.

Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

daedalus wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

It's a matter of drawing the line in the sand and saying enough is enough. You already have to remember to move each unit, shoot each unit, what enemy squads are in what vehicles, what turn it is, what the objectives for the scenario are (Adepticon at least always has a startling number of them per mission), potentially how many wounds are on characters if you're not marking them, how far squads were relative to each other last time you got to measure (can I move my terminators back a full 6 and fire, or can I only move them 5), the name of the chick you chatted up at the bar the night before, and so on.

Point is that you shouldn't HAVE to remember which one of the identical bolter marines has the combiweapon. You've got far too much going on otherwise.

Indeed, but in my example the one bolter marine with a combi weapon has a big red counter on his stand until it has fired. So you don't need to remember anything. Other then that counter means it is a combi weapon. I understand it is not allowed rules wise but imo arguably easier to follow, so yeah I just find it funny how some things are accepted and others are not, even though in some cases the unaccepted burdens are less of a burden then the accepted ones.

whitedragon wrote:

nkelsch wrote:A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

That's right, but its incumbent on the opponent to remember that it had fired already, and what is being asked is, how is that different from remembering that a lascannon counts as a missile launcher for this game?

Because Spent Kombis falls under 'wound counters' where Lascannons proxied as Missiles falls under 'WYSIWYG'.

While both are usually casually informal in some situations, in an event that requires WYSIWYG you don't have the right nor should you show up expecting to have opponents to 'remember' what your proxies are.

When it comes to wound counters and spent single-shot weapons, this is not a WYSIWYG issue. If people want to try to 'remember' that is between them. If the player wishes to use counters, that is also a good solution.

I do believe it is on the player with the weapons to be able to prove what has been spent and what hasn't. If you have 10 kombimeltas in one unit, then I think you need to come up with a good way to distinguish who has shot and who hasn't. If there is ever disagreement, the way I have seen TOs rule is basically if the owning player doesn't have a clear enforceable way to distinguish, the TO declares all the ammo spent and that is the end of it.

I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

Redbeard wrote:Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

What about DIY?

Fix your house on your own time

Phazael wrote:There used to be a book called wargear back in 4th. It had tons of rules gaffes, but it was a great all around reference for 40k weapons and what they generally looked and acted like.

Side note: As a long time xenos and GK player, it makes me laugh to see all the people who played counts as cheese wolves the last year and a half do mental gymnastics to try and field a counts as GK army. Simply put, these are models that MUST be wysiwyg because of the staggering amount of unique wargear that can exist within the army. Its not like grey hunters where you can just shove an extra special weapon and sargeant model in there and call it done.

Yes, that's the book I was trying to remember.

My point is that if there isn't a standard reference for what weapons look like, it would be nonsensical to insist on "official" depictions of weapons and wargear on models, because there isn't any. I'm fethed if I know what a Deathspitter looks like, and I am a Tyranid player.

At the same time it's a shame for people to codex hop to the latest hot netlist with a proxy, because the visual appeal of different armies is a big part of the hobby. I was arguing this point with some guy the other day, saying I would like to play my Tau counts as Dark Eldar against his Dark Eldar counts as Grey Knights. It's all good, eh.

I'm not against variant, conversion or unofficial weapons. I think they need to be consistent throughout the army, and not confusingly similar to whatever is the widely accepted norm for well known weapons like bolters, plasma guns and so on.

All the current codices have pictorial representations of the weapons nowadays. I think it started being consistent with maybe the Eldar codex, back in 2006?

Well, some, but not all.

Just checking my Tyranid dex none of the weapons or biomorphs are covered in the weapons or biomorph descriptions sections.

In the Tyranid dex, don't they show you the weapons in the photographs in the 'eavy metal section? Or is it not a complete list?

nkelsch wrote:I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

Maybe I can help there too. =p

Presuming you have enough copies of your army list for every opponent, bring a pencil/pen.

Before the tournament, or at the start of every round, I draw a simple spreadsheet. Each nob goes into one column of cells. Kind of like this:

Ork | W | W | K

Waaugh!
BP
PB
PK/AR
PK/KR
PK/KR/AR
BC
BC/KR
BC/KR/AR

BP = Bosspole, PK = Powerklaw, AR=Ammo Runt, KR = Kombi-Rokkit, BC=Big Choppa, PB=Painboy

In the first column go the nobs. The second and third column are to make checkmarks when they take a wound, and the fourth column is for marking a check when the combi weapon gets fired.

I use the same little drawing when I go to take wounds. Rather than pointing at models, who often look similar, or trying to put die on the table to mark who is wounded, I track it on the chart. Makes it real easy. : )

They don't show you all the weapons or any biomorphs.

I would expect to find weapon descriptions in the weapon descriptions.

I didn't look closely at the colour pics anyway. I had already worked out my own colour scheme.

Dashofpepper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

Maybe I can help there too. =p

Presuming you have enough copies of your army list for every opponent, bring a pencil/pen.

Before the tournament, or at the start of every round, I draw a simple spreadsheet. Each nob goes into one column of cells. Kind of like this:

Ork | W | W | K

Waaugh!
BP
PB
PK/AR
PK/KR
PK/KR/AR
BC
BC/KR
BC/KR/AR

BP = Bosspole, PK = Powerklaw, AR=Ammo Runt, KR = Kombi-Rokkit, BC=Big Choppa, PB=Painboy

In the first column go the nobs. The second and third column are to make checkmarks when they take a wound, and the fourth column is for marking a check when the combi weapon gets fired.

I use the same little drawing when I go to take wounds. Rather than pointing at models, who often look similar, or trying to put die on the table to mark who is wounded, I track it on the chart. Makes it real easy. : )

If you want to save yourself a headache, take a page from warmachine (and I saw a SW player do this for his TWC).

Make up a nice little sheet/print out of the guys, what gear they have, and have a box for each wound. Laminate (or use poor man's lamination, iie clear packing tape) and use a dry erase marker to track wounds. No wasted paper or drawing prior to every game, just mark it, and wipe off after the round.

When my opponent did this I found it very helpful I must say

targetawg wrote:
If you want to save yourself a headache, take a page from warmachine (and I saw a SW player do this for his TWC).

Make up a nice little sheet/print out of the guys, what gear they have, and have a box for each wound. Laminate (or use poor man's lamination, iie clear packing tape) and use a dry erase marker to track wounds. No wasted paper or drawing prior to every game, just mark it, and wipe off after the round.

When my opponent did this I found it very helpful I must say

I might do this for NOVA... I haven't decided if I am taking NOBZ or a lot of kombi/multiwounds, but I like this design.

Redbeard wrote:Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

I wish. GTs were something I really used to look forward to; not just for 5-6 fun and challenging games, but seeing all the fantastic armies and meeting so many dedicated fans of 40K. Fun stuff. It was really quite a sight to actually see some of these really powerful armies fully built and painted to a high degree of exactness. It's a shame there seems to be a trend going away from this mindset.

Mannahnin wrote:One can kind of understand the spot they'd be in. At a big event, people have often traveled a significant distance, and it sucks to have to DQ someone for the weekend.

Really, TOs should have a loaner army on hand for just such an occasion. If someone shows up at an event with an unpainted or non-WYSIWYG army, they get to either re-make their list into something they've brought which is actually painted and WYSIWYG, or they get to use the loaner army.

I agree with what Mannahnin says. If the army has no real effort put into the army for WYSIWYG, I will call a TO. I dont mind a counts as if you got the weapons and bases correctly done.

Redbeard wrote:

Likewise, Yellow marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Fixed for you.

Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

Polonius wrote:While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

For one, they shouldn't be "the exact same guys", as the details will differ. For Example:

Ultramarines - Tactical Markings and Omega Symbol
Dark Angels - Robes and Angel Wing/Sword Markings
Salamanders - Salamander/Dragon Marking
Space Wolves - Wolf Pelts, Wolf Teeth, Wolf Etc...
Blood Angels - Angel Wings/Teardrop Markings
Black Templars - Cross Marking
Chaos - Spikes, Marks of Chaos, etc

All of these detail items are manufactured by GW, and demonstrated amply in the appropriate codexes.

From a strict interpretation of WYSIWYG, I could argue that because you don't have the appropriate details that you're not playing the appropriate army. A missile launcher alone does not a long fang make.

Additionally, and more importantly to me, army hopping with space marines gives a significant advantage that no other army can enjoy. As an ork player (or tau, necro, tyranid, imperial guard, etc), I don't have this luxury. This gives a significant advantage in a tournament environment.

Polonius wrote:Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

Look, part of my earlier post (and part of this one too) was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But, part of it has some merit.

Here are five different marine heads, that I found on google image search. They're not even painted. Can you name what codex they all go with?












No paint, just bare plastic. And you can probably figure them all out.

Now, why is it any harder for an opponent to remember that the eight brightlances on your spaceship are actually scatter lasers than it is for them to remember that the eight men with chaos helmets are actually grey hunters?

WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

They're not the exact same guys. Those guys have wolf heads and wolf pelts and runic armour, long hair and beards, these other guys have eagles on their chests, their helmets don't look like wolves and when they're not wearing helmets, they're bald.

I mean, why can't I use my orks with shootas as tactical marines with bolters? Or my guardians? Why should I have to build more models with two-handed submachine-gun looking weapons just to use different rules?

How about this logic? Space Wolves have bolt pistols, bolters, and chainswords. Tactical Marines have Bolters and Bolt Pistols. You have models that either have the extra chainsword, or don't. I, as your opponent, am willing to overlook the fact that your Space Wolves are not technically WYSIWYG in regard to their weapons as long as they have long hair and wolf pelts to visually let me know that they are, in fact, Space Wolves. But if they don't look like Space Wolves, and they're not armed like Space Wolves, why should I be expected to play against Space Wolves?

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Heffling wrote:

Polonius wrote:While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

For one, they shouldn't be "the exact same guys", as the details will differ. For Example:

Ultramarines - Tactical Markings and Omega Symbol
Dark Angels - Robes and Angel Wing/Sword Markings
Salamanders - Salamander/Dragon Marking
Space Wolves - Wolf Pelts, Wolf Teeth, Wolf Etc...
Blood Angels - Angel Wings/Teardrop Markings
Black Templars - Cross Marking
Chaos - Spikes, Marks of Chaos, etc

All of these detail items are manufactured by GW, and demonstrated amply in the appropriate codexes.

From a strict interpretation of WYSIWYG, I could argue that because you don't have the appropriate details that you're not playing the appropriate army. A missile launcher alone does not a long fang make.

Additionally, and more importantly to me, army hopping with space marines gives a significant advantage that no other army can enjoy. As an ork player (or tau, necro, tyranid, imperial guard, etc), I don't have this luxury. This gives a significant advantage in a tournament environment.

Thats er...pretty anal but oh well.
AS GW has a prooud tradition of DIY chapters thats not especially applicable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

Look, part of my earlier post (and part of this one too) was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But, part of it has some merit.

Here are five different marine heads, that I found on google image search. They're not even painted. Can you name what codex they all go with?












No paint, just bare plastic. And you can probably figure them all out.

Now, why is it any harder for an opponent to remember that the eight brightlances on your spaceship are actually scatter lasers than it is for them to remember that the eight men with chaos helmets are actually grey hunters?

WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

They're not the exact same guys. Those guys have wolf heads and wolf pelts and runic armour, long hair and beards, these other guys have eagles on their chests, their helmets don't look like wolves and when they're not wearing helmets, they're bald.

I mean, why can't I use my orks with shootas as tactical marines with bolters? Or my guardians? Why should I have to build more models with two-handed submachine-gun looking weapons just to use different rules?

How about this logic? Space Wolves have bolt pistols, bolters, and chainswords. Tactical Marines have Bolters and Bolt Pistols. You have models that either have the extra chainsword, or don't. I, as your opponent, am willing to overlook the fact that your Space Wolves are not technically WYSIWYG in regard to their weapons as long as they have long hair and wolf pelts to visually let me know that they are, in fact, Space Wolves. But if they don't look like Space Wolves, and they're not armed like Space Wolves, why should I be expected to play against Space Wolves?

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Well I can only open two and couldn't tell other than they are MEQs of some sort, adn thats in close up.
If you think I'm going to tell, or care, what they represent in real life looking at them across a table, well thats a bit...er.. much.
Not to mention multiple generations going on. Beakie troopers were beakie troopers were beakie troopers.

So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

What if a person doesn't want Wolf themed space vikings?

What about Blood Ravens, which explicitly don't have a known founding chapter?

I get the general rule, no doubt, that codex shopping is an advantage. But I don't think it's as much a problem for WYSIWYG as it is a problem because people resent the advantage.

And yes, it's not fair that marines can swap, while xenos can't. Life's tough sometimes. A power armored space marine simply doesn't change that much in look, while a guardian and Ork are vastly different. I'm not talking about calling a clear Space Wolf a Blood Angel, but when you have a generic, DIY marine... how can you tell, as a player, that it's "meant" to be an ultra, not a wolf?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While I get your point, I find any argument of the form "if you do not take your models as seriously as I do, don't play 40k." It's needlessly insulting. Arguing that calling my fully painted Star Owls Space Wolves instead of Ultramarines is the same as playing with chits is a gross exageration that does nothing to advance discussion.

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Yeah, because my non-codex squad and company markings and hand painted chapter badges clearly idenfify my army as one thing. I appreciate being told that I don't have pride in them.

I think Redbeard's comment about "pride in your colors" was directly more generically, especially to the folks who don't paint, or (to a lesser extent) who use an army which is clearly painted as one chapter to be something totally different.

Overall I agree with Polonius on this one, though with a side of Redbeard. While I'm not opposed to people swapping, I really do prefer it if a given army can easily be recognized to be whatever codex it's using- whether through color scheme or distinctive units.

To me, a space marine is a space marine.

I don't know the symbols on any of those helmets.

When I get my marines up and going (if ever) they're going to be pink and glittery - so decreed the wife. Does that mean that they are chaos marines? Presume that they are not. In which case, what codex are my pink/happy/butterfly/flowers space marines supposed to fit into?

I'd also point out that while Space Marines can shop between books, many xenos armies have more built in variety of army builds, at least in the 5th edition troops focused forms.

Look at Codex: space marines. Two basic troops choices, with bikes as an option. Scouts are a support unit, good mostly for objectives and some light shooting/harassment. Tacticals are a mediocre shooting unit and lousy at assault. In the current book, few armies don't use 10 man tactical squads, with transports optional.

Now look at Orks. Only two core troops choices again, with grots being pure objective holding units. Boys, OTOH, can be built in many different ways: shooty horde, choppy horde, trukk boys, battlewagon boys. Orks can also take Bikes, Nobz, Nob Bikers, and Deff Dreads as troops. So, while the same boy may not be usable in different codices, he can be used in dramatically different builds.

Ditto eldar, with four core troops choices and optional wraithguard.

The advantages aren't as dramatic as perhaps you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Overall I agree with Polonius on this one, though with a side of Redbeard. While I'm not opposed to people swapping, I really do prefer it if a given army can easily be recognized to be whatever codex it's using- whether through color scheme or distinctive units.

And this is part of the problem. I'm currently playing with Space Wolf Razor/Fang spam. 15 Missile Launcher long fangs, four min grey hunter squads with meltas, razors all around, three MM/HF landspeeders, and two dreads.

That's a stupid space wolf army. it's a pretty cool iron hands army (if anything). The rules don't even match the fluff of the army.

It's not my fault that everything I want to do with codex space marines (psykers, tacticals, and devs) is done better with the wolf book.

A few years ago we went to Adepticon with guard. I was almost finished with a large steel legion army, then we decided to run Creed. I checked with the Adepticon guys and the ruling came back that I must use Cadian models if we run Creed. I was not happy, and I had to scramble to get Cadian models together.

Now, I have a pretty large collection of complete painted armies, but I also have a limited amount of time to build and paint new armies. I also have a strong desire to avoid paying GW any more money than necessary. When GW had the idea of "special character vulkan, or name him yourself", I know it was to make them more money. I don't mind because with one chapter scheme, I can play White Scars style, Salamanders style, Imperial Fists style, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc...

I am a proponent of WYSIWYG, I do build my armies with the appropriate armor and armaments, within reason (grenades and stuff). I also invest a lot of time in building, basing and painting my army. If you wanna be a purist and build seven different space marine chapters, knock yourself out, I'm impressed. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

Krak_kirby wrote:A few years ago we went to Adepticon with guard. I was almost finished with a large steel legion army, then we decided to run Creed. I checked with the Adepticon guys and the ruling came back that I must use Cadian models if we run Creed. I was not happy, and I had to scramble to get Cadian models together.

Now, I have a pretty large collection of complete painted armies, but I also have a limited amount of time to build and paint new armies. I also have a strong desire to avoid paying GW any more money than necessary. When GW had the idea of "special character vulkan, or name him yourself", I know it was to make them more money. I don't mind because with one chapter scheme, I can play White Scars style, Salamanders style, Imperial Fists style, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc...

I am a proponent of WYSIWYG, I do build my armies with the appropriate armor and armaments, within reason (grenades and stuff). I also invest a lot of time in building, basing and painting my army. If you wanna be a purist and build seven different space marine chapters, knock yourself out, I'm impressed. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

While that seems pretty silly of adepticon, was this during the old guard book?

If so, I can see how it would have mattered, as the different models were essentially "different codexes" in a way, since you have the doctrine/etc system, and the features on the steel legion would have conveyed a rules/wargear implication.

Not saying it was nice/necessary, but I could see that under the old book being an issue

All of my marines use the DA Robed bodies. Why? Because I like painting cloth and I think they look cool. Heck my GK's are using those torsos. I have squad markings and army markings on the seperate shoulder pads as appropriate though I like the sword Iconography so that is the chapter pad I use for my DIY (my GK's use them as Strike Squad markers).

I think it's fine if it's painted as DIY no matter what bitz you are using. Key things to note is PAINTED and DIY. I'd say don't run Ultra's as Wolves but that's more of a fluff issue for me since I can't see a company of Ultra's working like Wolves. But if it was WYSIWYG I probably would shrug and get my game on.

Polonius wrote:So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

What if a person doesn't want Wolf themed space vikings?

What about Blood Ravens, which explicitly don't have a known founding chapter?

There's a codex that exists for Space Marine Chapters that don't fall into one of the sub-codices. It's called Codex: Space Marines. This codex offers all of the rules for building a generic SM chapter.

If you build a Blood Angel army from the ground up, but don't use the BA bitz or symbolism, is it really a Blood Angel army?

If you don't want Wolf themed Space Vikings, don't play Space Wolves. WYSIWIG means What You See Is What You Get. There is a definite look to Space Wolves that is supported by GW, and using a generic marine to represent a Space Wolf, which it is quite clearly not, is exactly the same as if I used an Ork to represent a Space Wolf.

Polonius wrote:I get the general rule, no doubt, that codex shopping is an advantage. But I don't think it's as much a problem for WYSIWYG as it is a problem because people resent the advantage.

And yes, it's not fair that marines can swap, while xenos can't. Life's tough sometimes. A power armored space marine simply doesn't change that much in look, while a guardian and Ork are vastly different. I'm not talking about calling a clear Space Wolf a Blood Angel, but when you have a generic, DIY marine... how can you tell, as a player, that it's "meant" to be an ultra, not a wolf?

I resent the advantage. Absolutely no arguement from me on that point. However, I am also attempting to demonstrate how, from a literal interpretation of WYSIWYG, how you shouldn't be able to codex hop any more than a xeno chapter can codex hop. Just because you're close in appearance (What You See) does not mean that you're a representation of the model as promoted, manufactured, and sold by GW (What You Get).

The various codices impose certain restrictions regarding appearance. If you're not willing to comply with those restrictions, why should you enjoy the advantages offered by that codex?

You state that it's not acceptable to use a "clear Space Wolf" as a Blood Angel. So, why would it be acceptable to utilize a generic Space Marine to represent a Blood Angel? They are, after all, both power armored space marines. My contention is that they are vastly different, in the same way that an Ork and a Guardian are vastly different. If you're using a generic chapter, which would be covered under Codex: Space Marines, as another chapter, then you're by definition running a Proxy Army.

And "Life's tough sometimes" isn't a good arguement. It's just going to push people against your stance, rather than for it.

Polonius wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While I get your point, I find any argument of the form "if you do not take your models as seriously as I do, don't play 40k." It's needlessly insulting. Arguing that calling my fully painted Star Owls Space Wolves instead of Ultramarines is the same as playing with chits is a gross exageration that does nothing to advance discussion.

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Yeah, because my non-codex squad and company markings and hand painted chapter badges clearly idenfify my army as one thing. I appreciate being told that I don't have pride in them.

I don't think Redbeard is attempting to be insulting. He's taking the arguement to the extreme. I think the proper counter to "Why not play with cardboard tokens" is that GW doesn't currently make cardboard tokens to represent Space Marines.

If you tell me that I can't use my Orks as Space Wolves, but you can use your (Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Salamanders, Blood Angels, etc) as Space Wolves, then you're applying a different standard to each of us. You're telling me that I have to take my models more seriously than you take yours. Again, to me, this is the very definition of unfairness.

If you want to run a successor chapter with your own customer markings, have a field day with it. But keep it in the theme of the army you're basing it on. And for gods sakes, don't codex hop. Saying you're a successor to Space Wolves is fine, as long as you keep within a Space Wolf-like theme. Using a bunch of generic tacticals to represent Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, etc isn't keeping within that theme. And if I play you as Space Wolves at a tournament this month, and you're running as a successor chapter to Blood Angels next month, then you're just abusing the successor chapter concept to get around WYSIWYG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:To me, a space marine is a space marine.

I don't know the symbols on any of those helmets.

When I get my marines up and going (if ever) they're going to be pink and glittery - so decreed the wife. Does that mean that they are chaos marines? Presume that they are not. In which case, what codex are my pink/happy/butterfly/flowers space marines supposed to fit into?

There's a codex for that. It's called Codex: Space Marines, and contains the rules for running a generic chapter.

WYSIWYG, all of my armies follow it. I play BT and a codex list, using two different armies. The codex being Mentor Legion.

But I have one model that does not follow it. My custom built Marshal for my BT. He carries a large power sword, that I use as a lighting claw, mainly because I dislike the look of a LC on a power armored model, and especialy on my HQ. How would that fly? So far I have used him in every game using a LC and no one says otherwise, I even point out that everything is WYSIWYG except him, which is just the sword. Any thoughts? You can even check him out in my gallery.

@DashOfPepper:

Considering the long description of a possible situation where WYSIWIG can create tactical advantage due to misinterpretation, and the amount of coinage you have riding on these things (personally I think you are insane for doing so, but hey everyone enjoys the hobby differently ) I can appreciate your position with a bit more clarity.

Perhaps the solution in this case would be to carry a small wad of post-it notes with you to tournaments. If your opponent is unable to provide suitable WYSIWYG models, he should at least then be gracious enough to allow you to use other means to keep you informed. Say in the waveserpent example, if I was facing you in a tournament, and I had said bright lance-scatter laser proxies, and you said to me:
'good sir, may I stick this post-it note, upon which the words "SCATTER LASER NOT BRIGHT LANCE" are written to the flying stand of your wave serpent, to further aid my rum-addled brain in remembering the exact equipment, as per your army list, of your fine craftworld's machinations of my demise?', I would likely respond with 'Of course dear chap, stick away!'

Similar for lascannons count as ML, plasma count as melta, I'm quite sure a little note that follows the unit around isn't too damaging (aside from a loss of aesthetic appeal) to the experience, as it gets rid of some of the misinformation problems.




And as for your WAC shenanigans spreadsheet, I rather like that idea, personally I use 'wound rings' (read 'ring-pulls from beverage cans') and hang them from a convenient spike/blade for my multi-wound models. Much easier to identify on the field when lots of dice are everywhere, less likely to get lost or left behind, or accidentally rolled. So long as the marker is light enough not to overbalance the model, any sort of ring-shaped object would work quite well (even loops of brightly coloured string/rubber bands would be suitable).

Here's a perfect example of some Marine "counts as" right here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/368049.page

Is this acceptable or not?

Polonius wrote:I'd also point out that while Space Marines can shop between books, many xenos armies have more built in variety of army builds, at least in the 5th edition troops focused forms.

Look at Codex: space marines. Two basic troops choices, with bikes as an option. Scouts are a support unit, good mostly for objectives and some light shooting/harassment. Tacticals are a mediocre shooting unit and lousy at assault. In the current book, few armies don't use 10 man tactical squads, with transports optional.

Now look at Orks. Only two core troops choices again, with grots being pure objective holding units. Boys, OTOH, can be built in many different ways: shooty horde, choppy horde, trukk boys, battlewagon boys. Orks can also take Bikes, Nobz, Nob Bikers, and Deff Dreads as troops. So, while the same boy may not be usable in different codices, he can be used in dramatically different builds.

Ok, so same number of "core troops". Scouts have the option to take bolters, shotguns, bolt pistol + CCW, or sniper rifles. So in the same way that an ork boy mob can take choppa/slugga or shoota, scouts have multiple weapon choices.

Tacticals aren't "mediocre" at shooting. They're better than average. Guardmen are mediocre at shooting, and orks are just bad at it. Tacticals could be used to make a shooty horde. Scouts could be used to make a choppy horde. Tacticals can be placed in a transport, just like trukk boys. Tacticals could be mounted in a Land Raider just like mob can be mounted in a Battlewagon. No difference so far.

Bikes are only troops if you have a special character, in the same way that you can take Khan and make bikes a troop for SM. Nobs as a troop choice are only granted if you take a warboss (ditto for biker nobs), so you're dedicating an HQ choice to make one unit a troop. Deff Dreads may be the only thing that SM don't have an equivalent option for. But then again, they aren't that good either.

So, Codex SM has as many options as orks, without having to resort to codex hopping.

Polonius wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Overall I agree with Polonius on this one, though with a side of Redbeard. While I'm not opposed to people swapping, I really do prefer it if a given army can easily be recognized to be whatever codex it's using- whether through color scheme or distinctive units.

And this is part of the problem. I'm currently playing with Space Wolf Razor/Fang spam. 15 Missile Launcher long fangs, four min grey hunter squads with meltas, razors all around, three MM/HF landspeeders, and two dreads.

That's a stupid space wolf army. it's a pretty cool iron hands army (if anything). The rules don't even match the fluff of the army.

It's not my fault that everything I want to do with codex space marines (psykers, tacticals, and devs) is done better with the wolf book.

So you want the advantages of a Space Wolf army without the disadvantage of having a WYSIWYG SW army?

Polonius wrote:So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

Not by my logic, by the logic inherent in the game, and the WYSIWYG rules.

Let's break down the issue as it pertains to the eldar guy with the brightlances versus scatter lasers.

How do we know what a brightlance is? Could I glue a (painted) drinking straw to my tank and say it was a brightlance? No, because we see pictures in the codex of what a brightlance is. We also see pictures of what a scatter laser is. Could I glue a piece of sprue to my tank, and, being neither a brightlance or a scatter laser, claim it was either? No - again, we know what a brightlance is because we are given pictures.

Okay, now consider the same with marines. How do we know what a Space Marine is? Because we are shown pictures. How do we know what a Space Wolf is? Because we are shown pictures. Those pictures are not the same.

Discounting colour - I'm certainly not arguing about the validity of DIY chapters of any sort - the models simply look different. You might claim, "well, they're not as different as orks and guardians", to which I say they're still noticeably different. Want to try an experiment? Go through all the power armour codexes you want. Take scans of any of the marines in them. Run them through a black&white filter. I bet I can name the codex they come from with at least a 90% success rate. The ones that might be tricky are Dark Angel/Blood Angel/Vanilla tacticals, but even then, there are tells.

Space Wolves are not just Space Marines in Power Armour, they're space vikings. They have a distinct look to them. You can tell from the unpainted models that Space Wolves are different from Space Marines. And just because they're not as different as orks are from guardians, I don't see why they should be given any more leeway. Dark Eldar are not as different from Eldar as orks are either... Tau Firewarriors are not as different from Cadians as they are from Marines. These levels of distinction aren't relevant, what is relevant is that they are all different, and notably so.

What if a person doesn't want Wolf themed space vikings?

Are they even notably Space Vikings?

What about Blood Ravens, which explicitly don't have a known founding chapter?

Blood Ravens may explicitly have no known founding chapter, but they are, explicitly, presented as a chapter that follows the Codex: Astartes, and as such, use Codex: Space Marines.

I get the general rule, no doubt, that codex shopping is an advantage. But I don't think it's as much a problem for WYSIWYG as it is a problem because people resent the advantage.

I don't care that it is an 'advantage' - I'm not even sure it is. People are spending $1000+ to go to GTs, they can afford to have a few extra boxes of marines. I care that there's a double-standard being applied. That MEQ players are being exempted from following the WYSIWYG rule because "their models aren't as different". BS. If I can point out how the models are different from four feet away, then they're different enough to matter. Guardians are not orks, Space Marines are not Space Wolves. The models do not look the same.

While I get your point, I find any argument of the form "if you do not take your models as seriously as I do, don't play 40k." It's needlessly insulting. Arguing that calling my fully painted Star Owls Space Wolves instead of Ultramarines is the same as playing with chits is a gross exageration that does nothing to advance discussion.

I am not intending to imply that your models are not quality models. I am attempting to extend a different analogy. You are, self-admittedly, using the models from one codex, while using the rules from another because you believe the rules from the other are superior. I'm saying, if the rules are more important than the models, there are games, like ASL, that have such significantly better rules, that maybe if the rules, and not the models, are the more important thing to you, you should consider these other games with much better rules (though much worse models).

And this is part of the problem. I'm currently playing with Space Wolf Razor/Fang spam. 15 Missile Launcher long fangs, four min grey hunter squads with meltas, razors all around, three MM/HF landspeeders, and two dreads.

That's a stupid space wolf army. it's a pretty cool iron hands army (if anything). The rules don't even match the fluff of the army.

It's not my fault that everything I want to do with codex space marines (psykers, tacticals, and devs) is done better with the wolf book.

You're right, it's not your fault that GW wrote a stupid book. But, it is your choice to use it. You could play Eldar. You wouldn't choose to use Space Marine models in that case. How are your models visually recognizable as Space Wolves? How do I know what codex you're using by looking at your models? And if you don't want to play Space Vikings, then you can choose not to use the Space Wolves codex. I choose to use ork models - I choose not to use Codex Space Wolves with those models. You can make the same choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:Here's a perfect example of some Marine "counts as" right here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/368049.page

Is this acceptable or not?

No. That model clearly has an Iron Halo. An Iron Halo is a piece of wargear that confers a game effect (4++). Mephiston does not have a 4++. Not WYSIWYG.

GW actively encourage using plain marines for certain space wolf troop types. Try and buy a box of long fangs and see what you get.
Granted you can try and wolfy them up by kit bashing. But I would not have thought it should be a tournament requirment.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

Not by my logic, by the logic inherent in the game, and the WYSIWYG rules.

You'll have to show what tournament ever defined WYSIWYG as such, otherwise you're proferring your opinion as fact.

A tournament puts forth the rules, "Unless otherwise specified in the event rules, or receiving tournament organizer approval, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s)."

When I go to GW's site, and look under Space Marines, I am not shown Space Wolves. When I look under Space Wolves, I am not shown Space Marine Tactical Squads. This would seem to imply that they're not the same model range.

Dashofpepper wrote:To me, a space marine is a space marine.

I don't know the symbols on any of those helmets.

When I get my marines up and going (if ever) they're going to be pink and glittery - so decreed the wife. Does that mean that they are chaos marines? Presume that they are not. In which case, what codex are my pink/happy/butterfly/flowers space marines supposed to fit into?

They're called Pretty Marines.

Redbeard wrote:
Not by my logic, by the logic inherent in the game, and the WYSIWYG rules.

What rules? If there are actual rules, than cite them. The RAW on WYSIWYG is pretty loose, and tournaments are all over the board in their requirements.

Even then, the purpose of the rules is to make it clear, by visual inspection, what rules are associated with what model. Now, you might be able to tell that a red painted marine with a bolter is a Blood Angel by looking at it's chapter badges, but GW sells the exact same box for DA, BA, and SM. Just because you think a person ought to be able to tell what chapter, and thus what rules, a power armored marine is using, doens't mean that's the normal standard.

How do we know what a brightlance is? Could I glue a (painted) drinking straw to my tank and say it was a brightlance? No, because we see pictures in the codex of what a brightlance is. We also see pictures of what a scatter laser is. Could I glue a piece of sprue to my tank, and, being neither a brightlance or a scatter laser, claim it was either? No - again, we know what a brightlance is because we are given pictures.

Wargear is different, as that's not a counts-as issue. Wargear can vary within and army and squad. Codex doesn't.

Okay, now consider the same with marines. How do we know what a Space Marine is? Because we are shown pictures. How do we know what a Space Wolf is? Because we are shown pictures. Those pictures are not the same.
Discounting colour - I'm certainly not arguing about the validity of DIY chapters of any sort - the models simply look different. You might claim, "well, they're not as different as orks and guardians", to which I say they're still noticeably different. Want to try an experiment? Go through all the power armour codexes you want. Take scans of any of the marines in them. Run them through a black&white filter. I bet I can name the codex they come from with at least a 90% success rate. The ones that might be tricky are Dark Angel/Blood Angel/Vanilla tacticals, but even then, there are tells.

I'm sure your parents must be happy you can do that. I tend to simply ask my opponent "what are those" and remember it. I find remembering "I'm playing against Blood Angels" is easier than trying to find blood drops on shoulder pads.

Space Wolves are not just Space Marines in Power Armour, they're space vikings. They have a distinct look to them. You can tell from the unpainted models that Space Wolves are different from Space Marines. And just because they're not as different as orks are from guardians, I don't see why they should be given any more leeway. Dark Eldar are not as different from Eldar as orks are either... Tau Firewarriors are not as different from Cadians as they are from Marines. These levels of distinction aren't relevant, what is relevant is that they are all different, and notably so.

What if I build my marines out of old Grey Hunter boxes, but don't use any of the wolf bitz? Does every space wolf model need a wolf bit on it somewhere to be acceptable?

While I get your point, I find any argument of the form "if you do not take your models as seriously as I do, don't play 40k." It's needlessly insulting. Arguing that calling my fully painted Star Owls Space Wolves instead of Ultramarines is the same as playing with chits is a gross exageration that does nothing to advance discussion.

I am not intending to imply that your models are not quality models. I am attempting to extend a different analogy. You are, self-admittedly, using the models from one codex, while using the rules from another because you believe the rules from the other are superior. I'm saying, if the rules are more important than the models, there are games, like ASL, that have such significantly better rules, that maybe if the rules, and not the models, are the more important thing to you, you should consider these other games with much better rules (though much worse models).

And I'm saying, as a person who does not suffer some cognitive disfunction, who has posted on this board for longer than a month, knows that the argument is only viable when you assume that everybody values the aspects of the hobby the same way you do.

it would be like me telling you that if you who are interested in making sure that markings and colors are appropriate, historical wargaming might be better for you. It's true, but it ignores that there are many reasons to play 40k.

You're right, it's not your fault that GW wrote a stupid book. But, it is your choice to use it. You could play Eldar. You wouldn't choose to use Space Marine models in that case. How are your models visually recognizable as Space Wolves? How do I know what codex you're using by looking at your models? And if you don't want to play Space Vikings, then you can choose not to use the Space Wolves codex. I choose to use ork models - I choose not to use Codex Space Wolves with those models. You can make the same choice.

You don't. You will never be able to figure out what codex I'm using if we play.

Redbeard wrote:A tournament puts forth the rules, "Unless otherwise specified in the event rules, or receiving tournament organizer approval, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s)."

When I go to GW's site, and look under Space Marines, I am not shown Space Wolves. When I look under Space Wolves, I am not shown Space Marine Tactical Squads. This would seem to imply that they're not the same model range.

have a look at space wolves heavy weapons and fast attack ranges. there is nothing but plain marines.

Infact in the space wolf HQ section there is a space marine captain model.

Redbeard wrote:A tournament puts forth the rules, "Unless otherwise specified in the event rules, or receiving tournament organizer approval, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s)."

When I go to GW's site, and look under Space Marines, I am not shown Space Wolves. When I look under Space Wolves, I am not shown Space Marine Tactical Squads. This would seem to imply that they're not the same model range.

So in other words, no you don't have any rules to back you up. got it.

You also can have fun with interpreting the phrase "appropriate model range(s)"

The (s) modifier implies that some armies can be built out of more than one model range.

Appropriate is also a term that is subjective.

So... Would this be WYSIWYG...

A standard marine, of the 'nilla variety.
Give him a halberd / sword from the fantasy range (old chaos warriors had nice big chunky ones)
Give him an angellus boltgun / stormbolter / cut-down bolter(or pistol) stuck to his arm with a double barrel.
Give him a lick of silver paint.

It's definetly NOT a grey knight (as in, the ones in the box), its a 'nilla marine. But he is armed with a halberd and a double barrelled bolter weapon and is silver, so what else could he be but a GK?

My standard is thus...

If I look at your models, assuming I'm vaguely familiar with your codex and it's capabilities... can I understand what I'm looking at? Can I recognize your units and their war gear so that I can make good battlefield decisions while our game is going on?

If the answer to that is "yes", then any other issues I chalk off to artistry, personal preference, or laziness at worst.

If the answer is "no", then I have an issue for the TO.

Redbeard wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:Here's a perfect example of some Marine "counts as" right here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/368049.page

Is this acceptable or not?

No. That model clearly has an Iron Halo. An Iron Halo is a piece of wargear that confers a game effect (4++). Mephiston does not have a 4++. Not WYSIWYG.

Look at Captain Tycho in the GW store. He does not have a Iron Halo modeled on him, but in the codex he does have an Iron Halo. So even Tycho is not WYSIWYG.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440191a&prodId=prod1100001

Polonius wrote:
Even then, the purpose of the rules is to make it clear, by visual inspection, what rules are associated with what model. Now, you might be able to tell that a red painted marine with a bolter is a Blood Angel by looking at it's chapter badges, but GW sells the exact same box for DA, BA, and SM. Just because you think a person ought to be able to tell what chapter, and thus what rules, a power armored marine is using, doens't mean that's the normal standard.

But they don't sell the exact same box for a Space Wolf and a Space Marine. And Space Wolves have several rules that would be nice to know about by looking at the models, no? If the purpose of the rules is "to make it clear, by visual inspection, what rules are associated with what model." then that goes for things like night vision and counter attack too. Those are rules, and they're not hard for you to make it clear that they're associated with your models.

I'm sure your parents must be happy you can do that. I tend to simply ask my opponent "what are those" and remember it. I find remembering "I'm playing against Blood Angels" is easier than trying to find blood drops on shoulder pads.

Asking and remembering is exactly why we require WYSIWYG - read a few pages ago. I believe that the eldar player was told, in no uncertain terms, that it was unreasonable to ask his opponent to remember that his brightlances were actually scatter lasers. Why is it so hard to do the same with the basic models in your army?

You don't. You will never be able to figure out what codex I'm using if we play.

Exactly, that's why this is a problem.

Frazzled wrote:
So in other words, no you don't have any rules to back you up. got it.

Show me the rules that say I cannot use an ork as a space wolf. It's the same thing. A Space Wolf is not a Space Marine. While portions of those model ranges overlap, the basic models do not. Portions of the Grey Knight range overlaps with the Imperial Guard range, that doesn't mean I can throw down an ogryn as a paladin or marbo as coteaz. Portions of the Eldar and Dark Eldar ranges overlap, but that doesn't mean a wych is a banshee. Some models are shared between Space Wolves and Space Marines. That doesn't mean the basic Space Wolf is the same as the basic Space Marine. They're different models.

Again, you've noted a general rule which, as Polonius has noted, you've interepreted narrowly only to your interpretation.

Again, what tourney has ever actually applied your rule? What tourney has applied the rule that, to be WYSIWYG not only do you have to have the correct weapons, but you have to have the correct paint jobs, down to squad marks. I'll go get lunch and a book. It'll be a long wait.

Is it just me, or is the idea of using nobz and black ork bodies to build a space wolf army actually pretty cool?

Use looted rhinos, a mix of shootas and sluggas, armor up all the boys, and rock and roll.

We haven't even touched on the concept of successor chapters with different schemes and marks, some of which are in the codexes and some of which aren't.

@Polonius

There are a few excellent examples done by someone in the Wrecking Crew of Orks up-armored and built as a counts-as marine force. I think he's even using different clans to represent different SM codexes (i.e. Evil Sunz=Blood Angels). It's pretty sweet. I'm torn right now on building a Admech force that counts-as DE now that I've seen the size of the venom.....

Hulksmash wrote:@Polonius

There are a few excellent examples done by someone in the Wrecking Crew of Orks up-armored and built as a counts-as marine force. I think he's even using different clans to represent different SM codexes (i.e. Evil Sunz=Blood Angels). It's pretty sweet. I'm torn right now on building a Admech force that counts-as DE now that I've seen the size of the venom.....

Ignore the intranetz rage. If it looks good it will be well appreciated. PM how you plan on laying this out or linky to the thread.

dayve110 wrote:So... Would this be WYSIWYG...

A standard marine, of the 'nilla variety.
Give him a halberd / sword from the fantasy range (old chaos warriors had nice big chunky ones)
Give him an angellus boltgun / stormbolter / cut-down bolter(or pistol) stuck to his arm with a double barrel.
Give him a lick of silver paint.

It's definetly NOT a grey knight (as in, the ones in the box), its a 'nilla marine. But he is armed with a halberd and a double barrelled bolter weapon and is silver, so what else could he be but a GK?

As long as you play him as a strike squad member with a halberd and storm bolter. The point is, I don't have to remember what that model is equipped with. Oh, and also you need to make sure that if you want him to be an interceptor that you stick some antennae on his book bag. According to the current way of things.

I for one, personally resent the idea that all the marines with the exception of the Grey Knights are allowed to codex hop whenever they wish. If we are now differentiating between different minutia of Space Marines when considering who can and can't swap codexes whenever they damn well please, then I say that any marine that is not bearded or painted light blue can never count as a space wolf, anything that isn't covered in blood drop icons can't be counted as Blood Angels, and anything that isn't blue with lots of white arrows aren't Ultramarines.

It is certainly true that Grey Knights have significantly different looking weaponry as well as helmets that go against the norm of Spesh Mahreens. But if we are now saying, that a basic deviation of the space marines can't play count's as? Then I say we disallow it completely. If I spend hard earned time and money making my grey knights WYSIWYG then I damn well expect it from the others playing their respective codexes.

It's almost saying that they value the money of those who play Blood Angels or Ultramarines more, because they can get more for their money! Three armies for the price of one.

Frazzled wrote:Again, you've noted a general rule which, as Polonius has noted, you've interepreted narrowly only to your interpretation.

Again, what tourney has ever actually applied your rule? What tourney has applied the rule that, to be WYSIWYG not only do you have to have the correct weapons, but you have to have the correct paint jobs, down to squad marks. I'll go get lunch and a book. It'll be a long wait.

Now you're making stuff up. I've never said anything about paint jobs or squad markings. And while several tournaments do have rules that state that you must use models from the correct range, there is also a "counts-as" rule that exists specifically to allow for interesting conversions. I believe that marine players using this counts-as rule to simply hop from one codex to another is an exploitation of the counts-as rule. There is no conversion involved in having a tactical marine count-as a space wolf, and it's certainly not very interesting.

And, Frazzled, this isn't about rules, it's a discussion. People are talking about WYSIWYG. It is my opinion that Space Marine models are not WYSIWYG in Space Wolf armies. There are specific in-game advantages that Space Wolf models get, and having a visual representation that you're facing an army that has these advantages is no different than having a visual representation of which weapon choice your opponent put on their ship.

I think people are starting to take this a bit too far.

Only really keen and experienced players know the details of the different SM chapters to know that a Space Wolf Long Fang "officially" should have a beard and a tail on his helmet.

I'm quite surprised that such knowledgeable players could be fooled by painting your Space Wolf troops in green rather than grey.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

If people dislike codex hopping, and like converted armies, properly painted armies, and so on, that's fine. I lean that way myself.

We don't need to demonise people who just want to put variant helmets on their Black Templars.

It has always been allowed that you can take a Marines codex and make your own chapter with your own colours.

Red- Except, of course, that many Space Wolf units only have regular SM kits to represent them.

Bear in mind also that GW has explicitly sanctioned using a given SM chapter's rules or the generic ones, regardless of paint scheme. At least in the previous codex, and I think in this one too.

Now you're making stuff up. I've never said anything about paint jobs or squad markings.

Except of course, you did:

Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

Gitsplitta wrote:My standard is thus...

If I look at your models, assuming I'm vaguely familiar with your codex and it's capabilities... can I understand what I'm looking at? Can I recognize your units and their war gear so that I can make good battlefield decisions while our game is going on?

If the answer to that is "yes", then any other issues I chalk off to artistry, personal preference, or laziness at worst.

If the answer is "no", then I have an issue for the TO.

THIS is what I'm trying to say. =p

Dayve: Your conversion would be fine ---- because you converted it. Regular marines don't have halberds or storm bolters, so seeing a unit of those on the table gives me pause to at least ask what they are. On the flip side, if they're armed with regular bolters and are tactical marines being counted as a GK unit with halberds and storm bolters....I'm going to have an issue when I drive up 26" away and park an AV10 open-topped vehicle ready for a next turn assault, and you move up 6" and proceed to light me up with storm bolters.

Visually identifiable is the point of this thread, and my concern of a new Marine Dex that isn't interchangeable with the other codexes for visually correct models - when I'm not sure what something has, I'll ask. But if something is obvious...and just being proxied, then I have an issue. Like the Bright Lances counting as Scatter Lasers. If Smitty pulls my Necrons this weekend at the GT...one of those weapons is potentially dangerous to my army, one is not. But in all likelihood, I'm going to be inebriated, and not be sitting on enough mental acuity to keep track of proxies and count as armies.

Gitsplitta wrote:My standard is thus...

If I look at your models, assuming I'm vaguely familiar with your codex and it's capabilities... can I understand what I'm looking at? Can I recognize your units and their war gear so that I can make good battlefield decisions while our game is going on?

If the answer to that is "yes", then any other issues I chalk off to artistry, personal preference, or laziness at worst.

If the answer is "no", then I have an issue for the TO.

Don't forget cheaposity, my primary reason for replacing any model for another. That being said, I'm in agreement with Gitsplitta on this topic. I'm not concerned about opponents codex hopping with the same-colored marines, as long as I can recognize what I'm fighting.

I once used my eldar force to sub for wolves in a friendly game with no objections: Reapers as ML long fangs, DA's for bolter grey hunters, Scorpions for MoTW, Banshees for PW marines, Dragons for Melta marines. Asurmen was my Logan and exarchs counted as his wolf guard. Harlequins as wolf scouts. The person I played against had no problems recognizing anything since it was all color coded (skittles eldar) but the TO for my gaming club said that it would confuse too many people. Okaaaayyyy...?

I understand that everyone has their own level of tolerance for WYSIWYG and that the primary reason it's there is not for "professional" competitive play, but the ruleset as a whole fails in this regard. I bear this in mind and try to keep things as simple and direct as I can for my opponent if I'm using any proxy or counts-as. Can they easily recognize the alternate model for what it's intended? If not, is there someway I can make the model closer to the original?

Finally, the Rule of Cool has precedence in my book to all other considerations. Am I impressed by what I see to the point that I'd consider making one for my own army? If so, you get a free ride, no matter what differences the alternate has compared to the original.

Dashofpepper wrote: But in all likelihood, I'm going to be inebriated, and not be sitting on enough mental acuity to keep track of proxies and count as armies.

This.

What is reasonable for a casual game on a Saturday afternoon is not what is reasonable for game 5 of a 3 day tourney weekend with lots of drinking, very little sleep and mental and physical exhaustion. Those minor mental burdens add up and puts your opponent at a disadvantage. You should never burden your opponent unfairly, and you never have the ability to decide what is fair and unfair.

So for tourneys, if the rule is WYSIWYG, then you should try to meet it, and the TO will decide 'what is fair'. If you don't feel confident in your standard ask the TO.

I feel showing up to an event with the express intent of being exempt from rules because you don't think it is a big deal is a bad attitude to have.

I once used my eldar force to sub for wolves in a friendly game with no objections: Reapers as ML long fangs, DA's for bolter grey hunters, Scorpions for MoTW, Banshees for PW marines, Dragons for Melta marines. Asurmen was my Logan and exarchs counted as his wolf guard. Harlequins as wolf scouts. The person I played against had no problems recognizing anything since it was all color coded (skittles eldar) but the TO for my gaming club said that it would confuse too many people. Okaaaayyyy...?

It is confusing, I would be very upset if I faced an eldar armyw ith eldar weapons using space wolves rules at a tourney that explicitly required WYSIWYG. You shouldn't expect to have rules ignored for you nor should you be allowed to burden opponents.

That is why the event has rules... Your TO was being diplomatic that your proxies would not be welcome at an event he runs and you 'mock' him by trivializing your opponents valid concerns.

nkelsch wrote:That is why the event has rules... Your TO was being diplomatic that your proxies would not be welcome at an event he runs and you 'mock' him by trivializing your opponents valid concerns.

No, he wasn't particularly diplomatic, but that's a different story. The only guidelines for use of models in league play are that they must be GW models. All of which mine were. I took the time to make sure that he was okay with what I planned to do and he wasn't so I brought my necron army with Immortals converted from Warriors and a destroyer Lord made to look like a wraith.

However, if I was confronted with the same situation, I would take it in stride, ask questions so I was sure what was what, and take quick notes if I needed to. I'm provided with an army list from my opponent and can easily note what units are what on said list.

Of course, I don't consider this to be a challenge intellectually, but I understand how it can be to others and this, truth be told, was the TO's primary concern - whether the other members of the club were quick enough of wit to make the connections.

Frazzled wrote:

Now you're making stuff up. I've never said anything about paint jobs or squad markings.

Except of course, you did:

Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

Oh, so I did. That's what I get for not being clear. I didn't mean that you can only play Space Wolves if you're painted as Space Wolves, but that if you're painted as Ultramarines, your opponent should have a reasonable expectation that you're actually playing Codex:Space Marines, and not Codex: Blood Angels. If you bring a fully-painted chapter that's well known (one of the founding chapters, one of the chapters with its own rulebook) then I think that using a different codex is confusing for your opponent, in exactly the same way that using the wrong weapon would be.

I did not claim that "you have to have the correct paint jobs, down to squad marks," in order to be WYSIWYG, which is what you seem to be presenting as my view. It's not.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Now you're making stuff up. I've never said anything about paint jobs or squad markings.

Except of course, you did:

Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

Oh, so I did. That's what I get for not being clear. I didn't mean that you can only play Space Wolves if you're painted as Space Wolves, but that if you're painted as Ultramarines, your opponent should have a reasonable expectation that you're actually playing Codex:Space Marines, and not Codex: Blood Angels. If you bring a fully-painted chapter that's well known (one of the founding chapters, one of the chapters with its own rulebook) then I think that using a different codex is confusing for your opponent, in exactly the same way that using the wrong weapon would be.

I did not claim that "you have to have the correct paint jobs, down to squad marks," in order to be WYSIWYG, which is what you seem to be presenting as my view. It's not.

I think we're in agreement actually for a tournament. If your guys are painted/bitted up as space pups, I'd have grumbles if you said they were BAs. Now if they were a DIY chapter I wouldn't care, but if you have a direct codex force I'd have more of an issue. Its stiull WYSIWYG (if its appropriately done) but I'd call out the Loser card on that.

There was a recent large tournament that a player played Crimson Fists as Blood Angels, and no one minded.

And for more the internet outrage, if you're going to throw down the "I have the right to a good game and not having to remember what all your stuff is" card, yet also complain about being sleep deprived and inebriated, well I'll have to turn that card against you and say:

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

That's fine for a casual game but not a tournament game.

Gavin Thorne wrote:

nkelsch wrote:That is why the event has rules... Your TO was being diplomatic that your proxies would not be welcome at an event he runs and you 'mock' him by trivializing your opponents valid concerns.

No, he wasn't particularly diplomatic, but that's a different story. The only guidelines for use of models in league play are that they must be GW models. All of which mine were. I took the time to make sure that he was okay with what I planned to do and he wasn't so I brought my necron army with Immortals converted from Warriors and a destroyer Lord made to look like a wraith.

However, if I was confronted with the same situation, I would take it in stride, ask questions so I was sure what was what, and take quick notes if I needed to. I'm provided with an army list from my opponent and can easily note what units are what on said list.

Of course, I don't consider this to be a challenge intellectually, but I understand how it can be to others and this, truth be told, was the TO's primary concern - whether the other members of the club were quick enough of wit to make the connections.

See, this condescending insulting attitude is part of the problem... You don't have to see it as a problem for you. This is a very visual game and people make snap judgements and tactical based on visual queues... WYSIWYG is there for a reason. Everything that forces someone to look at notes, take notes, read an army list, remember, have something explained, asked to be explained is a BURDEN. The event requires it, show up willing to play by the rules or go home. Saying 'GW models' allows total army proxies is absurd on its face and doesn't give you much credit to allow a TO to let your example fly.

You want to use proxies in informal play with opponents consent? knock yourself out... If the event requires WYSIWYG then take your proxies elsewhere. Don't assume your opponent is mentally deficient or some other way of saying 'dumb' because they don't want to deal with your proxies in an event where everyone but you showed up prepared to play by the rules.

Eldar as Space Wolves have no reason to exist and are even a stretch for casual play. I am not even sure I would want to spend 2 hours messing around with that level of total army proxy as it simply isn't fun. I don't think I would be sad not interacting with you for 2 hours given the unreasonableness of your request to proxy the entire army. It would take a lot of convincing (like playtesting or some other example) for me to basically waste my time and sacrifice my experience so you could proxy an entire army. If this was just a pick up game, I could just play someone else who isn't doing a total army proxy and still have fun.

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

If the event has rules against being intoxicated or hung over, then complain to the TO. The event has rules against proxies and NON-WYSIWYG armies burdening opponents then you should follow those rules.

I am not sure that your opponent impacting himself burdens you... People can burden themselves all they want... they shouldn't unfairly burden their opponent.

Now BO, that does burden opponents, which is why many TOs require bathing as a rule

whitedragon wrote:There was a recent large tournament that a player played Crimson Fists as Blood Angels, and no one minded.

And for more the internet outrage, if you're going to throw down the "I have the right to a good game and not having to remember what all your stuff is" card, yet also complain about being sleep deprived and inebriated, well I'll have to turn that card against you and say:

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

That's fine for a casual game but not a tournament game.

I don't drink much at these large events. I'd still be annoyed by having to remember that an obvious bright lance is actually a scatter laser.

Janthkin wrote:

whitedragon wrote:There was a recent large tournament that a player played Crimson Fists as Blood Angels, and no one minded.

And for more the internet outrage, if you're going to throw down the "I have the right to a good game and not having to remember what all your stuff is" card, yet also complain about being sleep deprived and inebriated, well I'll have to turn that card against you and say:

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

That's fine for a casual game but not a tournament game.

I don't drink much at these large events. I'd still be annoyed by having to remember that an obvious bright lance is actually a scatter laser.

I don't drink much either while playing. I had a beer on the last round of the TT to calm my splitting headache, but that was it. I think we've moved past the Bright Lance as Scatter Laser bit, though, and now we're claiming foul on DIY marine chapters and codex hopping.

Frazzled wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

Not by my logic, by the logic inherent in the game, and the WYSIWYG rules.

You'll have to show what tournament ever defined WYSIWYG as such, otherwise you're proferring your opinion as fact.

Adepticon 2011 Model Policy, found at http://www.adepticon.org/11rules/2011modelpolicy.pdf , states:

"Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all tournaments. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Models not appropriately represented will be removed from the game."

A SM Devestator with a Missile Launcher is not a Long Fang. He does not have a beard, wolf tails, wolf pelt, wolf claws, or ANY of the unique items that make a Long Fang a Long Fang and not a Devestator. He does not have a shoulder pad with angel wings and a teardrop, a helmet with a teardrop, a torso with angel wings and/or a teardrop, legs with a teardrop, a bolter with angel wings and/or a teardrop, or a backpack with a teardrop. If he had one of those, I wouldn't mind you calling him a blood angel. But none of those? Then he's a Codex: Space Marines Devestator.

GW sells upgrade sprues for various SM Chapters. These include bits made specifically for modelling your SM as that chapter.

So yes, the Tactical Marine box may be a starting point for a non C:SM chapter, but they aren't the ending point.

Also, I'm the one who mentioned chapter markings. I consider WYSIWYG to only apply to modeling and not to painting. However, there are GW modeled bits for all of the SM chapters that GW has published with non-generic C:SM rules.

Adepticon 2011 Model Policy, found at http://www.adepticon.org/11rules/2011modelpolicy.pdf , states:

"Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all tournaments. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Models not appropriately represented will be removed from the game."

****That doesn't support your argument. It supports mine. It says nothing about oconography. bits etc. ONLY weapons/options. DUHHH!
Thanks though.

Frazzled wrote:Adepticon 2011 Model Policy, found at http://www.adepticon.org/11rules/2011modelpolicy.pdf , states:

"Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all tournaments. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Models not appropriately represented will be removed from the game."

****That doesn't support your argument. It supports mine. It says nothing about oconography. bits etc. ONLY weapons/options. DUHHH!
Thanks though.

I'm fairly sure he's focusing on the bolded portion.

It also doesn't say anything about them not being orks.

Do I need to find where it says you cannot use orks as Space Marines? I can't - it's so obvious that it isn't written anywhere.

What we have is GW's site. With separate sections for Space Wolves and Space Marines and Blood Angels. Some models are found in more than one section (rhinos, for example). But others are not. You won't find Space Marine Tactical Squads in the Space Wolf section of the GW website. That implies that they're not "appropriate models" for a Space Wolf army.

Redbeard wrote:It also doesn't say anything about them not being orks.

Do I need to find where it says you cannot use orks as Space Marines? I can't - it's so obvious that it isn't written anywhere.

What we have is GW's site. With separate sections for Space Wolves and Space Marines and Blood Angels. Some models are found in more than one section (rhinos, for example). But others are not. You won't find Space Marine Tactical Squads in the Space Wolf section of the GW website. That implies that they're not "appropriate models" for a Space Wolf army.

OT but I'd love to see an ork force done up as marines replete with looted and kitbashed armor.

He might be but fortunately most major events aren't playing to the lowest common denominator. They figure that with the exchange of lists, the name of the codex your opponent is playing, and properly equipped (read: Weapons) that 99.9% of people involved in their event would be able to easily identify a Marine model as what it's suppose to represent.

On a side note rule of cool applies just as much at Adepticon. Just check with them first. If they feel it'll work but is slightly confusing worst they'll do is make you bring name tokens for the units

Janthkin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Adepticon 2011 Model Policy, found at http://www.adepticon.org/11rules/2011modelpolicy.pdf , states:

"Units must always be represented by appropriate models. This is the single, most important rule. The 'What You See Is What You Get' (WYSIWYG) rule is in effect for all tournaments. That means all units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s). Models not appropriately represented will be removed from the game."

****That doesn't support your argument. It supports mine. It says nothing about oconography. bits etc. ONLY weapons/options. DUHHH!
Thanks though.

I'm fairly sure he's focusing on the bolded portion.

however that still doesn't help. Jump packs help pick out an assault squad. Icon on the shoulderplate's irrelevant unless you have great hallway vision and a talent for missing the obvious.

@Frazz

Here is the blood angel one I was talking about:
http://40kwreckingcrew.aceboard.com/331128-5782-5813-0-Blood-Orks.htm

Interesting.

I've used the following;




...as;

TH/SS Terminators
GK Terminators
Grey Knights

I've used the Emperor as;

Terminator in Libby Armor
Grey Knight Grandmaster
Lysander


.....all at Adepticon. I explained to my opponent each time what they were and have received full sports each and every game I've played over 3 years. Most people----don't give a toss provided you explain it to them. Internet arguments don't usually represent real life.

AoE pwons all. Quick someone get him a trophy!

Linky to this army?

AgeOfEgos wrote:.....all at Adepticon. I explained to my opponent each time what they were and have received full sports each and every game I've played over 3 years. Most people----don't give a toss provided you explain it to them and your minis are ridiculously awesome...

FTFY

Also, I'm not a big fan of that Ork army. It is creative and pretty and I like it, but I don't like it from a tournament standpoint. Orks with 'eavy armor do not look like Power Armored BA to me. It just forces an additional layer of processing onto the game and can lead to bad feelings. You want to play that for fun? Sure, I'll play it any day of the week, just not at a tourney.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as much as I like AoE's minis... Kind of stretching it for the Emp to be Lysander. No SS, no TH... I can get GKGM or Librarian with the right wargear, but Sword and Claw don't equal SSTH.

Redbeard wrote:Do I need to find where it says you cannot use orks as Space Marines? I can't - it's so obvious that it isn't written anywhere.

Some people use orks for Space Marine forces....and you can't deny they look awesome.

pretre wrote:Also, I'm not a big fan of that Ork army. It is creative and pretty and I like it, but I don't like it from a tournament standpoint. Orks with 'eavy armor do not look like Power Armored BA to me. It just forces an additional layer of processing onto the game and can lead to bad feelings. You want to play that for fun? Sure, I'll play it any day of the week, just not at a tourney.

I'd agree. My first thought is not "Cool Blood Angels army," it's "Cool ork army! And what's with the fighta-bomba in a no FW event?"

Carnage43 wrote:
Some people use orks for Space Marine forces....and you can't deny they look awesome.

\
Now those, on the other hand, look like orks in power armor and I have no problem with them. They are both awesome AND WYSIWYG from the looks of it.

whitedragon wrote:
And for more the internet outrage, if you're going to throw down the "I have the right to a good game and not having to remember what all your stuff is" card, yet also complain about being sleep deprived and inebriated, well I'll have to turn that card against you and say:

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

That's fine for a casual game but not a tournament game.

You're creating cause and effect where there is none. Stop.

You have no basis for saying, "You drinking is negatively impacting my game."
I have basis for saying, "You being too lazy to model your stuff to follow the rules is negatively impacting my game."

I drink (and share) because I'm a happy drunk. I joke more, get along with people better, am more sociable...and MOST IMPORTANTLY...I let more shenanigans slide and deal with poor sports better.

If someone is creeping extra distance to try getting shots on me or to get into assault range and I'm sober, I call them on it, and either offer my tactical template for them to place on the table, or ask them to start putting their tape measure on the table. If I'm drunk, I giggle to myself because I know its not going to help them anyway.

If someone is being sullen because they're getting tabled, if I'm sober I feel guilty for making them feel inadequate. If I'm drunk, I try getting them drunk too or at least to joke with me. I run into this often. I'd bet that about nine in every ten wins is tabling my opponent.

When I measure, I put my tape measure down *on* the table, starting at the base of my model and extending however far I'm moving. I leave my tape measure there, move my model up precisely the correct distance, then pick the tape measure up from the table. It has never resulted in a problem - sober or not. I encourage my opponents to use the same method so no "eyeballing" distances happens - which people do quite sober.

THe only time liquor has affected a game of mine, I lost - and my opponent had a good time playing and had no complaints.

Frazzled wrote:
Linky to this army?

About finished with it--then I'll do an army profile on all of them. Thanks though!

pretre wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:.....all at Adepticon. I explained to my opponent each time what they were and have received full sports each and every game I've played over 3 years. Most people----don't give a toss provided you explain it to them and your minis are ridiculously awesome...

FTFY

Also, I'm not a big fan of that Ork army. It is creative and pretty and I like it, but I don't like it from a tournament standpoint. Orks with 'eavy armor do not look like Power Armored BA to me. It just forces an additional layer of processing onto the game and can lead to bad feelings. You want to play that for fun? Sure, I'll play it any day of the week, just not at a tourney.

I think you bring up the hidden point here---that no one has really touched on. Most people are perfectly fine with Counts As provided it's done for the right reasons (and looks cool). Which lends me to believe confusion has less to do with the issue than many believe. I used this example in the Mosh Pit (which is a wonder filled world---a Wonka Chocolate Factory for adult war gamers);



The way I view it....for those who don't care..


WYSIWYG exists for one purpose---to eliminate confusion. Given that, think on this;

One Ork player shows up with a 10 man differentiated Nob squad. They are all converted waiving beer mugs and gretchin as weapons. He has numbers on their base (1-10). He hands me a sheet that has a numbered list like;

1 Nob with Big Choppa
2 Nob with Big Choppa, Boss Pole
3 Nob with Power Klaw
etc.

....with a wound column (1, 2)

I can clearly look at the sheet, glance at his numbered bases and tell exactly what Nob was what. He keeps track of wounds on his with a marker and I can do the same---and quite clearly see who has what wounds when---with a glance.



Another Ork player shows up with a 10 man differentiated Nob squad. They are all WYSIWYG---however due to non-glaring differences between Orks---it's difficult to discern what exact model has a Kombi-scorcha as opposed to a Shoota or Twin Linked Shoota---or carrying an ammo runt.




So one of those examples is WYSIWYG---the other is not-----but the first example is more conducive to eliminating confusion during the game.

So the question shouldn't be; "Is WYSIWYG important"----but "Is communication important?" Because honestly...if someone explains what unit is what---and asks me to play this army during a WYSIWYG tournament;



My answer is hell yes! Please let me line up against that beauty and snap some photos!

Frazzled wrote:
OT but I'd love to see an ork force done up as marines replete with looted and kitbashed armor.

Yes, that would be awfully cool. But what if your opponent just plopped down shoota boys and said 'these are bolters'. See the difference? Rule of cool and all.

Frazzled wrote:
however that still doesn't help. Jump packs help pick out an assault squad. Icon on the shoulderplate's irrelevant unless you have great hallway vision and a talent for missing the obvious.

No more irrelevant than the gun. That's the point I'm trying to get at here. There is definitely a line - we all seem to agree on that.

We say 'it would be confusing to an opponent if all the brightlances in your army were actually scatter lasers' - even if your opponent gives you a list that clearly states 'scatter laser' everywhere.

But then don't hold to the same standard when dealing with different marines. "It shouldn't be confusing if my list says Space Wolves". So, it's okay for me to have to remember that all of the tactical marines in your army have an extra weapon (that's probably not modeled), that they have Acute Senses and Counter Attack, based on the fact that you gave me a list that said Space Wolves (in spite of the visual evidence that you're not using Space Wolf models), but it's not okay for me to have to remember that your brightlances are scatter lasers, based on the same format army list.

I don't understand how people are not seeing this as a double standard.


This has nothing to do with the rule of cool, either. AgeOfEgos - your Custodians are cool. There's nothing wrong with army-wide conversions. The Rule of Cool should always be considered.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
OT but I'd love to see an ork force done up as marines replete with looted and kitbashed armor.

Yes, that would be awfully cool. But what if your opponent just plopped down shoota boys and said 'these are bolters'. See the difference? Rule of cool and all.

1. You'd have to tell me which ones are shoota boyz in the first place
2. I think the more appropriate example is someone plops down a load of orks with bolters and says "these are tacmarines" Cool. I care about the weapons. I know they are all going to be 3+ unless they have termie look alikes. Can we be honest and say WYSIWYG is 90% about the weapons and whether or not the are wearing jump packs?

Frazzled wrote:
however that still doesn't help. Jump packs help pick out an assault squad. Icon on the shoulderplate's irrelevant unless you have great hallway vision and a talent for missing the obvious.

No more irrelevant than the gun.

it's not double standard. It's two different standards for situations that most people see differently.

Nearly all WYSIWYG rules are based on wargear, not inherent skills and rules. So you don't need to model coutnerattack when given by grandstrategy. Or the Pathfinder upgrade for Eldar Rangers.

So, things like acute sense and counterattack are never modelled, even when propely bought.

WYSIWYG rules have also always been forgiving for "basic" weaponry. So if you model a tactical marine to be reading an auspex but not carrying a bolter, most people are ok with it. This comes up more with assault gear (where dual pistols or dual CCWs is pretty common).

Where the WYSIWYG rules have consistently been applied is that upgrades must be clearly marked. So a lascannon is a lascannon.

Counts as is a tricky one. At least partially because it's explicity condoned by GW now, and partially because most players can remember what army their playing against.

You can make the argumetn, and you have, that you can't easily tell that a squad is grey hunters if if looks like a tactical squad. I'm not even saying it's not true. It's just not a situation generally envisions by most policies.

To sum up, calling a star cannon a bright lance is calling one easily identified thing another. calling a generically painted and modeled marine a grey hunter is calling something indeterminate soemthing specific.

I guess I'd rather see cool converted armies people put their hearts into than another standard SM army. I'm willing to put in that extra amount of work personally.

Frazzled wrote:Can we be honest and say WYSIWYG is 90% about the weapons and whether or not the are wearing jump packs?

I think that depends on how involved you are in the hobby side of the game. I can't tell you what it means to you. I can tell you that, on my models, I go out of my way to ensure that as many options as possible are modeled, and will make sure to point them out when asked. You won't need to ask me which model has the banner, or the bosspole, or the squig, because it will be obvious. Some of us actually have fun working up the conversions to ensure that these upgrades are apparent.


To me, this is more an interesting thought than a practical concern. I'm not going to call a TO over if someone is using the marines as wolves or whatever. I've seen plenty of worse things, generally among younger players looking to save a dollar (look 10 chaos hounds as 'fiends', for the price of one actual fiend model). I really couldn't even tell you where the rule about WYSIWYG is in the rules anymore. I've been looking, and apparently it would be completely within the rules if I put orks down and called them marines. It used to be part of the codexes. For example, the Ork codex states, "note you may not take an upgrade unless a model in the unit actually has it." But this seems to have been omitted from more recent codexes. Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and so on simply omit this entirely - perhaps WYSIWYG is simply being phased out at GW.

Magnets.... nuffsaid.

Again what do you do with DIY chapters? Suppose I make up a chapter of marines that wear blue robes (ala Ultras and DA) but use the weapons and tactics of SW? There is no rule, to my knowledge, that says that successor chapters have to use the same iconography as their founders (wolf parts are not required on SW successors). As long as the weapons are properly identifiable then there should be no problem with WYSIWYG.

As to codex hopping other players can do the same thing within their own codex a lot of times. Eldar can play Uthwe or Saim-Hann with the same figures even though they use different "official" paint schemes and each craftworld has its own tactics (note: tactics are different from special rules). Orks can be Cult of Speed or Evil Suns again they use different paint schemes and have their own tactics. The only difference is that GW has made more options available to SM players then other players and needed multiple books to list all of the units/chapters.

I think Redbeard is speaking more of a code than of rules.

It's not uncommon for people to value older traditions even when other parts of the community have moved on. Look at the resentment towards special characters.

WYSIWYG is a stupid computer term picked up and used wrongly by GW to represent in 40K the longstanding rule from Ancients that a unit must be identifiable as type by being composed of a majority of figures that actually are equipped as the type represented, based in the correct formation.

For example, in a unit of mounted knights, the front rank must all have proper knightly armour and shields, lances or other knighly weapons. The rear rank can if desired by filled in by lesser armoured figures representing the poorer knights, squires and sergeants that IRL formed a big chunk of the unit.

There are several reasons why religious adherence to the rule does not work in 40K.

1. There are plenty of models which do not have representations of the equipment. Tau Fire Warriors have two types of grenades available. Their kit has only one type of grenade pack. There aren't enough grenade packs in the kit to equip all the models.

2. Then we get to units for which GW hasn't made a model. My Tyranids have converted Spods, Tyrannofex, Tervigon and Tyranid Prime because there aren't any official models.

3. For aesthetic reasons, I've also converted nearly all the other units in the army. Plenty of people do conversions. It is one of the main points of playing 40K. You can't convert Napoleonics or Imperial Romans.

4. Ard Boyz! A sea of grey WYSIWYG plastic.

5. Er...

6. That's it.

How big a problem is this really? How many people have actually lost a tournament because they thought that all of your Eldar shuriken cannons were not the brightlasers you told them at the beginning and put in your army list you gave them.

Can't people talk to each other at tournaments?

Who decided that WYSIWYG should be this week's Internet witch hunt?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Who decided that WYSIWYG should be this week's Internet witch hunt?

*Checks OP* - Dash did it!

At least we're not bemoaning people using different sized bases...

Don't get me started. A lot of my Tyranids are on different sized bases because the standard size isn't big enough.

Kilkrazy wrote:How big a problem is this really? How many people have actually lost a tournament because they thought that all of your Eldar shuriken cannons were not the brightlasers you told them at the beginning and put in your army list you gave them.

Can't people talk to each other at tournaments?

Who decided that WYSIWYG should be this week's Internet witch hunt?

If the TO decides it is a rule, then the rule should be enforced, if it isn't going to be enforced, it shouldn't be a rule.

If a TO doesn't want to require WYSIWYG, he doesn't have to. If he does require WYSIWYG then it is your sole responsibility to attempt to meet WYSIWYG to the best of your ability and any exceptions get explicitly cleared by the TO.

You can't just say 'I don't believe in WYSIWYG, I am going to show up with non-WYSIWYG models, demand to be allowed to play and call anyone with a problem with it a <bleep>.'

The reason people don't lose tourneys due to your Eldar shuriken cannons were not the brightlasers you told them at the beginning and put in your army list you gave them is because you would never be allowed to actually do this in a majority of the events I see on dakka and events I have attended.

I can tell you that I know of tons of examples where casual games went foul due to over-use of proxies and confusion ending up with bad feelings and either games stopping or game impacting mistakes being made.

If you don't like it, run your own Tourney and allow all the proxies you want. Proxies cause issues for games, and TOs almost universally disallow them.

As for base sizes... Ask your TO... It sounds like the problem is when people don't get the answer they want from the TO and feel their gaming rights have been violated so they want to have a bunch of 'yeAHZ WYSIWYG IS FUNFAIR!' posts on the internet.

There's no point trying to enforce WYSIWYG strictly as a rule since it is impossible for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

What we are discussing is what level of non-WYSIWYG is acceptable.

Kilkrazy wrote:
How big a problem is this really? How many people have actually lost a tournament because they thought that all of your Eldar shuriken cannons were not the brightlasers you told them at the beginning and put in your army list you gave them.

Another way to put it would be "How many people have actually lost a tournament because they thought that one weapon or piece of wargear was actually another?"

And the answer to that is: "All the time." I've been guilty of it too.

It happens. When it does happen, all blame must be on the party who mistakenly identified a piece of wargear or weapon. It was MY FAULT that I thought those Redeemer Flamers on those land raiders were lascannons. Would I have disembarked from all my battlewagons to bum rush them if I knew they were flamers? Nope. But if they *had* been the lascannon model, and he started in with shooting flames from them....I would have had a real problem.

I've had quite a few games where the reverse held true as well. People lose games against me because they make a mistake about a unit of mine. Not about a WYSIWYG issue, but about a unit's capability, or assault range, or save, or special rule...I answer questions freely, often even without being asked to make sure my opponent doesn't get surprised.

Like the time the Eldar player got out of all his wave serpents so that he could blade-storm my Deceiver. He thought STR4 could hurt T8.

People make enough mistakes as it is; all the time. Remembering all that stuff can be complicated. Adding new dimensions of problems by not even having stuff modeled to be what it is....is just too much.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's no point trying to enforce WYSIWYG strictly as a rule since it is impossible for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

What we are discussing is what level of non-WYSIWYG is acceptable.

It is not impossible to enforce and many of your reasons are excuses.

1. GW doesn't have to provide models for every unit or equipment. There are valid ways to distinguish a model with wargear to those without and a way to distinguish between one grenade and another grenade. Just because it takes conversion doesn't mean it is impossible and that people shouldn't make an effort to attempt to distinguish at all because one example falls flat. You would be surprised how far simply coloring something with different paint goes to making it clear this unit has a different upgrade.

2. Convert models for units GW doesn't make a model for. Not having a model doesn't give you carte blanche to proxy models that DO have models. We are not dumb, we can figure out how to make WYSIWYG Flash Gitz even though there are no official models. We can figure out Drop Pods and Tervigons based upon what they 'should' look like.

3. You can still convert for aesthetic reasons, it shouldn't be an excuse for allowing blatant proxies and unreasonable codex hopping like examples in this thread. Wanting to make a Roman-themed I guard army doesn't justify all your lascannons being missile launchers.

None of these examples justify throwing all of WYSIWYG out the window... And we all know how to attempt to be WYSIWYG and can come up with valid and creative solutions for EVERY EXAMPLE PRESENTED. Which is why you ask the TO if your attempt is good enough or falls flat.

You don't get to say 'Oh well, GW never made a tyranid drop pod so I get to proxy eldar as space wolves.'

Redbeard wrote:
This has nothing to do with the rule of cool, either. AgeOfEgos - your Custodians are cool. There's nothing wrong with army-wide conversions. The Rule of Cool should always be considered.

I agree (obviously). WYSIWYG should be considered on an army-army, model-model basis and cleared with the TO before playing. I don't believe there is a black/white aspect to this subject (like most subjects...). Even though I'm in the "Counts as is perfectly cool with me" camp----I wouldn't want to play against cardboard boxes with 'Land Raider' written on the side.

This isn't directed to you----but in general----we can all think of ad absurdum situations were Counts As would be a pain (Can my 3 year old proxy an Imperator Titan if I make him hold still?)----but the reality is most Counts As armies are done for the cool factor---and most generally aren't that terribly confusing to a vet (Which shocks me they are the ones complaining!).

I mean---most can generally tell what type of Space Marine army it is just by walking up to the table and glancing at it. If it's just vehicles and all I see are Razorbacks--generally asking "Is your HQ called a Rune Priest or does he cast BLOOD psychic powers to protect his vehicles?"---well that narrows it down too .

Janthkin wrote:

whitedragon wrote:There was a recent large tournament that a player played Crimson Fists as Blood Angels, and no one minded.

And for more the internet outrage, if you're going to throw down the "I have the right to a good game and not having to remember what all your stuff is" card, yet also complain about being sleep deprived and inebriated, well I'll have to turn that card against you and say:

I spent alot of money and drove an awful long distance and invested alot of personal capital (opportunity cost or otherwise) to not have to play a game against someone that's not measuring distances in fingers of liquor.

That's fine for a casual game but not a tournament game.

I don't drink much at these large events. I'd still be annoyed by having to remember that an obvious bright lance is actually a scatter laser.

I would be more annoyed at having to play an inebriated opponent than playing a guy who had bright lances count as scatter lasers. I would still call BS on his non WYSIWYG shenanigans but I would call BS on playing someone who is drunk too.

Unless of course my opponent was so drunk I could relax and still kick his ass...

My Blue Angels.... I may take them to Da Boyz GT. Hope they dont confuse anyone. The pic is of my Corbulo model.

http://meltaspam.blogspot.com/2011/04/blue-angels-lists.html

Redbeard wrote:
No. That model clearly has an Iron Halo. An Iron Halo is a piece of wargear that confers a game effect (4++). Mephiston does not have a 4++. Not WYSIWYG.

I guess that Emperor's Champion isn't WYSIWYG either, since the Emperor's Champion does not have an Iron Halo.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Can we be honest and say WYSIWYG is 90% about the weapons and whether or not the are wearing jump packs?

I think that depends on how involved you are in the hobby side of the game. I can't tell you what it means to you. I can tell you that, on my models, I go out of my way to ensure that as many options as possible are modeled, and will make sure to point them out when asked. You won't need to ask me which model has the banner, or the bosspole, or the squig, because it will be obvious. Some of us actually have fun working up the conversions to ensure that these upgrades are apparent.


To me, this is more an interesting thought than a practical concern. I'm not going to call a TO over if someone is using the marines as wolves or whatever. I've seen plenty of worse things, generally among younger players looking to save a dollar (look 10 chaos hounds as 'fiends', for the price of one actual fiend model). I really couldn't even tell you where the rule about WYSIWYG is in the rules anymore. I've been looking, and apparently it would be completely within the rules if I put orks down and called them marines. It used to be part of the codexes. For example, the Ork codex states, "note you may not take an upgrade unless a model in the unit actually has it." But this seems to have been omitted from more recent codexes. Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and so on simply omit this entirely - perhaps WYSIWYG is simply being phased out at GW.

It's in the independant character section, and essentially says that only IC's have to have correctly modeled equipment.

Heffling wrote:
It's in the independant character section, and essentially says that only IC's have to have correctly modeled equipment.

And it says 'tournaments may be more strict' which means 'Ask your TO'... and it says opponents must accommodate your request to proxy and nothing says they have to accept it... which boils the whole entire 'rule' down to opponents consent. Technically any rule is legal if both players agree on it.

...and the Eldar codex requires it for the entire codex, not just characters, which blows a whole in the whole scatterlazer thing and the Eldar as Spacewolves thing.

I am unsure why anyone thinks they have the 'right' to field proxies. In a tourney it is TO discretion, in a casual game it is opponents consent. Both basically live and die by 'rule of cool'. Why is asking permission such a big deal? If you have made a legitimate effort or ask nicley, this will handle 99% of situations.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I would be more annoyed at having to play an inebriated opponent than playing a guy who had bright lances count as scatter lasers. I would still call BS on his non WYSIWYG shenanigans but I would call BS on playing someone who is drunk too.

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

Dashofpepper wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I would be more annoyed at having to play an inebriated opponent than playing a guy who had bright lances count as scatter lasers. I would still call BS on his non WYSIWYG shenanigans but I would call BS on playing someone who is drunk too.

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

Some people (myself included) find obviously-drunken people annoying in situations outside a bar or party. There's a place for everything, and everything in its place.

In more detail - I view the playing of a game of 40k in a tournament environment in the context of a social contract: I will respect you, your models, and your time, and I will give you my undivided attention while we play (same reason I won't be texting during our game, or wandering off to chat with others). If you're drunk, I do not feel that I have your attention.

nkelsch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's no point trying to enforce WYSIWYG strictly as a rule since it is impossible for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

What we are discussing is what level of non-WYSIWYG is acceptable.

It is not impossible to enforce and many of your reasons are excuses.

I think you may have misread what I wrote.

It doesn't matter if GW are obliged or not to provide models for everything, the fact is that they don't.

Colouring things differently is no help for colour blind players, or if there aren't enough parts in the box and what are the official colours for anything. Anyway, I thought one of the problems is people colouring things differently -- i.e. Space Wolves who aren't grey.

Converting things is great and I do it a lot. Let's not pretend the conversion is 'official' WYSIWYG though. I've got to explain it to my opponents at the start of the game and they have to either remember or ask during the game.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's no point trying to enforce WYSIWYG strictly as a rule since it is impossible for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

What we are discussing is what level of non-WYSIWYG is acceptable.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
No. That model clearly has an Iron Halo. An Iron Halo is a piece of wargear that confers a game effect (4++). Mephiston does not have a 4++. Not WYSIWYG.

I guess that Emperor's Champion isn't WYSIWYG either, since the Emperor's Champion does not have an Iron Halo.

I got the Iron halo off a captain set I had but don't worry I got this.



I only stuck it on for aesthetic reasons. I thought it looked cool . Is there anything that could cause instant death to mesphiston? He has toughness 6. Either way it is easily removed if it was an issue at an event.

Dashofpepper wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I would be more annoyed at having to play an inebriated opponent than playing a guy who had bright lances count as scatter lasers. I would still call BS on his non WYSIWYG shenanigans but I would call BS on playing someone who is drunk too.

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

1. I have to deal with drunks all day. And by that I mean my associates have to deal with a drunk all (hey its 8.00AM somewhere, give me a highball).
2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Dashofpepper wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I would be more annoyed at having to play an inebriated opponent than playing a guy who had bright lances count as scatter lasers. I would still call BS on his non WYSIWYG shenanigans but I would call BS on playing someone who is drunk too.

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

The thing is---when most drunks think they're being happy go lucky---in reality they are being sloppy, loud and annoying.

The above. I don't mind someone who is mildly buzzing. Had a beer or two and are just chilling while we play. I do have a problem with full blown drunk. It's my time too and personally I don't want to waste it like that.

Frazzled wrote:

2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Alright...WHY?!?

Janthkin: You're presuming that someone drinking isn't giving you their undivided attention. Why? I bet that half the people there hung over from the previous night are not giving you undivided attention. And you're using assumptions.

Frazzled....calling the cops why? Over 21, not engaged in any illegal behavior....what's the issue?

This line of discussion started because someone made a comparison of drinking to not bringing a WYSIWYG army. Like, "Playing against someone who is drinking is as bad as playing against someone who who is proxying in a GT."

I'm still looking for the why, but I don't see any - just some guesses about what behavior might be, stereotypes, flat misinformation....its almost malicious. That's like saying, "I'm not playing against anyone using GK because they will obviously be proxying their army and cheating." That's an equally broad and bad assumption.

Frazzled, Janthkin - lets hear it. Illuminate me.

Hulksmash wrote:The above. I don't mind someone who is mildly buzzing. Had a beer or two and are just chilling while we play. I do have a problem with full blown drunk. It's my time too and personally I don't want to waste it like that.

Agreed. Plus if they are drunk and I'm not that means they didn't share the wealth earlier and now must pay!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Alright...WHY?!?

Janthkin: You're presuming that someone drinking isn't giving you their undivided attention. Why? I bet that half the people there hung over from the previous night are not giving you undivided attention. And you're using assumptions.

Frazzled....calling the cops why? Over 21, not engaged in any illegal behavior....what's the issue?

This line of discussion started because someone made a comparison of drinking to not bringing a WYSIWYG army. Like, "Playing against someone who is drinking is as bad as playing against someone who who is proxying in a GT."

I'm still looking for the why, but I don't see any - just some guesses about what behavior might be, stereotypes, flat misinformation....its almost malicious. That's like saying, "I'm not playing against anyone using GK because they will obviously be proxying their army and cheating." That's an equally broad and bad assumption.

Frazzled, Janthkin - lets hear it. Illuminate me.

1. Drunk in public is illegal.
2. As noted above if you're drunk and I am not you did not share the wealth earlier. I am a petty man...
3. I don't interact with drunks. Buzzed is fine. Drunk is not good. Plus if you're drunk during the day thats no fun and can lead to bad things. I don't play games and if you get obnoxious and violent I'll kill you. I dealt with too much of that crap in California thanks.

EDIT: the above is not meant to any particular poster or gamer in general and is not meant in a hostile way. You want to get drunk in a bar on your own time not by me thats your call. You want to have a drink and have fun we're good too and share that bottle-at the appropriate time. If you're an angry drunk in the middle of a game of toy soldiers in the middle of the day bad things are likely to happen and can spiral out of control. Fast.

I agree with Janthkin, Hulksmash and Frazzled.

Hell, I don't mind having a couple of beers at a tourney. I had a few at Adepticon, between rounds and in the team tournament one of my gentlemanly opponents actually handed me a beer (it certainly helped their sportsmanship score!).

Many people were doing the same, and it was fine. The idea of someone actually being trashed during an event though is distasteful.

Monster Rain wrote:I agree with Janthkin and Frazzled.

Hell, I don't mind having a couple of beers at a tourney. I had a few at Adepticon, between rounds and in the team tournament one of my gentlemanly opponents actually handed me a beer (it certainly helped their sportsmanship score!).

Many people were doing the same, and it was fine. The idea of someone actually being trashed during an event though is distasteful.

I think this is the distinction most people are making Dash, when you say "drunk" they're envisioning, well, a fully drunk, sloppy, obnoxious guy.

And for the record, anyone that thinks they're a smooth charmer or diplomat after numerous drinks is delusional. We all get sloppy and obnoxious after enough. I think you're referring to just being buzzed dash, which most are fine with, I know I am.

A couple beers throughout the day/at the end, fine and dandy. But if my opponent was flat out drunk, I'd call a TO/Judge and ask them to do something about it. I didn't pay good money to play against a guy who can't show me enough respect to show up sober and pay attention.

Monster Rain wrote:I agree with Janthkin, Hulksmash and Frazzled.

Hell, I don't mind having a couple of beers at a tourney. I had a few at Adepticon, between rounds and in the team tournament one of my gentlemanly opponents actually handed me a beer (it certainly helped their sportsmanship score!).

Many people were doing the same, and it was fine. The idea of someone actually being trashed during an event though is distasteful.

Yea I think we have to define this quickly. Having a beer or two between games in the evening-cool. No problem whatsoever. Again, rum and coke uber alles punks!
Being drunk is different and lets define as at the level the cops will take you to the tank to dry out shall we?

Yeah, let's keep our BAC under .08 until the final round, shall we?

I don't know about .08 since some people can get that off of cough syrup but I agree with the intention you put forth

Monster Rain wrote:

Yeah, let's keep our BAC under .08 until the final round, shall we?

Besides, you don't want to overdo it before the evening shenanigans that occur at the bar after each day of the event!

I'd actually step down my "drunk opponent" tolerance to be far less than "cops would haul you away" level. Chart for my alcoholic progressions

1-2 beers -> buzzed, enjoying myself (if Im drinking during the day, this is where I stay)
3-5 -> Getting semi drunk, easily distracted, probably not the most fun opponent, but I can manage
5-7 -> Obnoxious phase is setting in. While my conversational skills may be good enough for a loud bar and quick remarks, trying to get me to focus on a specific task involving fine motor skills for 2 hours is a lost cause
7-10 -> In public, the cops would take me away due to not having enough talent points in my "standing" tree

I'd say for myself, 5+ is inappropriate and my opponent would be in his rights to call a judge/TO. Note this is a decent amount below the "take him to the tank" level.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Alright...WHY?!?

Janthkin: You're presuming that someone drinking isn't giving you their undivided attention. Why? I bet that half the people there hung over from the previous night are not giving you undivided attention. And you're using assumptions.

Frazzled....calling the cops why? Over 21, not engaged in any illegal behavior....what's the issue?

This line of discussion started because someone made a comparison of drinking to not bringing a WYSIWYG army. Like, "Playing against someone who is drinking is as bad as playing against someone who who is proxying in a GT."

I'm still looking for the why, but I don't see any - just some guesses about what behavior might be, stereotypes, flat misinformation....its almost malicious. That's like saying, "I'm not playing against anyone using GK because they will obviously be proxying their army and cheating." That's an equally broad and bad assumption.

Frazzled, Janthkin - lets hear it. Illuminate me.

If you're going to put your foot down and say that not following your interpretation of WYSIWIG (which is subjective and by RAW only applies to wargear, and in some codicies only for the characters) is cheating, how can you be completely flabbergasted that someone else would put their foot down about something else they don't like or agree with? (They have a different interpretation of social drinking I guess.)

Deepeyes wrote:I only stuck it on for aesthetic reasons. I thought it looked cool . Is there anything that could cause instant death to mesphiston?

A non-exhaustive list would include:
Force Weapons, D-cannons, Wraithcannons, Direswords, Skulltaker, Blissgivers, C'Tan Phase Swords, Boneswords, and any D-strength weapons.

whitedragon wrote:If you're going to put your foot down and say that not following your interpretation of WYSIWIG (which is subjective and by RAW only applies to wargear, and in some codicies only for the characters) is cheating, how can you be completely flabbergasted that someone else would put their foot down about something else they don't like or agree with? (They have a different interpretation of social drinking I guess.)

Well...one is against the rules of the event. One is not.

Might as well just say that if you are wearing blue or black, I'm putting my foot down as disgusted, and if you're wearing blue or black and have any facial hair, you need to be ejected from the event. And if you're wearing and blue or black, have facial hair, and are from out of town, I'm calling the cops to report a terrorist.

Equally valid by your parameters.

We're talking about foundational rules that make an event. WYSIWYG. And how to respond appropriately if someone shows up WITHOUT it. Just like someone showing up without the mandatory number of army lists. What do you do if your opponent won't give you a copy of their army list because they didn't bring any? Things that shouldn't happen because the event rules forbid them, but potentially could - and what the appropriate response is.

I don't care what a person's been drinking, or what the BAC is. If they're trashed but are fun, polite, and give me a good game, I could give a damn if they were straight edge or tweaking.

Most people aren't as much fun, to sober people, when they are drunk. There are exceptions of course, and lots of people can be reasonably coherent and funcitonal while pretty blitzed.

Public intoxication is illegal in some (but not all) states. Of course, being in a gaming store or hall isn't exactly public.

Dashofpepper wrote:

whitedragon wrote:If you're going to put your foot down and say that not following your interpretation of WYSIWIG (which is subjective and by RAW only applies to wargear, and in some codicies only for the characters) is cheating, how can you be completely flabbergasted that someone else would put their foot down about something else they don't like or agree with? (They have a different interpretation of social drinking I guess.)

Well...one is against the rules of the event. One is illegal.

Corrected your typo.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Well...one is against the rules of the event. One is not.

Actually, this thread wouldn't be 8 pages if it was that simple. WYSIWIG is not as cut and dry or RAW tight as you would like to believe.

EDIT:

Public Intoxication is illegal as Frazz points out. As Polonius also points out, a game store or hall is not exactly public, which means that the TO, Event Organizer, or game store owner can also eject you if they choose as well.

Public intoxication isn't illegal everywhere. Ohio it's only if also disorderly, same with Missouri (where you can also drink in a moving car if you're not driving).

Polonius wrote:Public intoxication isn't illegal everywhere. Ohio it's only if also disorderly, same with Missouri (where you can also drink in a moving car if you're not driving).

I am sure you're right P. I'll rephrase. In probably every jurisdiction I'd be in, there is such.

I guess in that instance I'd just get the TO to throw you out. If they didn't I'd just blatantly cheat (as in "hey look over there!" and then make your greater demon disappear) and make fun of you.

Polonius wrote:Public intoxication isn't illegal everywhere. Ohio it's only if also disorderly, same with Missouri (where you can also drink in a moving car if you're not driving).

WYSIWIG is just as lax. Both get people a tad upset however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Public intoxication isn't illegal everywhere. Ohio it's only if also disorderly, same with Missouri (where you can also drink in a moving car if you're not driving).

Updated and Edit:
Nope apparently there aren't any St. Louis laws either. I wouldn't advise testing it out though.

Yup. Different places and groups have different standards. At many events (I've seen it a lot at Indy Warhammer GTs, less at 40k events, but certainly some) drinking and gaming is commonplace. I agree that most folks are cool with it, as long as the person is able to focus on the game and stay clear, coherent, and pleasant. And preferably share with me.

Unless you have a Dwarf army how is this discussion of public drunkeness related to WYSIWYG?

Gornall wrote:Unless you have a Dwarf army how is this discussion of public drunkeness related to WYSIWYG?

First year at Adepticon---during the team tournament our Ork Green Tide opponents introduced themselves, then promptly offered us a beer from their cooler. In my experience, the correlation between alcohol and Ork players is at least on par with Dwarf players (along with facial hair).

Thats where the "Waugh" came from.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Public intoxication isn't illegal everywhere. Ohio it's only if also disorderly, same with Missouri (where you can also drink in a moving car if you're not driving).

I am sure you're right P. I'll rephrase. In probably every jurisdiction I'd be in, there is such.

I guess in that instance I'd just get the TO to throw you out. If they didn't I'd just blatantly cheat (as in "hey look over there!" and then make your greater demon disappear) and make fun of you.

So...what I got out of this is that you're spiteful, petty and would intentionally cheat to ruin someone's day? What's having a beer compared to having to face *that* in a tournament.


*EDIT* And I've been drinking at GTs since I started them. I pretty much always offer my opponent some of whatever I'm having. If they're of age. If there's no open bar / drinking policy in the event, then I'll do so discreetly.

The only time I've ever gotten in trouble for drinking at a store was once when I wasn't actually drinking at the store. But instead of asking me, they presumed that I was based on an exchanged joke with another player.

Player A: "Where's your bottle of Captain, Dash?"
Dash: "Ah, hiding in my pepsi bottle today. Don't want all the kids in here seeing a bad influence."

Post Tournament TO: Let me remind all players that this is a children-friendly store and that alcohol is not permitted. Dash, you're not welcome back here again."

I think the crux of the drinking issue here is that folks have different definitions of "drunk."