I was reading the post about ard boys and wysiwyg and it sparked this question.

I play 40K for about a year now and I never been a WYSIWYG because it makes me mad since I probably dont play as much people do.
I mean I like to change my list every game... so investing in having 12 melta in case I need 12 or 12 missile launcher cause I might need 12 someday is over budget for me.

So where do you guys draw the line.
Usualy I will do something like this.

Begining of game:

me: Ok this 10 men IG squad has 3 melta which are represented by 3 flamers (since IG dont have melta on sprue and I use regular guardsman as veteran since their no box of veteran)
friend: ok

and so on...

I usually use minis that are in spec. same heigth and same race, but I will often replace weapons since thats the part im having problem getting from GWS.

Also since I have 4 armies... and that my lists change... having models WYSIWYG would have cost me double and I wouldn't have 4 armies...

I quite rarely use like a space marine to represent a IG or something... 99% of the time if I play IG there all IG or I will use a rhino as a Chimera or vice versa
(often when someone ask me to lend them DT options lol )


So what do you think.. would you get mad at me if we played a friendly game in a local store?
( I dont like competition much so I dont do tournament, Im more of a friendly player than a WAAC guy )

Personally, I have no problem with it at all.

The main thing is probably just to be consistent. If your IG squad has 3 melta represented by flamers then it's probably a good idea that all of the flamers on the board are actually melta...

As a side note, I tend to magnetize everything. Makes it easy to pull off a weapon for a weapon destroyed result or even on marines to swap out bolt guns with plasma. It's not that bad to just buy bits from various sites to do this.

WYSIWYG is for competitive play. For friendly play, I don't care what you're running as what, so long as it's clear to both you and me what you've got.

My models have exactly what they have.

And I don't have piles of spare guys with different options either - I aim for good all-round choices and stick with them.

My opponents that I regularly play with, and myself use WYSIWYG sparingly.

I will sometimes use 2 Ultramarines with bolters as my "Meltagun Blood angel assault marines" Because sometimes I run 2 honor guard with 2 or 3 melta guns.

The tyranid player uses Bases for his Hive guard all the time.

We have an "It does not matter as long as you tell us before hand what everything is" we will forget so sometimes a mid-game refresher is needed, but that info is of course freely given.

So, We have no problem with it, as long as you keep us informed before the game starts and mid-game as to what is where when we ask.

clively wrote:Personally, I have no problem with it at all.

The main thing is probably just to be consistent. If your IG squad has 3 melta represented by flamers then it's probably a good idea that all of the flamers on the board are actually melta...

As a side note, I tend to magnetize everything. Makes it easy to pull off a weapon for a weapon destroyed result or even on marines to swap out bolt guns with plasma. It's not that bad to just buy bits from various sites to do this.

This.

Jimsolo wrote:WYSIWYG is for competitive play. For friendly play, I don't care what you're running as what, so long as it's clear to both you and me what you've got.

I actually find WYSIWYG just as important for friendly play, simply because in a friendly game I want to be able to relax and just enjoy the game. A non-WYSIWYG army gives me extra details that I have to try to remember.

I would not play you.

If using non-wysiwyg models were the exception, because you want to try something before shelling out the cash to buy the models, and if you asked in advance whether it was fine with me - okay. But if you do it regularly, like every other game, I would just refuse to play you at some point.

Scott-S6 wrote:My models have exactly what they have.

And I don't have piles of spare guys with different options either - I aim for good all-round choices and stick with them.

That is what I do, too.

insaniak wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:WYSIWYG is for competitive play. For friendly play, I don't care what you're running as what, so long as it's clear to both you and me what you've got.

I actually find WYSIWYG just as important for friendly play, simply because in a friendly game I want to be able to relax and just enjoy the game. A non-WYSIWYG army gives me extra details that I have to try to remember.

That, too.

Also, it is a matter of aesthetics to me. I like miniature wargaming because I like how the tabletop battle scenes look and create images of dramatic battles. Now if I have to constantly censor what I see in my mind - "Wow, that guy with the flamer looks awesome as he charges those orks!" - "Wait, that is a meltagun today." - that is just simply an annoyance for my imagination, and thus a lot less fun.

I can't stand this, sometimes its Ok went trying certain things out with incredibly obscure choices in a game at home, but if you show up at a friendly gamestore and you preface your game with "Well, these are actually these, and this is that" I know its going to be a terrible game. The last thing I want to think about while playing is what something actually counts as, rather than what they visually are, especially when those choices are available for purchase.

Also in my experience, the "thiis is that" people just tailored their list to fight your army, and are "counts as" something more beneficial against a certain army. I literally overheard someone say "All the meltas are flamers" against a tyranid player the other day. COMEON

Empty bases as models is unreasonable for me and I would not play against that.

And ditto for the tailoring and the last second proxies. I find often all these accommodations actually make 'friendly' play less friendly as the player is only interested in winning and less interested in a fair game. List tailoring before a game is generally bad which means the game will be a waste of time. Proxies lend itself to list tailoring.

I'm pretty into WYSIWYG. All of my models are WYSIWYG and I put forth the effort to have the army that I'm actually running. I'd appreciate my opponents at least making reasonable attempts at converting the models that they want to use. If you don't have the time to convert 3 flamers to 3 meltaguns, maybe it's time to take a night off from gaming and do a little bit of modeling work. It's as easy as clipping off the barrels and adding a plasticard cylinder.

You can order 5-packs of Meltaguns or Plasmaguns for $8-8.25 from GW or buy them at your FLGS. They're metal so your guardsmen may be bit front-heavy, but you can counter this with some lead shot or washers in the base. It's really not prohibitively expensive to do this properly.

If you really wanted to, you could make your own "Melter Guns" out of Green Stuff and Plasticard then resin cast the hell out of them. This is perfectly acceptable.

I don't really care that much as long as I can look at the board and tell what is what then I'm fine. One of the guys I played against used all heavy weapons as lascannons. I had no problem telling them apart, now when he tried to use a base as a dread I originally said ok and later regretted my choice as it was constanly being hidden behind a rhino or something. So in short as long as there is actually a model then that is fine with me. Now granted I won't be happy if you last second tailor your list to beat mine and then proxy that. Having multiple armies myself I have constantly had this problem with my marines, but I can definently tell why IG have such a problem. You can buy 1 melta and 1 plasma for like $15 for the pair, and if your not playing Cadians tough, or you can shell out for the Company Command Squad box and get 1 special weapon each. IG have the hardest problem like this with the special weapons.

WYSIWYG can be slippery as there are indeed many codex options that have no factual models.

I agree that the more non-WYSIWYG the more confusing and less friendly the game will be; but am not completely apposed to "count as".

Examples of "count as" that would annoy me are vehicles made from other models which end up being smaller than what would be the legal model. Mostly because I am an IG player with lots of Ordnance so it makes it harder for me to hit you . It also creates disadvantage to those assaulting the vehicle as well. But when models are based this no longer is the issue.

Weapons/options that have designated models for said codex weapon/options should be used by said models. Otherwise it would come down to consistency. Such as using FW melta's instead of GW melta's. Though that would be more expensive to the wallet. There are other companies that make weapons that appear similar to Melta's, Flamers, etc etc and if your entire army used those to reduce costs I'd be fine with that.

nkelsch wrote:Empty bases as models is unreasonable for me and I would not play against that.

Agreed, any empty base proxy would just count as always in LoS and never granted cover.

Tourney play yes. Of course. OP are you saying you bring proxies and "counts as" to tournies? I will play test with whatever, but if its a tourney its 100% WYSIWYG.

I don't model the Hardwired systems on my crisis suits, but other than that it's all WYSIWYG.

Hardwired systems are supposed to be a chip in the guy's head. So that is not a wysiwyg matter at all.

The same goes for any equipment troops have to have, like grenades - it does, imo, look cooler if they have them, but it is not a big matter to me if they do not.

But a flamer that is actually a melta or bullgak like empty bases does not work for me. Nuggz got it right there: if you want a flexible army, convert one. Magnets can be your friend if you want to swap out special or heavy weapons, as can one or two additional models, which will not ruin you if you managed to buy an army.

I play WYSIWYG except for grenades.

If a model in my list has a grenade launcher, the figure has one.

If it is a meltagun, it has one.

Power weapon or fist - yep, they have that weapon.

I have an adequate collection to do this after 23-24 years playing. It also means if I don't have it, then I don't play it.

Skylifter wrote:I would not play you.
If using non-wysiwyg models were the exception, because you want to try something before shelling out the cash to buy the models, and if you asked in advance whether it was fine with me - okay. But if you do it regularly, like every other game, I would just refuse to play you at some point.

Scott-S6 wrote:My models have exactly what they have.
And I don't have piles of spare guys with different options either - I aim for good all-round choices and stick with them.

That is what I do, too.

insaniak wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:WYSIWYG is for competitive play. For friendly play, I don't care what you're running as what, so long as it's clear to both you and me what you've got.

I actually find WYSIWYG just as important for friendly play, simply because in a friendly game I want to be able to relax and just enjoy the game. A non-WYSIWYG army gives me extra details that I have to try to remember.

That, too.
Also, it is a matter of aesthetics to me. I like miniature wargaming because I like how the tabletop battle scenes look and create images of dramatic battles. Now if I have to constantly censor what I see in my mind - "Wow, that guy with the flamer looks awesome as he charges those orks!" - "Wait, that is a meltagun today." - that is just simply an annoyance for my imagination, and thus a lot less fun.

nkelsch wrote:Empty bases as models is unreasonable for me and I would not play against that.
And ditto for the tailoring and the last second proxies. I find often all these accommodations actually make 'friendly' play less friendly as the player is only interested in winning and less interested in a fair game. List tailoring before a game is generally bad which means the game will be a waste of time. Proxies lend itself to list tailoring.

The above posts sounds kinda smug about wysiwyg but after playing for 4 years now, I'm starting to agree.
I think proxy is great for testing out units. Don't buy a land raider if you're just going to use it once and hate it. But please do buy the land raider if you intend to use it every game.
Also, people who field wysiwyg armies usually field less WAAC armies. This is probably due to them not wanting to buy a ton of whatever flavor of the month unit comes up.
I found that most people who proxy ALL the time do it either because they're in a budget tight scenario and/or they just don't want to invest more money into the hobby OR (more likely) they try out new super optimized internet lists every week.

You know, i would play any body, it doesn't matter if you tell me what models have before the game. I don't remember your list because i can't remember mine. If you guys want to be hard asses because of a guy that doesn't want to shell out the money and refuse to play him, then I have one question for you. How many of you guys model all your marines with a bolter and bolt pistol and frag and krak G's? In tournaments its a good idea to check before hand, but friendly play there shouldn't be any difference, use the models you have and have fun playing the game. If people think that they are going to get cheated because the weapons will change during the game because of poxies, you are calling people at your FLGS lairs and cheats. And thats just not right. Just play the game and cheat by bringing up rules that make no since and twist them to fit what you need. Also try screwing around with true line of sight and screw people out of cover saves. Leave people who like to play and are honest alone, We all can't sit around all day modeling and buying little plastic men. Some of us just want to play and have no issues with a marine holding a flamer and shooting a melta gun.

'PapaPiggy'... I think you're possibly blown things up a little out of proportion.

Most people won't refuse to play anyone just because their army isn't completely WYSIWYG. It is an ideal for a lot of players, though. Not just because non-WYSIWYG makes it easier to cheat (because I think that's a fairly minor issue, really), but simply because WYSIWYG makes the game easier to play.

Ive decided to change my mind on WYSIWYG sure Ive gone to the expense and time to make my army legal. But if my oponents wants to proxy a ton of special weapons etc because he is too cheap to buy a pack of melta guns then thats fine.

I will on the spot rewrite my list using proxies and I will bring utter filth to the table and I will take you off it in 2 turns.

Magnets. It's all about the small, tiny, neodymium magnets.

I don't really care about default wargear that can't be replaced, likes bolt pistols on tacticals.

I've been playing for 4 months and have full WYSIWYG on 4k points of Grey Knights. I don't feel it's a particularly high standard to get WYSIWYG on all options if you play the unit regularly. As noted, magnets are made of win. I think proxying is fine if you're just looking to get how the unit performs, but it gets tiring to see the same marines from the Black Primer chapter with the same 'these flamers are meltaguns and these other flamers are missile launchers' for months. It's just an added inconvenience to constantly try to remember which ones are which. I mean, you've evidently decided you like the unit months ago, and still?

Jubear wrote:Ive decided to change my mind on WYSIWYG sure Ive gone to the expense and time to make my army legal. But if my oponents wants to proxy a ton of special weapons etc because he is too cheap to buy a pack of melta guns then thats fine.

This. Though I wouldn't rewrite my list to bring all the filth. I would only do that if my opponent brought no army list, and had models equiped with flamers, then seeing my SM decided they would all be plasma guns, then I would be pissed.

I always play WYSIWYG, apart for small things like meltabombs, and sometimes my power sword is just a CC weapon

terranarc wrote:

Skylifter wrote:I would not play you...

nkelsch wrote:Empty bases as models is unreasonable for me and I would not play against that.
And ditto for the tailoring and the last second proxies. I find often all these accommodations actually make 'friendly' play less friendly as the player is only interested in winning and less interested in a fair game. List tailoring before a game is generally bad which means the game will be a waste of time. Proxies lend itself to list tailoring.

The above posts sounds kinda smug about wysiwyg but after playing for 4 years now, I'm starting to agree.
I think proxy is great for testing out units. Don't buy a land raider if you're just going to use it once and hate it. But please do buy the land raider if you intend to use it every game.
Also, people who field wysiwyg armies usually field less WAAC armies. This is probably due to them not wanting to buy a ton of whatever flavor of the month unit comes up.
I found that most people who proxy ALL the time do it either because they're in a budget tight scenario and/or they just don't want to invest more money into the hobby OR (more likely) they try out new super optimized internet lists every week.

I admit, it is kind of arrogant. But I do this for my enjoyment, and I find it annoying to play against non-wysiwyg. So I choose not to. That does not mean I think people who use non-wysiwyg are jerks or idiots or inferior in any way, I just do choose not to spend my hobby time with something I do not enjoy to the fullest. If they enjoy it that way, I am not going to stop them.

PapaPiggy wrote:You know, i would play any body, it doesn't matter if you tell me what models have before the game. I don't remember your list because i can't remember mine. If you guys want to be hard asses because of a guy that doesn't want to shell out the money and refuse to play him, then I have one question for you. How many of you guys model all your marines with a bolter and bolt pistol and frag and krak G's? In tournaments its a good idea to check before hand, but friendly play there shouldn't be any difference, use the models you have and have fun playing the game. If people think that they are going to get cheated because the weapons will change during the game because of poxies, you are calling people at your FLGS lairs and cheats. And thats just not right. Just play the game and cheat by bringing up rules that make no since and twist them to fit what you need. Also try screwing around with true line of sight and screw people out of cover saves. Leave people who like to play and are honest alone, We all can't sit around all day modeling and buying little plastic men. Some of us just want to play and have no issues with a marine holding a flamer and shooting a melta gun.

As I said above, my refusal to play that way does not include any hard feelings towards people who do.

But as your post allows me to state one of my reasons more clearly, I shall do that: I want to see exactly what there is in play because it allows me to enjoy seeing the scenic representation on the tabletop of the dramatic conflict we are enacting in our minds as accurately represented as possible. Imagine an action movie where the actors use wooden guns and lots of ketchup, but in the starting credits it says "wooden guns and ketchup are supposed to be real guns and blood, please remember that during the movie."

So basically what I am saying is that a game for me is a way of telling a story, and non-wysiwyg destroys the suspension of disbelief, because everytime I have to check my list to see what that model with the flamer is actually equipped with, it feels like halting a movie to look up what the blue wooden stick in the hero's hand is supposed to represent. Which is why I will not waste my time with a game against a non-wysiwyg army.

There is a limit.I let people away with counting this bolter as a Boltpistol and the chainsword as a Power sword.But,A Hive Tyrant with Deathspitters and Heavy Venom Cannon,as the Swarmlord?I don't think so!

@Skylifter

I am totally your opinion.

For me it is important, that the model looks the same as it works. (same base, same size, according weaponry, same style)
If someone uses a dragon instead of a winged Hive Tyrant I will love it.

I will not like a game vs an army, that is built with some random models. The epicness of the battle just decreases too much:

1. the opponent will have a hard time getting your models right, maybe even you will.
2. It just doesn't look nice
3. It is too random for me
4. It feels a bit disrespectful to the opponent who tries to have a good looking army.

I would break down the perfect 40k-game into those aspects:

1. I play a cool opponent (most important)
2. The table and the armies look awesome
3. It is a tactical challenge
4. It has a unique style
(5. it has a storyline around it)

Non WYSIWYG-armies instant kill most of those points. Actually 3 of them, the bracketed one does not apply very often. So only point 1 will survive.
So the guy must be really cool...

If it is a test game, well then we wont have 40k-atmosphere, but practical theory. This may be necessary sometimes, so I am ok with it. But you dont test the whole 40k-career.

A certain amount of proxying is expected from my point of view, as it really is quite expensive to buy every option of every unit of every army I play, and I don't hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself.

I do, however, make the best attempt I can to make everything wysiwyg, and limit myself to no more than 2-3 squads of proxy'd models (aka, these weapons represent this, etc.)

I do use, for example, hand flamers to represent regular flamers in a chapter that does not have access to the pistol version, but I think that's a close enough resemblance to basically count as wysiwyg anyways.

I change my lists constantly, so I don't build or paint with a very specific list in mind, but once I settle on one I do hold myself to the standard. I suppose this is the exception to my understanding. If I see you run the same list for a month with the same unit and the same counts as, I'm going to chide you for it.

Ignus wrote:A certain amount of proxying is expected from my point of view, as it really is quite expensive to buy every option of every unit of every army I play,...

But you do not have to buy every option to play a game. If you want more list flexibility, then yes, you have to buy more models (or magnets!) in order to be wysiwyg, but you do not have to have list flexibility. That is your choice. My choice is wysiwyg before list flexibility.

I only have an issue if someone is proxying using models that are in his list. ie.. This guy with a flamer actually has a Melta but this guy is really carrying a flamer. Happened to me once when someone was using HBs as Lascannons and had HBs in his list as well. Sure enough on turn one the unit that I thought had a HB turned out to be one with a Lascannon and oddly enough had LOS to a vehicle that got popped. The one that should have been the Lascannon would not have had LOS.

Is it a friendly game? Play with bottlecaps if you want. Just make sure that it's either unique enough for me to be able to immediately tell the difference, or that your patience is such that you can deal with me asking you every turn what each individual stand-in is.

If it's a tournament, I draw the line at what the rules say.

I love converting and making fun models. Hell, its the whole reason I got into Ork! The prime example I have now is a Gray Knight Dreadknight that I looted up; it is on the MC base because I couldn't be bothered to spend the extra 1/2 hour forcing it to fit on a 60mm base for a true deff dread model. I have never had an opponent have a problem with it, quite the opposite in fact. But he has things that look like DCCW, big shootas are on there somewhere, and he even has a kill kannon for running as a megadread if I so choose.

The rest of my army is WYSIWYG, barring some minor swaps like stikkbombs or 'eavy armour. The 'eavy armour boyz are on my conversion to-do list, so eventually it will be all WYSIWYG.

Playing against TFG who has gray knights without heads or arms and after a combat starts saying 'oh wait! That was Draigo and he had the rusty sword of proctology! Re-do that because I forgot to use it!' is incredibly annoying. I refuse to play against that kind of guy.

Blanket proxies are fine (all my bolters are now steam powered squig dispensers) but if you can't remember what is in your own army, how am I supposed to keep up?

-cgmckenzie

Lazypete wrote:I was reading the post about ard boys and wysiwyg and it sparked this question.

I play 40K for about a year now and I never been a WYSIWYG because it makes me mad since I probably dont play as much people do.
I mean I like to change my list every game... so investing in having 12 melta in case I need 12 or 12 missile launcher cause I might need 12 someday is over budget for me.

So where do you guys draw the line.
Usualy I will do something like this.

Begining of game:

me: Ok this 10 men IG squad has 3 melta which are represented by 3 flamers (since IG dont have melta on sprue and I use regular guardsman as veteran since their no box of veteran)
friend: ok

and so on...

I usually use minis that are in spec. same heigth and same race, but I will often replace weapons since thats the part im having problem getting from GWS.

Also since I have 4 armies... and that my lists change... having models WYSIWYG would have cost me double and I wouldn't have 4 armies...

I quite rarely use like a space marine to represent a IG or something... 99% of the time if I play IG there all IG or I will use a rhino as a Chimera or vice versa
(often when someone ask me to lend them DT options lol )


So what do you think.. would you get mad at me if we played a friendly game in a local store?
( I dont like competition much so I dont do tournament, Im more of a friendly player than a WAAC guy )

As said, WYSIWYG is for competetive play. Seeing however that you have more than 15k points in various armies, I think you could spare the time and either magnetise your special weapons or make a couple spare guys. You painted 15,000 points in a year so not doing WYSIWYG for a couple meltas seems lazy to me.

As Alkasyn said, WYSIWYG is mainly for competitive play and you probably won't find an issue with proxying weapon in pickup matches. Tournaments usually don't have a huge issue with it as long as all the weapons your are proxying are the alternative weapon. So if you have 15 missile launcher guys, but all 15 are meltas and you don't have any actual melta guys then the model's decription is clear to your opponent. If you roll up with a devistator squad of all missile launchers and say "this one is a autocannon, this one is a storm bolter, this one is a melta" then expect for the TO to bonk you upside the head.

My line with WYSIWYG is saying "these orks are blood angels because I painted them red".

How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

PapaPiggy wrote: The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed.

To be fair, if you don't enjoy playing non-WYSIWYG armies, then denying that game is exactly what should happen. The game is supposed to be fun for both players... so if one of you isn't going to enjoy it, better to not play the game than for one player to just grin and bear it.


I could point out that there is a certain amount of 'instant gratification' rationale behind the argument for allowing non-WYSIWYG armies. Sure, some people can't afford to go out and buy whatever models they need to field whatever options they might want to use... in which case, until they can get more models, why can't they just use what they have? It's only a game, after all, right?

In competitive play, I am of the mindset that WYSIWYG should be strictly enforced. You are at a competition, these things matter. If you can't meet this requirement, you can't compete. Competition is a separate level of play, and there are good reasons for enforcing WYSIWYG. My big exception to this, and it's a big one, is if the tourney is a FLGS tourney and everyone there knows everyone, and the TO knows everyone, etc. Then you should have some house rules already established, or precedent, etc. But for a tournament with strangers that people travel to get to, WYSIWYG is important.

Now, even for that exception, and in casual games, it's important to mark units correctly. When we play proxy games at my FLGS (testing a new codex or build, say) we use scotch tape and colored paper to denote different things. Red is flamer, yellow melta, blue plasma, etc. This helps everyone involved, including yourself. Knowing what unit is what, for purposes of LoS, wound allocation, etc. is important to improving your game, and to making the game deeper and more tactical. Don't just do it for your opponent, do it for yourself.

When I was play testing GK , Nurgle Marines had Halberds, Korne had Hammers, Slaneesh had psycannons.

Seems a bit backwards.Slaanesh should have halberds,Khorne should have Flachions(being aggressive),Tzeentch should have guns and NFWS,and Nurgle should have hammers(slow).

WYSIWYG is simply a marketing ploy to sell new models. Back in the day it was never the case in 40K and fantasy clearly states that a model may look different but have certain items. Like a sword of +2 attacks may come in a spear or mace form, but the magic properties are the same. I am not sure when GW put this into 40K, I am guessing 3rd or 4th Edition since I did not play either of those. Back in 2nd edition all war gear had it's own stats and came on cards. You simply kept the cards with you and revealed them when you were using said gear so your opponent knew.

I think it is dumb, and we do not play by those rules at all in my gaming group. However, we do have a house rule that if you are substituting, say a plasma gun for melta guns, you must declare it when you deploy the unit. Since most of my marine kits came with plasma guns I usually use them as melta guns. Generally no one has a problem with this.

As for competitive play, well, tournaments probably run by the book, but check with the person running it first. I have a lot of converted models, where I took old 2nd edition models and use them in 5th edition. I have probably 20 Wolf Guard terminators that are on the smaller bases, and I never bothered to rebase them. Mainly because the are painted and modded already, and I don't feel like taking them apart and rebuilding them. If I decide to get competitive again (which I highly doubt that is what burned me out on war gaming and made me take a 15 year break from it) I may convert the bases.

As for me though, I play for fun. Don't get me wrong, I prefer to win games over lose them, but if I lose oh well, and I don't run cookie cutter tournament lists either. Every time you play me you usually get a surprise since I am always switching up tactics. One game I may roll out mechanized tactics with tanks and heavy armor, next game fast attack, so on and so forth. I find it more fun that way and if you really want to play by the book literally, you will probably have an aneurysm due to the gray areas and small loop holes that are literally in the rule books.

Plus you learn more from losing than you do winning. I know a lot of people that don't like certain things I run on my lists and after some tough spots with them I found use for them, and effective usage as well.

Except for my Broodlord,which fell apart,and I am now using a Genestealer on a 40mm base,I always modal my guys with the correct weapons,mostly because I modal with gaming in mind.

The idea that it is a ploy to sell more models is foolhardy- the entire company is a ploy to sell more models.

WYSIYG is important in both gameplay and modeling/painting. Without it, we will have identical marines fighting identical orks, no variety and the burden of knowing what is what falls onto our memory on what the opponent declared at the beginning of the match.

The occasional proxy is fine, but only for experimenting builds. To participate in this game, you are expected to follow the rules, WYSIWYG being one of them. Play the game and buy the correct models.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The idea that it is a ploy to sell more models is foolhardy- the entire company is a ploy to sell more models.

WYSIYG is important in both gameplay and modeling/painting. Without it, we will have identical marines fighting identical orks, no variety and the burden of knowing what is what falls onto our memory on what the opponent declared at the beginning of the match.

The occasional proxy is fine, but only for experimenting builds. To participate in this game, you are expected to follow the rules, WYSIWYG being one of them. Play the game and buy the correct models.

-cgmckenzie

I totally disagree. It may be important on some things like thunder hammer versus lightning claws, but an exact WYSIWYG representation is not all that important. As long as the model is identifiable and with in proper scale I could care less, and so could my gaming group. We also don't use all GW models either. I have several model trucks I have converted into Ork Trukks which are the same size and work in game and cost less and look cooler and more Orky in my opinion.

The only time WYSIWYG matters is when your opponent cries about it, or if you are playing a tournament, or in some cases you use it to exploit the game. The rules are meant to be a framework after all GW talks a lot about having fun first and foremost. If you are the type of player that is ultra anal about rule sets and loves to bend them to your way/advantage you wouldn't last long in my gaming group.

Just, like my opinion man

I do agree it makes the game easier but for example you cant really model a daemon weapon properly as takely they could be any kind of combat weapon for example my biker lord has a daemonic tenticle to respresent his daemon weapon as I wanted the look of that the weapon is part of him so that way it at least makes sense when the daemon rebels why he gets hit and because pretty much all of my chaos marines have bolt pistols and chain swords on show I could use em all as zerkers. another thing is I regulary use my rhino as a predator which I have a non glued on auto cannon which I put on top and thats simply because I cant build tanks properly to save my life plus I dont have the money to go buy everything. personally im fine with people using counts as just as long as I know what it is and what it does

PapaPiggy wrote:How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

The OP has more than 15k points in 4 armies. Do you really think it's because of money issues that he can't paint 4 more melta guys ?

It can be because of the parts you get in a kit.IE,the SM Devs box comes with with 2 LCs,2 HBs,2 PCs,and 1 ML,and 1 MM.What happens when a player wants 4 PCs?What do they do?Go out and but another set,which will give them 5 modals they will never use?I wouldn't.

Alkasyn wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

The OP has more than 15k points in 4 armies. Do you really think it's because of money issues that he can't paint 4 more melta guys ?

I probably have 20k in points overall maybe more in over 7 different armies from both 40K and WHFB, and tons of my models are out of print. Been playing since 1991, or about. I have done a lot to convert my old metal models, and back then you could not magnetize them, plus you really cannot do that to pewter anyway it is too heavy. I think it is just overkill to play pure WYSIWYG. Though I can see the stance on tournaments, because people may try to change up what something is during a game. Oh since you are in fact in cover this turn this flame thrower is actually a flame thrower instead of the plasma/melta gun I was claiming it to be before the game started.

I do think it is asinine of GW to not put in a full weapons option in boxed sets, and sells certain things on sprue separately. If you are going to allow players to build their own units and give them tons of bits, then give them all the bits they need to do so in those expensive boxed sets.

So you want 5 x 4 weapons in a heavy weapons set? So instead of 5 models you wont use you get 16 weapons?

I personnally like to see everything as it should be. So if I've got flamers then they're flamers, and this is how I roll with my army, if I haven't got a mini with aparticular weapon, then I don't have it in the list. This is how we usually play, although I wouldn't have too much of an issue with something being changed as long as it is declared first. I didn't always think like this, I used to take a hard line on it but then as some people pointed out in another similar thread, not everybody can afford to buy loads of minis to have all the various options, so considering this, I have a slightly more relaxed approach to it now.

Personally I draw the line with the appropriate model with the appropriate gun. I don't care if you have your bolt pistols or grenades modeled but I dislike having to track more than one or two minor adjustments.

Crom wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

The OP has more than 15k points in 4 armies. Do you really think it's because of money issues that he can't paint 4 more melta guys ?

I probably have 20k in points overall maybe more in over 7 different armies from both 40K and WHFB, and tons of my models are out of print. Been playing since 1991, or about. I have done a lot to convert my old metal models, and back then you could not magnetize them, plus you really cannot do that to pewter anyway it is too heavy. I think it is just overkill to play pure WYSIWYG. Though I can see the stance on tournaments, because people may try to change up what something is during a game. Oh since you are in fact in cover this turn this flame thrower is actually a flame thrower instead of the plasma/melta gun I was claiming it to be before the game started.

I do think it is asinine of GW to not put in a full weapons option in boxed sets, and sells certain things on sprue separately. If you are going to allow players to build their own units and give them tons of bits, then give them all the bits they need to do so in those expensive boxed sets.

You have 20 k points amassed in 20 years.

The guy has 15k points gathered throughout the year. I see a difference between you two.

Alkasyn wrote:

Crom wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

The OP has more than 15k points in 4 armies. Do you really think it's because of money issues that he can't paint 4 more melta guys ?

I probably have 20k in points overall maybe more in over 7 different armies from both 40K and WHFB, and tons of my models are out of print. Been playing since 1991, or about. I have done a lot to convert my old metal models, and back then you could not magnetize them, plus you really cannot do that to pewter anyway it is too heavy. I think it is just overkill to play pure WYSIWYG. Though I can see the stance on tournaments, because people may try to change up what something is during a game. Oh since you are in fact in cover this turn this flame thrower is actually a flame thrower instead of the plasma/melta gun I was claiming it to be before the game started.

I do think it is asinine of GW to not put in a full weapons option in boxed sets, and sells certain things on sprue separately. If you are going to allow players to build their own units and give them tons of bits, then give them all the bits they need to do so in those expensive boxed sets.

You have 20 k points amassed in 20 years.

The guy has 15k points gathered throughout the year. I see a difference between you two.

I probably got more than 20K I was just guessing...actually now I am curious All my models are from 2nd edition 40K and 4th Ed fantasy or newer.

7-8k Lizardmen
4k Ogre Kingdoms
5k Space Wolves
4k IG
3K Orks
3-4k Eldar
2k Tyranids (lots of invalid and missing models, complete 2nd edition army nothing added after 2nd ed)

so roughly 29-31k points of models.

This does not count my Necromunda Gangs, my Gorka Morka stuff (although a decent chunk of that is in my ork army), Warhammer Quest, Epic, Manowar, and all other non GW gaming miniatures. I also took a break for 15 years or so. Just got back into it about 8 months ago. dusted off my minis from the corner of my parents basement, took them back to my place, stripped them, reassembled them, purchased a new box set here and there for a few new models and bits, ordered bits off of ebay, and so forth. I easily dumped another $400 (probably more) on top of everything I own to somewhat modernize my armies. Hell, they didn't make a Logan Grimnar Model back when I played in 2nd and 3rd Editions. So of course he was one of the first models I bought in this last year. I barely played 3rd though, found the rule book for it, so at one point I must have been playing it. Just don't remember it really.

Here is my biggest issue with WYSIWYG rules:

1) boxed sets do not contain all possible options, therefore forced to buy multiple boxed sets, or sprues from third party like ebay (GW gets no sales revenue from this)
2) With applications like army building you can easily itemize all wargear on character models/units, simply showing your opponent what he has is generally OK with me
3) Some items are completely absent from boxed sets, ie melta guns.
4) in some cases the models don't even exist - Fenrisian Wolf Riders for example

Now, I agree that on certain things like lightning claws and thunder hammers need to be as is, and follow the WYSIWYG. However, I don't have enough missile launcher long fangs to field 3x units of 5 of them. I do however have probably 18 to 20 long fang models with a variety of missile launchers, multi meltas, plasma canons and las canons, but not 15 of each exact weapon. I am not going to purchase multiple boxed sets to be able to field everything. I will just declare them and mark them on the field as I deploy them with what they are equipped with.

Just my opinion.

Crom wrote: I am not going to purchase multiple boxed sets to be able to field everything. I will just declare them and mark them on the field as I deploy them with what they are equipped with.

...and not participate in events that require WYSIWYG.

Works for me.

nkelsch wrote:

Crom wrote: I am not going to purchase multiple boxed sets to be able to field everything. I will just declare them and mark them on the field as I deploy them with what they are equipped with.

...and not participate in events that require WYSIWYG.

Works for me.

I gave up on being competitive completely. It is what burned me out of war gaming and made me take a long break. I just got sick of the over cheese tournament power plays and now that WYSIWYG is required, it is just a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money. My old models still work just fine, and for the most part my models are in fact WYSIWYG so I could easily field a legit tournament army if I wanted to, and fantasy doesn't have this rule so both fantasy armies of mine are legit.

If I did decide to get back into the tournament circuit I wouldn't be buying new boxed sets from GW, I would be buying sprue kits off of ebay and converting some of my extra models, because I have a ton of extra everything from over the years.

Crom wrote:WYSIWYG is simply a marketing ploy to sell new models.

That gets trotted out sooner or later in ever WYSIWYG discussion, and frankly, it's a silly idea. If it were actually the case, GW would have made it a hard and fast rule in the rulebook.

WYSIWYG is nothing to do with selling models. It's not something GW thought up to squeeze more money out of us. It's a convention intended to make the game easier to follow. Nothing more.

I am not sure when GW put this into 40K, I am guessing 3rd or 4th Edition since I did not play either of those.

Even back in 2nd edition it was fairly standard practice for wargear to be required to be represented on the models.

Back in 2nd edition all war gear had it's own stats and came on cards. You simply kept the cards with you and revealed them when you were using said gear so your opponent knew.

Since they were supposed to also be recorded on your army list, your opponent should have known about them before then...

insaniak wrote:

Crom wrote:WYSIWYG is simply a marketing ploy to sell new models.

That gets trotted out sooner or later in ever WYSIWYG discussion, and frankly, it's a silly idea. If it were actually the case, GW would have made it a hard and fast rule in the rulebook.

WYSIWYG is nothing to do with selling models. It's not something GW thought up to squeeze more money out of us. It's a convention intended to make the game easier to follow. Nothing more.

I am not sure when GW put this into 40K, I am guessing 3rd or 4th Edition since I did not play either of those.

Even back in 2nd edition it was fairly standard practice for wargear to be required to be represented on the models.

Back in 2nd edition all war gear had it's own stats and came on cards. You simply kept the cards with you and revealed them when you were using said gear so your opponent knew.

Since they were supposed to also be recorded on your army list, your opponent should have known about them before then...

In the older versions metal models came as is. You also used war gear cards, and every piece of war gear was on a card. Once someone got into base to base contact and you fought it out, you revealed your cards, or if you used an item like a displacement field. There was no good way to really mod the metal models, besides hacking them to bits and trying to re-piece them. I don't think green stuff was that common back then, and I don't recall using green stuff until the mid 90s.

If GW really wanted to simplify it, why not use the same rules in their other games? 40K is the only game that has strict WYSIWYG rules. Their player base expands at a very slow and sometimes non existent rate. A lot of people get into it and quit and never look back, and really the number of people that make it a life time hobby is very small. So compensate their lack of sales numbers they up their prices and try to make people buy more models, to make up for the lack of increased sales. This has been their business model for a long time

In WHFB, they don't really say this because rewriting the magic items to fit the description of the character models, and the fact that in Fantasy you are already buying a TON of models anyway, they clearly state the opposite. Fantasy has way more rule sand models involved as well. So, by that logic they would want to use WYSIWYG in all their gaming systems.

At this point we can just agree to disagree because after all this is just the difference of our opinions, but I am going to stand by my previous statement that WYSIWYG is mostly a marketing ploy, why else would they purposely leave certain items out of boxed sets and purposely sell them separately?

Crom wrote:In the older versions metal models came as is.

In the current versons metal models come as is. I'm not sure what your point is.

You also used war gear cards, and every piece of war gear was on a card.

Not quite. Basic wargear was in the Armoury in the relevant codex. It was only the more specialised items that were on cards.

Once someone got into base to base contact and you fought it out, you revealed your cards, or if you used an item like a displacement field.

I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that from, but it's certainly not the way Warhammer 40K has ever worked. The cards were simply a way of differentiating between readily available wargear and more 'special' items. They still had to be recorded on your army list. And they certainly weren't all to do with close combat.

I suspect you're confusing rules with some card game.

There was no good way to really mod the metal models, besides hacking them to bits and trying to re-piece them.

People have been successfully modifying metal models for as long as there have been metal models. Before green stuff was widely available, there were other putties on the market. And simple weapon swaps rarely require much in the way of putty work.

If GW really wanted to simplify it, why not use the same rules in their other games? 40K is the only game that has strict WYSIWYG rules.

That was exactly my point before, though: 40K doesn't have strict WYSIWYG rules. Outside of tournament play, WYSIWYG is a gaming convention, not a rule. It applies as a rule only to certain things, like character upgrades.

why else would they purposely leave certain items out of boxed sets and purposely sell them separately?

Like what?

Crom wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

Crom wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:How can you get mad at some one for not having the money or the time to make every option they might want to run? A hive tyrant with any weapons being used as a swarm lord is fine to me, because after one game of running a crap swarm lord you'd want the hive tyrant back asap. The game was made to have fun nothing more nothing less, and when you refuse to play some one because they don't have the models needed you are denying some one else's fun that might not be so lucky as to have the money needed. I play full WYSIWYG because of tournaments, but it gets old modeling a bunch of things and finding out that the unit would have been better doing something else. Its all comes down to "To each their own"

The OP has more than 15k points in 4 armies. Do you really think it's because of money issues that he can't paint 4 more melta guys ?

I probably have 20k in points overall maybe more in over 7 different armies from both 40K and WHFB, and tons of my models are out of print. Been playing since 1991, or about. I have done a lot to convert my old metal models, and back then you could not magnetize them, plus you really cannot do that to pewter anyway it is too heavy. I think it is just overkill to play pure WYSIWYG. Though I can see the stance on tournaments, because people may try to change up what something is during a game. Oh since you are in fact in cover this turn this flame thrower is actually a flame thrower instead of the plasma/melta gun I was claiming it to be before the game started.

I do think it is asinine of GW to not put in a full weapons option in boxed sets, and sells certain things on sprue separately. If you are going to allow players to build their own units and give them tons of bits, then give them all the bits they need to do so in those expensive boxed sets.

You have 20 k points amassed in 20 years.

The guy has 15k points gathered throughout the year. I see a difference between you two.

I probably got more than 20K I was just guessing...actually now I am curious All my models are from 2nd edition 40K and 4th Ed fantasy or newer.

7-8k Lizardmen
4k Ogre Kingdoms
5k Space Wolves
4k IG
3K Orks
3-4k Eldar
2k Tyranids (lots of invalid and missing models, complete 2nd edition army nothing added after 2nd ed)

so roughly 29-31k points of models.

This does not count my Necromunda Gangs, my Gorka Morka stuff (although a decent chunk of that is in my ork army), Warhammer Quest, Epic, Manowar, and all other non GW gaming miniatures. I also took a break for 15 years or so. Just got back into it about 8 months ago. dusted off my minis from the corner of my parents basement, took them back to my place, stripped them, reassembled them, purchased a new box set here and there for a few new models and bits, ordered bits off of ebay, and so forth. I easily dumped another $400 (probably more) on top of everything I own to somewhat modernize my armies. Hell, they didn't make a Logan Grimnar Model back when I played in 2nd and 3rd Editions. So of course he was one of the first models I bought in this last year. I barely played 3rd though, found the rule book for it, so at one point I must have been playing it. Just don't remember it really.

Here is my biggest issue with WYSIWYG rules:

1) boxed sets do not contain all possible options, therefore forced to buy multiple boxed sets, or sprues from third party like ebay (GW gets no sales revenue from this)
2) With applications like army building you can easily itemize all wargear on character models/units, simply showing your opponent what he has is generally OK with me
3) Some items are completely absent from boxed sets, ie melta guns.
4) in some cases the models don't even exist - Fenrisian Wolf Riders for example

Now, I agree that on certain things like lightning claws and thunder hammers need to be as is, and follow the WYSIWYG. However, I don't have enough missile launcher long fangs to field 3x units of 5 of them. I do however have probably 18 to 20 long fang models with a variety of missile launchers, multi meltas, plasma canons and las canons, but not 15 of each exact weapon. I am not going to purchase multiple boxed sets to be able to field everything. I will just declare them and mark them on the field as I deploy them with what they are equipped with.

Just my opinion.

For the 2nd time you're missing my point here. let me try the frontal approach.

I think that if a guy amassed 15k points in a year (that means a lot of painting, if we assume he has an infantry army and each of the models in that army is worth 12 points that would mean he painted 3,5 infantry models a day, every day of the year, with no pause) which means he spent tons of money and time on the hobby, he could spent a tad more and get them all WYSIWYG.

The OP complains about lack of money because he cant afford WYSIWYG of 4 armies. I say, collect less armies.

I can't, for the love of God, imagine why it would be a problem for a guy who owns the equivalent of 60 Tactical Squads in Points alone to paint 5 Missile Launchers.

All these folk bitching about not having all the options need to ask themselves why are they proxying I bet its because they want to be competive and thats cool with me. But guess what models cost money if you want the joys of 15 longfangs go fething buy em.

Its my model collection that keeps me grounded when making list and stops me making anything too filthy a good example is that I only own 30 loota models (my fav unit) let me proxy and your gunna face 45-135 strengh 7 shots a turn for a mere 225 points per sqaud.

I also dislike the these flamers are meltaguns style proxying just because its so cheap and easy to fix the problem a blister of meltaguns is not going to force you into to poverty to purchase.

People are just cheap tabletop gaming is as mych about the look and fell of the game as it is about tactics and winning.

Jubear wrote:All these folk bitching about not having all the options need to ask themselves why are they proxying I bet its because they want to be competive and thats cool with me. But guess what models cost money if you want the joys of 15 longfangs go fething buy em.

Its my model collection that keeps me grounded when making list and stops me making anything too filthy a good example is that I only own 30 loota models (my fav unit) let me proxy and your gunna face 45-135 strengh 7 shots a turn for a mere 225 points per sqaud.

I also dislike the these flamers are meltaguns style proxying just because its so cheap and easy to fix the problem a blister of meltaguns is not going to force you into to poverty to purchase.

People are just cheap tabletop gaming is as mych about the look and fell of the game as it is about tactics and winning.

I honestly find that this sums up my position quite accurately, I only field units that I have models for and I find it quite rude if you were to turn up to a game and decide to proxy something without clearing it with me before hand, the only exception to this is if you clear it with me before hand and you are only doing it to tst out a unit that you do not have.

Jimsolo wrote:WYSIWYG is for competitive play. For friendly play, I don't care what you're running as what, so long as it's clear to both you and me what you've got.

I definitely agree with this 100%

I only play for fun with maybe a few tourny games but if it isnt on the model or isn't explained in detail i say hell no just because i have seen people try and switch around models that were not armed with what he or she said at first and change it. Maybe i play cheaters haha but still if it aint on the model then it aint there

Crom wrote:and now that WYSIWYG is required, it is just a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money.

No, WYSIWYG was born out of independent tournamnets getting sick of people essentially cheating. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people spending more money - as someone who helps run tournaments for our club WYSIWYG is entirely to do with preventing arguments.

Very, very few tournaments, the non-shop ones, are run by shops to sell models. I'd hazard that none of them are. Theyre run because people want to see lots of awesome armies and a good weekend of gaming - not to make money from people having to comply with basic gaming etiquette in having the right models for their army.

As another example - do you complain about tournaments requiring (in the main) fully painted armies as "benig just a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money [on paints]"? Hell we've even tightened up on the old stalwart "3 colours and based" because some people were, frankly, taking the p*** in just swiping the brush along their model 3 times and calling it good - is that "a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money" by making you actually buy paints, and make the game more enjoyable for all concerned?

I started off using quite a lot of stand ins and I still sometimes play the "Big Shooters are Rokkits" bit but mostly because Black Reach only had big shooters and the more my army grows the less of an issue this is. Those I play with have no issues with stand ins because they would rather play with me now then wait around for me to get off my arse and sort out.

The more I play the more I like to have my army clearly modelled and painted and since I'm off to two tournaments this year I've spent quite a bit of time making sure my whole army is nice and shiny.

I in fact recommend using stand ins to new players/new codex for the whole "Try before you buy" reason. You may have read about how a Kan Wall is a great build and want to try it out so you grab your 3 kanz you have and 3 nids/tau suits/marine dreads all the right base size and scale but then find out you find the whole foot slog army not to your taste and enjoy the speed freak approach after you borrow a few rhinos. In my opinion this should never be discouraged as it allows players to find out what they like and build an army which they find awesome.

There is a limit. Using stand ins to gain advantage due to size/los or any other reason is childish as well as using stand ins because you decided to tailor your army at the last minute as soon as you see mine is not on.

Really for me WYSIWYG is that your model has the correct base size (even for conversions) and if you have special models with different weapons in units at least have something that isn't just a bolter marine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crom wrote:and now that WYSIWYG is required, it is just a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money.

No, WYSIWYG was born out of independent tournamnets getting sick of people essentially cheating. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people spending more money - as someone who helps run tournaments for our club WYSIWYG is entirely to do with preventing arguments.

Very, very few tournaments, the non-shop ones, are run by shops to sell models. I'd hazard that none of them are. Theyre run because people want to see lots of awesome armies and a good weekend of gaming - not to make money from people having to comply with basic gaming etiquette in having the right models for their army.

As another example - do you complain about tournaments requiring (in the main) fully painted armies as "benig just a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money [on paints]"? Hell we've even tightened up on the old stalwart "3 colours and based" because some people were, frankly, taking the p*** in just swiping the brush along their model 3 times and calling it good - is that "a ploy to get you to spend a ton of more money" by making you actually buy paints, and make the game more enjoyable for all concerned?

To be honest, with the ability to magnetize your plastics these days it is easy enough to swap out pieces and parts. You cannot really magnetize pewter models, I have tried, and it doesn't work as well or at all like it does with the plastics. Boxed sets do not give you all options and if you want them, you either have to 1) mod your spec and heavy weapons with magnets to be able to swap them all out, or 2) buy more models and more sprues to get all the options. Why can't GW just put all the options in the boxed set and make it easier for the user to get WYSIWYG.

I haven't played in tournaments in years and really no desire to. The OP didn't mention anything of tournament play, and generally the tournaments I played in before previously you had to submit a copy of your army list to the refs and people running the game, and they were considered a non biased third party.

The pain thing is ridiculous in comparison and that is totally up to the tournament. However, again the OP said nothing about tournament. Would you deny your friend from using flat primer-ed base coated models because they aren't painted.

I already stated WYSIWYG is really only justifiable in tournament play, but it is still also a method of getting you to spend more money. Otherwise GW would put all weapons and equipment options in every boxed set so the user can run 5 missile launchers, for 5 heavy bolters, or use all melta guns. It is the same reason printers no longer come with cables, because they want you to buy the accessory, there is more profit margin in it. It is in fact a business model.

I have slowly been modifying my older stuff with plastic bits off of ebay and magnets to make them WYSIWYG but mainly because I think the idea is cool. Back when I quit war gaming the Internet was all dial up, sites like this didn't exist (not a lot of resources on modding, painting, etc) and I don't think green stuff or modeling putty really made it to our area as even a concept until the mid 90s. Back in the early 90s most of us didn't have access to great online resources like this website. When I saw you can magnetize your models and swap out parts I was like, wow I never thought of that. I don't think anyone thought of that back in the early 90s, at least not in my area.

So, with some work you can make WYSIWYG flexible if you are willing to spend the time and money to do so. Granted earth magnets are pretty cheap.


tl;dr - WYSIWYG is good for tournament play to mitigate cheating, otherwise it is a marketing tactic used by many other companies to sell more accessories.

Crom wrote: Otherwise GW would put all weapons and equipment options in every boxed set so the user can run 5 missile launchers, for 5 heavy bolters, or use all melta guns.

Do you realise how big, and how wasteful, the Marine Devastator box would be if it included 4 of every single heavy weapon?

There are various reasons that they don't include all of the options in the box. In some case, I suspect it's down to time constraints when they're sculpting a new range. In others, there is indeed no discernable reason (Genestealer sprue, I'm looking at you)... But in the main, it's to do with just how much will fit on the sprue, and how many sprues will fit in a box.

It's not always as simple as just cramming more stuff in there.

It is the same reason printers no longer come with cables, because they want you to buy the accessory, there is more profit margin in it.

I suspect that may have been a temporary fad, killed off by the advent of USB connectivity. The last couple of printers I bought have both come with cables. There's no need to squeeze an extra 50c out of you from a USB cable when they have you on the ink anyway.

WYSIWYG is good for tournament play to mitigate cheating, otherwise it is a marketing tactic used by many other companies to sell more accessories.

So you keep saying. But if GW are using it as a marketing tactic, again, they're doing a terrible job of it, since it's not even a general rule.

If it were truly a marketing tactic, it would state in bold writing in the rulebook that every model must be completely WYSIWYG. It doesn't.

Well, I do contradicit my self with this rule sometimes, and my friend catches me on it. But my friend's Lemartes is missing an arm, so we all say he should have WS 1 because his Crozius arm is missing

what i did was give a sargent a Chainsword, doublesided it and painted it like a power sword, blue with lighting, so i can say its a power wepon or a fancy chainsword.
No probs so far, but the people i play with aren't complete dicks and have a smile on there face when they play
People that wont play with you because their brain carnt adapt to a flamer being a melta should GTFO, and you should tell them that to


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

not even a general rule.

Bang jack pot.
Also how do wysiwyg freaks deal with Digital wepons lol

Well some Marine heads come with Optical Implants,as in the one in the SM Commander set,and on most vehicles.

RogalDorn69 wrote:Also how do wysiwyg freaks deal with Digital wepons lol

There are a whole bunch of things that can't really be easily represented on the model, and always have been. Even the most ardent WYSIWYG supporter is usually realistic enough to draw the line at those sorts of items.


Although having said that, GW have had at least one model in their range in the past that did have digiweapons modelled... was one of the RT-era Terminator Inquisitors, IIRC.

insaniak wrote:

RogalDorn69 wrote:Also how do wysiwyg freaks deal with Digital wepons lol

There are a whole bunch of things that can't really be easily represented on the model, and always have been. Even the most ardent WYSIWYG supporter is usually realistic enough to draw the line at those sorts of items.


Although having said that, GW have had at least one model in their range in the past that did have digiweapons modelled... was one of the RT-era Terminator Inquisitors, IIRC.

Or you can hack up a Jokaero Weaponsmith

I like to be notified of whats what in the begining and have it written down. That way WYSIWYG plays a factor, but isnt the main concern. Im still kinda new to the game and squads marines with 3 of this and 2 of that and 1 of these... I does get confusing for me. But im ok with being lenient to a certain degree.

Chimera proxing in for a baneblade is a little to much.

But maybe that why i play necrons, only unit in the army that has options is the lord. Keeps it simple for me and my opponent. Even then though then the only stuff you can "see" is the staff, warscythe, resorb and destroyer body so really simple.

I always modal the options I want on to my modal,unless it is impossible,for example,Tyranid Acid Blood,and bio-plasma,regeneration,Hive Tyrant Hive Commander,Indescribable Horror,Old Adversary,Thorax Swarms,Armoured Shells,SM Hellfire rounds,Locator beacons,Artificer Armour(I make this painted better to compensate).It is all written on my army list,and WYSIWYG,so I have no problems,

Crom wrote:To be honest, with the ability to magnetize your plastics these days it is easy enough to swap out pieces and parts. You cannot really magnetize pewter models, I have tried, and it doesn't work as well or at all like it does with the plastics. Boxed sets do not give you all options and if you want them, you either have to 1) mod your spec and heavy weapons with magnets to be able to swap them all out, or 2) buy more models and more sprues to get all the options. Why can't GW just put all the options in the boxed set and make it easier for the user to get WYSIWYG.

So you want the marine devastator box to have 20 weapons in it? Do you realise how expensive a box that would be? Instead of e.g. 4 weapons you dont use per box there would be 16 weapons you dont use. Oh, and i fyou want a 10 man squad of them, thats ANOTHER 20 weapons youre not using. That way madness lies.

They *are* better at putting weapons in the box - see the GK and DE releases. However its only because the sprue tech has advanced enough, thanks to computerised positioning and cutting, that they can put that density of plastics into one frame. As an experiment for yourself compare the SM tactical box sprue to the GK PA sprues, and notice the sheer density difference in them.

Crom wrote:I haven't played in tournaments in years and really no desire to. The OP didn't mention anything of tournament play, and generally the tournaments I played in before previously you had to submit a copy of your army list to the refs and people running the game, and they were considered a non biased third party.

Yes, but WYSIWYG was still required. The refs dont want to have to go over and check every game to explain what each flamer actually is a melta, or that THIS squads autocannon is a lascannon but those over there arent, and so on - thats a complete waste of time. Have you ever run tournaments, and understood just how busy you get while working for free? I have *far* better things to do, such as admiring awesome armies and answering rules queries, with my time than help out someone who hasnt the courtesy to model their armies with the correct equipment. It also shows some respect for the modelling side of the hobby - this is a 3 part hobby, the game is only one element.

I help to / actually run tuornaments regularly, and WYSIWYG (in 40k and to a lesser extent WHFB) is an absolute requirement of any tournament I run or help to run. It is not worth the pain.

Crom wrote:The pain thing is ridiculous in comparison and that is totally up to the tournament. However, again the OP said nothing about tournament. Would you deny your friend from using flat primer-ed base coated models because they aren't painted.

No, and I'd be more forgiving in a pick up game - with friends. With a pick up against someone i dont really know? WYSIWYG is a massive help there.

The paint thing is NOT rediculous in comparison, btw, its totally apt. You dont need painted models or wysiwyg to run a tournament - however both help IMMENSELY in the enjoyment of all participants. If you dont want to paint your army - fine, I dont want you playing as unpainted armies GREATLY detract from the primary purpose of playing / running a tournament (for me, at least) - actually seeing some cool armies and having some great games. Ditto non-WYSIWYG. It's tiring for opponents trying to remember exactly what is what (unless its cool - rule of cool IS applicable here, see enjoyment factor above, and the fact this is a 3 part hobby - and ive seen some amazing armies with people actually taking photos of their conversions, with the appropriate "GW standard" unit / model / gun next to it, for the opponent to have. Awesome) and when youre playing 3 / 4 games in a day thats added uneccesary hassle.

Crom wrote:I already stated WYSIWYG is really only justifiable in tournament play, but it is still also a method of getting you to spend more money.

BY WHO!!!

Seriously - WHO is it that is trying to get you to spend more money? The bigger tourney organisers, who by and large *dont* own gaming stores? GW, who dont run tht many tournaments at all compared to the indys, and took the wysiwyg idea from the indys? You see a consipiracy here, and keep repeating this blindly, yet have not offered *any* clue as to who you think is behind it!

WYSIWYG was instituted in tourneys to make them run smoothly and be more enjoyable for everyone. Thats it. Thats the reason.

Crom wrote: Otherwise GW would put all weapons and equipment options in every boxed set so the user can run 5 missile launchers, for 5 heavy bolters, or use all melta guns. It is the same reason printers no longer come with cables, because they want you to buy the accessory, there is more profit margin in it. It is in fact a business model.

1) See above. Your idea is not based in logic. 2) Printers do come with cables - they didnt used to because you had about 4 different connection standards across machines, from LPT to serial to SCSI - 1. Bundling cables then was similar to your idea of putting every weapon in the box - 3/4 would go unused. Or youd have to put adapators in instead, although not all cables could be adapted.

Crom wrote:tl;dr - WYSIWYG is good for tournament play to mitigate cheating, otherwise it is a marketing tactic used by many other companies to sell more accessories.

And, again. It isnt a "marketing tactic" - its not even an actual rule in the rulebook. If it were a marketing ploy dont you think GW would actually make it a rule? Theyve had 25 years to think of it.

If both player agree on the line about WYSIWYG, then I do not see the problem.

But do not bring an army with proxys to your FLGS and play vs someone for the 1st time and expect him to agree with your proxies. When I play vs someone for the 1st time, I will not being any proxies. If I get to know the guy better, I'll as him for a little proxy here and there, but never something major (sluggas boyz to shoota boyz for example).


So overall, don,t expect strangers to allow proxies, make sure you make arrangment with your opponent about proxies before seeing his army and arrive with your list already done when youa re using proxies to prevent possible cheating. And if your opponent wants WYSIWYG, then either do it WYSIWYG or get another opponent.

Ok some one may have mentioned this but there is proxying and there is count as. My guard army has a count as Straken in it. He is decked out in the right wargear and even has some cybernetic part but he is far from the model sold by GW. Just because he isnt the "proper" model does not mean it isnt what i claim he is. Then there is the "oh so your playing ork horde well im going to have all of my little army men trade their rocket launchers for heavy machine guns and my meltas for flamers."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" if both sides agree to it anything goes.

insaniak wrote:

Crom wrote: Otherwise GW would put all weapons and equipment options in every boxed set so the user can run 5 missile launchers, for 5 heavy bolters, or use all melta guns.

Do you realise how big, and how wasteful, the Marine Devastator box would be if it included 4 of every single heavy weapon?

There are various reasons that they don't include all of the options in the box. In some case, I suspect it's down to time constraints when they're sculpting a new range. In others, there is indeed no discernable reason (Genestealer sprue, I'm looking at you)... But in the main, it's to do with just how much will fit on the sprue, and how many sprues will fit in a box.

It's not always as simple as just cramming more stuff in there.

It is the same reason printers no longer come with cables, because they want you to buy the accessory, there is more profit margin in it.

I suspect that may have been a temporary fad, killed off by the advent of USB connectivity. The last couple of printers I bought have both come with cables. There's no need to squeeze an extra 50c out of you from a USB cable when they have you on the ink anyway.

WYSIWYG is good for tournament play to mitigate cheating, otherwise it is a marketing tactic used by many other companies to sell more accessories.

So you keep saying. But if GW are using it as a marketing tactic, again, they're doing a terrible job of it, since it's not even a general rule.

If it were truly a marketing tactic, it would state in bold writing in the rulebook that every model must be completely WYSIWYG. It doesn't.

big and wasteful? Those boxes aren't ever full and can easily fit a few more sprues in them, and the plastic they use is dirt cheap.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree at this point

1) The molds are NOT cheap. As in, £30 - 50k per sprue "not cheap"

Argument refuted

2) So you dont think its wasteful to include 16 uneccessary weapons? You have a different idea of "wasteful" to the rest of the world. Especially if you want a 10 man unit, you've just wasted 36 weapons!

3) You do realise you missed the entire "plastic technology has improved" part? To get the density you want they would have to redesign both sprues OR include a new one. All to placate some people who cant be bothered to model their models correctly....

Agreeign to disagree implies one side has some form of logic behind their argument. You dont.

You havent even been able to answer where wysiwyg comes from - and it certainly isnt GW.

ummm....WYSIWYG does come from GW.

p 47. BRB box in bottom left of page

"Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use-given in the army list in their codex. THE RULE IS THAT SUCH EQUIPMENT MUST BE VISUALLY REPRESENTED ON A MODEL SO YOUR OPPONENT CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT THEY ARE FACING. This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG..."

It then goes on to state that from time to time its ok to test out different things (Power Sword is a CCW etc) albeit Tournaments may be strict about it. It also states that most people will be fairly accommodating so long as you a clear at the beginning of the game.

Honestly I have not had much of a problem with this, most everyone I play against has a fully or near fully WYSIWYG army. But then again I build a few interchangeable lists and then build an army...so when I glue a model together hes gonna get used with that wargear come hell or high water

and i use shredders!

I personally have no problem in a friendly game against someone I know having all flamers be meltaguns or whatever....but I will not accept this in the tournaments I run, and I would find it mildly off putting in my first couple games against a new player to the store.
we had one big issue with WYSYWIG...we have one player who just loves to have his C:SM army to count as every kind of space marine under the sun. Now C:SM to BA, BT, even DA is not much of a problem....and then I heard this
"So these tactical squads are Grey Hunters, the special and heavy weapons are both meltaguns, and the sergeant is just a dude with a PF" A little part of me died that day.

I always try and kit out my models with the exact equipment they'll be using in game (when I start playing, anyway). Though when it comes to little things like grenades I'm a lot more forgiving. As far as I know Marines are equipped with Frag and Krak grenades as standard, so I don't see much point in adding the parts (I have done, though). Melta bombs on the other hand are more specialised equipment, so if I want a sergeant to have melta bombs I'll stick some on him.

Lightcavalier wrote:so when I glue a model together hes gonna get used with that wargear come hell or high water

I like the way you think!

Light - yet notice how it only applies to characters? So its not a general rule? As we've been saying all along?

General WYSIWYG rules are from indy tournaments.

ok i see that point (there is no counter to it)
but by extension of your logic you would not need to model anything that is not wargear on a character. So i could have a squad of 10 identical tactical marines, but 1 has a meltagun, 1 has a multi melta.

Anyway as i see it, if they provide a model for it you should try to use it (I understand testing stuff out etc, but there is a limit...eventually you should get the model)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry I was wrong...found a rebuttal.
Upgrade Characters defined (2nd bullet point, first column p 47)

"Upgrade characters are fielded as part of a unit from the start of a game, representing a squad leader or unit champion, such as a space marine veteran sergeant. they do not have an entry of their own and are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics, and perhaps a wider selection of wargear and weapons choices."

So...according to the rule book Characters such as ICs, Special Characters, and squad upgrade characters (like sergeants/syrabites, etc) should adhere t WYSIWYG.
Is it really too much more to ask that 2 models out of the remaining 9 have appropriate wargear?

You're missing the point - GW themselves have not made wysiwyg a general, applies-tto-all-models rule. This counters Croms assertion that wysiwyg is a money making scam.

Even for competative play, I believe that as long as the model is distinguishable in a specific way, not necessarily "This is a melta gun, this is a bloter, this is a combi-plas"

I too like to change my lists....

What about this. If the vertical (Slanted) part of the base were painted a different color.

IE. I have ten marines. 8 of them have a regular brown base. One has a melta gun, that is represented by a "Yellow ring" and one has a plasma gun, represented by a "blue ring" around the base.

Would you allow that in competative play?

That isn't WYSIWYG. It is a great way to distinguish squads/sergeants/special weapons but isn't changing what the model has. It would be incredibly helpful in a tourney if you have heavily converted/dynamic pose models where the weapon isn't clear, but you still need to have a 'bolter model', a 'plasma gun' model, and a 'meltagun model'.

Example: I have converted my orks and gave them all weapons I molded myself. All the sluggas look alike, same with shootas/rokkits/skorchas. When you look at my models, it isn't abundantly clear what model is what but there is a distinct difference between the model loadouts. I tell you all the red rims are sluggas, blue are shootas, and orange are skorchas.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:That isn't WYSIWYG. -cgmckenzie

I know, but WYSIWYG is really a rule WE enforce, right? If we worked as a community to make it clear that WYSIWYG down to the last detail, doesn't need to be the norm, we could all save money and have alot more fun.

Out of control scenario - WYSIWYG Tourney: "I don't see any grenades on your Assault Space Marine, so you dont to use them in your assault phase, and your Initiative is now 1 for assaulting through cover..."


This isn't where we are going is it?

Connor McKane wrote:Out of control scenario - WYSIWYG Tourney: "I don't see any grenades on your Assault Space Marine, so you dont to use them in your assault phase, and your Initiative is now 1 for assaulting through cover..."

The common WYSIWYG standard is, and has always been, upgrades must be modelled. This is the only standard that makes sense since it tells you what you need to be able to know from looking at the models.

Not modelling upgrades leaves you missing important information.
Modelling non-upgrade equipment is redundant.

Playing guns as proxy isn't WYSIWYG, even if you paint up the base special colors. A boltgun will never be meltagun no matter how you paint it up.

-cgmckenzie

"This librarian is unpainted and missing an arm and backpack, sure, but he's really got a jump pack and plasma pistol."

Scott-S6 wrote:Not modelling upgrades leaves you missing important information.
Modelling non-upgrade equipment is redundant.

Modelling non-upgrade equipment is not as essential... but I wouldn't go as far as to say redundant.

The whole point of WYSIWYG is that the visual representation of the unit should be accurate, so that players can see what everyone has rather than having to remember it.

So, yes, it would be awesome if everyone could remember exactly which units out of the bazillion different units available to put on the table have grenades and which don't... but since people don't remember that, it's helpful if people set up their models accurately.

That is what WYSIWYG does. It's not an insidious money-making tool. It's not designed to force people to spend more time on modelling. It's just a way to make the game easier to play for everyone.

insaniak wrote:Modelling non-upgrade equipment is not as essential... but I wouldn't go as far as to say redundant.

It's quite situational.

e.g. I don't bother modelling frag & krak on marines because every marine has them.
I do put stikkbombs on kommandos because most orks don't have them.
I do model frag grenades on guardsmen because some don't have them (special weapon squads) but that's a pretty extreme case. (and I like how they look with webgear)

I wouldn't object to anyone not modelling non-optional wargear.

WYSIWYG can be slippery as there are indeed many codex options that have no factual models.

This. Large, conspicuous objects like main weapons I would like modeled, unless it is a test game or similar. Consistency with the "My missile launchers are railguns today!" is second best. Bare bases/half complete models outside of a "We were drunk at 3 AM and decided to play warhammer" situation will get eyebrows raised. Coke cans hitting the board as carnifex or TWC gets a pewter hive tyrant to the face.

Smaller support items, wargear, etc. that could be already explained as a non-exterior upgrade or ridiculously time consuming to model or paint illustratively I will freely give a pass on. I don't care if you didn't model your vehicles extra armor, as extra armor could constitute spall liners in the interior, overarmored crew compartments, even additional body armor. I don't care if you actually have toxin sacs or acid blood modelled, as it would be physiologically ridiculous to have on the outside. If you have grenades (Which, as in at least a couple BL novels, may be coin-sized and held in a forearm armor compartment..) and have them noted on your list if they have a points cost, I am cool there too.

If you want to use models from army A, to represent army B, I am totally, absolutely cool with if it makes -sense-. With the chapter perks and special character army changing hoopla with the vanilla codices for two editions now, I have no problem if you want to run Ultramarines from the BA codex, heck I have certainly wanted to. Or BT as ultramarines. If the difference is a paint job or minor armor decor it's all OK. I don't even care if you want to use Chaos Havoc Missile Launchers for Long fangs and CSM for grey hunters. Certainly couldn't blame you. But something along the lines of a carnifex posing as an IG basilisk, or a land raider posing as your new Baneblade....Hive tyrant to the face.

Now, on the other side, I try to abide by these same rules. If there are questions about the gear I have selected, then I will happily answer and continually remind the opponent as needed thorought the game (Though the issue has never come up in my group yet.) and as long as everyone remains cool, I will be cool. "Your grenades aren't modeled and so you don't have them!" types however...best make sure that his sternguard have a modeled spare mag for each individual ammunition type they carry, ALL secondary and tertiary wargear should be modeled, ALL vehicle wargear should be modeled (Particularly wargear that GW/FW has made no model for.) and if I am having a particularly nasty day, his librarians psychic powers should be listed on all those little books librarian models come with or otherwise modeled in an obvious manner. His artificer armor better look particularly blinged out compared to the standard model as well.

Also, a Hive tyrant to the face.

Someone once told me that I did not model my shadowfield on my Archon....so I fielded him as an empty black base until he failed his save

(he didnt fail his save till turn 7, after reaching Str 10 and killing half the other guy's army by himself)

How do you feel about someone playing an off chapter of space marines, so they can be played as the verity of specific codexs? I.E. Mortifactors (an Ultra smurfs successor chapter) being played as DA or BT. naturally you would have to get Mortifactor 'Neophytes' and such, but is that abusing the rules in any way?

I mean, come in one day with Blood angels and the next day space wolves, with appropriate models played between them both?


In tourny play, I wouldn't see it as an issue, since they are fairly spaced between themselves, and I would be no more frustrated then if someone had switched out the army. In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

Tagboard Wizard wrote: In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

Surely that would depend on why they were swapping between codexes?

Sure, if they're doing it to get the most powerful build possible against whoever they are playing, that might be verging on WAAC behaviour. But if they're just doing it because they like to try out different lists, or to vary their games a little, it's ultimately no different to people swapping between this army list with a dreadnought in it today, and that army list with a landspeeder in it tomorrow...

At my store we arent hard core about it.

But in truth its beginning to get on my nerves alittle.

I dont mind you play testing something out or a minor verity such as this flamer is a melta or this model. Its cool so long as you can tell hey this one dosnt have a normal weapon.
Or this one, the only model with any Close Combat Weapon actually has a Power weapon. Its cool the only one with a CCW has a power weapon ie he is different.

I get times are hard and no one wants to shell out 30 plus dollars for entire squad squad kite just for 2 weapons that are included.

Now when my friend is done testing he still uses the subs instead of slowly working to get close to the models. I mean using a rhino for a tank/skimmer or an ork for a marine ... from a different army completely.
Not cool save up after a few months of playing with a Sub if you dont show effort to become more in line that wont fly. Or at least use the guide lines above i get it we sometimes dont want to give all our units power weapons to save points. But an ork is an ork and a marine is a marine ... dont cross armies.l

I have never turned down a game if someone didn't have a WYSIWYG army.

As long as we can keep it straight, I say go for it.

Scott-S6 wrote:My models have exactly what they have.

And I don't have piles of spare guys with different options either - I aim for good all-round choices and stick with them.

This.

Although over time and changing editions I am gradually accumulating a number of spare guys with different options.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) The molds are NOT cheap. As in, £30 - 50k per sprue "not cheap"

Argument refuted

2) So you dont think its wasteful to include 16 uneccessary weapons? You have a different idea of "wasteful" to the rest of the world. Especially if you want a 10 man unit, you've just wasted 36 weapons!

3) You do realise you missed the entire "plastic technology has improved" part? To get the density you want they would have to redesign both sprues OR include a new one. All to placate some people who cant be bothered to model their models correctly....

Agreeign to disagree implies one side has some form of logic behind their argument. You dont.

You havent even been able to answer where wysiwyg comes from - and it certainly isnt GW.

*le sigh*

1) The mold has to be made regardless, it doesn't have to be on the same sprue, GW's overhead is the same. It is not like they don't make the molds for everything, and I have done some casting work (jewelry) on my own and know that a master mold can be reused many times. I can only imagine one of manufacturing grade to be used almost indefinitely, or at least for the life cycle of the product. This is an initial cost they have to pay, regardless of materials. The pewter casts will cost more, and probably have to be injected in the molds since pewter contains some silver/tin/copper/lead (depending on the mix) and it sets ultra fast. When I made rings I had to use centrifugal casters. I also have cast bullets for guns, and lead sets pretty quick once cooled. Plastic technology has made the manufacturing process easier and cheaper over all. Plastic is also cheaper and easier to reuse. Metal requires more energy to melt down. This allows them to reuse scraps more efficiently.

2) Is it wasteful? That is a very subjective thing to answer. Would I waste it? Nope, I'd use magnets, mod them, and swap them out like action figures. I am sure a lot of people would do this. In fact, with extra arm/shoulder attachments it would be rather easy. Plus, what is considered wasteful? Any extra heavy weapons can be added to vehicles, scenery, or other modifications. It would hardly go to waste for a lot of people. Some people may in fact waste it.

3) simply wrong. Just toss the sprue they come on already. Melta guns, already exist on their own sprues, heady weapons do as well, mirror it. Or, better yet, break them off in assembly fashion when packaging them. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

I agreed to disagree because you failed to even consider my points. Diversifying your product and limiting it in some say is in fact a proven method to increase sales. Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables, console video game systems come with one controller and no games, when you buy a car it come at the base model and you pay to upgrade features. Some of these sales techniques may be justified more so than others, while others seem like a ploy to just get you to spend more money. The mark up on cables and accessories is horrendous. Manufacturers know this, and to make up on profit margin here or there they do things like this.

It comes down to overhead versus profit margin. GW isn't expanding their sales really at all. I must admit I am sort of expressing my opinion here more so than fact. This is because I am not looking at their actual manufacturing costs and I am not attending their board meetings when they discuss sales and profits. If I were given hard evidence it would cost them tremendous amounts of money to add in a few more plastic options here and there versus what they sell them for, I would change my mind. However, I highly doubt you could justify that to me.

Back in the day marines (and most models) came 2 per a blister pack. You wanted two missile launchers you only bought 2 dudes. You wanted basic troops there were some plastic boxed sets. However, it was very easy to build your own exactly how you want it. In fact, back then WYSIWYG was easier. You weren't restrained by the contents of the boxed sets. You wanted to buy marines with melta guns, they came 2 per a blister pack. Then you could buy the tactical boxed set of plastics and you could easily, and with more affordability create your army exact model for model.

It is of my opinion GW changed their whole business model to boxed sets and mail order only for several reasons, and all of them were about making more money rather than providing their customers with what they wanted. Which I don't have a problem with per se. I want companies to make money. I don't want to be forced into buying tons of extra crap to get my long fang squad 5 missile launchers.

Crom wrote:1) The mold has to be made regardless, it doesn't have to be on the same sprue, GW's overhead is the same. It is not like they don't make the molds for everything, and I have done some casting work (jewelry) on my own and know that a master mold can be reused many times. I can only imagine one of manufacturing grade to be used almost indefinitely, or at least for the life cycle of the product. This is an initial cost they have to pay, regardless of materials. The pewter casts will cost more, and probably have to be injected in the molds since pewter contains some silver/tin/copper/lead (depending on the mix) and it sets ultra fast. When I made rings I had to use centrifugal casters. I also have cast bullets for guns, and lead sets pretty quick once cooled. Plastic technology has made the manufacturing process easier and cheaper over all. Plastic is also cheaper and easier to reuse. Metal requires more energy to melt down. This allows them to reuse scraps more efficiently.

The moulds used for plastic injection casting are very expensive to produce. That's a large part of the reason that GW don't just make everything in plastic... it's just not economically viable for anythign that's not a big seller.

Add an extra sprue to the current heavy weapon box and you're adding an extra 50% to the moulding costs of that box. It's not as simple as just tossing in another sprue.

Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables,

We already covered that one... Printers these days do come with cables.

And USB cables (which is what the vast majority of (if not all) printers use these days) are not expensive. They're not a viable add-on sale.

Crom wrote: Printers come with start ink cartridges and no cables,

Printers generally do come with a USB cable. There was a period when they did not come with cables - when printers with both parallel and USB ports were common. Should you force people to pay for two cables or for a cable they don't want? Also, how can it be a ploy to improve sales when you can buy any cable you want and many of the printer vendors do not sell loose cables? If you leave the cable out then you only make extra money from customers that don't have a cable already and happen to buy your brand. Putting the cable in the box and increasing the price to cover it lets you make extra from every customer. Your whole argument is invalid.

Crom wrote:console video game systems come with one controller and no games,

Again, including a game just forces people to pay for something that they don't want.

Crom wrote:Some of these sales techniques may be justified more so than others, while others seem like a ploy to just get you to spend more money.

They aren't sales techniques. Adding parts that not everyone wants and, inevitably, increasing the price to pay for them isn't a good idea.

In some cases, I feel that the including of options has gone too far - the IG HWS box, for example, has approx 2/3 wastage due to having all the weapon options whilst offering almost no variety in the crews. I would gladly trade some variety in the crew for dropping heavy bolters, for example.

You suggest that not having all the options is a sinister ploy to sell more stuff. I'd say the opposite. Putting all the options in and making it more expensive gets extra money out of every customer - leaving out options only gets extra money from some customers.

Crom wrote:3) simply wrong. Just toss the sprue they come on already. Melta guns, already exist on their own sprues, heady weapons do as well, mirror it.

You can't just "toss the sprue". The cost is not designing the parts - it's having the mould cut. Cutting an injection mould is an expensive time consuming process costing tens of thousands of pounds. You seem to think that they can just take the masters and knock out a new sprue design - that is not how it works.

Crom wrote: Or, better yet, break them off in assembly fashion when packaging them.

Genius - pay UK wages to a bunch of people to break off parts and package them and then sell the bits individually. And what then do you do with the 9/10ths of the sprue that doesn't sell nearly as well as the 1/10th that's desirable? That's right, you throw it away and charge extra for the good bits to cover it. Just like bits sites do already.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tagboard Wizard wrote:How do you feel about someone playing an off chapter of space marines, so they can be played as the verity of specific codexs? I.E. Mortifactors (an Ultra smurfs successor chapter) being played as DA or BT. naturally you would have to get Mortifactor 'Neophytes' and such, but is that abusing the rules in any way?

I'd feel that he was being very clever at maximising the amount of variety he got out of his army.

Also, the rules are not affected one jot by the colour of the paint scheme so how could it be abusing them?

Tagboard Wizard wrote:In tourny play, I wouldn't see it as an issue, since they are fairly spaced between themselves, and I would be no more frustrated then if someone had switched out the army. In casual however, I would feel as though the player was pressing dangerously into 'Win at All Costs!' kind of mentality.

The mentality is what it is (WAAC or just seeking variety) regardless of whether he's got an army of beautifully painted minis or an army of paper cut-outs. If he had the money to buy every army that he wanted to use and to pay to have them all built and painted would that make the mentality any different?

As long as all upgrades are modelled and they look like what they are ment to. For example, all my meltaguns are plasma guns with flamed ends stuck on the ends, as the SW sprue doesn't have a meltagun.

GW would make a lot of people happy if they made the current Melta gun and Plasma gun packs in Finecost, then made Blaster, Lance, and other Heavy Weapon kits available in blisters.

As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

IG Heavy Weapons Team are 3 models with 4 options.
Devastators (the relevant ones anyway) are 4 models with 5 options.

Quite a difference. When you add in the need for the rest of the Devastators and the Sergeant it just becomes worse.

This reminds me of the poster (name eludes me, and is irrelevant) that whined about Devastators not having 4 Missile Launchers, "as that was clearly the most popular option".
Sigh *slaps forehead*

Nuggz - so you want to waste 16 weapons? I assume youre happy with GW spending 60k recutting and molding 2 sprues to satisfy a handful of gamers who cant find missiles elsewhere?

I dont.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

It's not that they couldn't possibly do it... just that it would be a much more expensive kit if they did.

The IG heavy weapons take up much less room on the sprue, as their weapons are smaller. They're also less wasteful since you generally need a lot more of them in an army... buying a heavy weapons squad gives you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that can be spread throughout your army. A Marine Devastator box by contrast would give you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that most armies would have absolutely no need for, since you just can't fit that many infantry heavy weapons into a normal sized Marine army.

insaniak wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

It's not that they couldn't possibly do it... just that it would be a much more expensive kit if they did.

The IG heavy weapons take up much less room on the sprue, as their weapons are smaller. They're also less wasteful since you generally need a lot more of them in an army... buying a heavy weapons squad gives you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that can be spread throughout your army. A Marine Devastator box by contrast would give you a whole bunch of heavy weapons that most armies would have absolutely no need for, since you just can't fit that many infantry heavy weapons into a normal sized Marine army.

If I was buying Devastators, I wouldn't mind shelling out the extra cash for the heavy weapons. That's what you're paying for anyway. You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators. Maybe the solution is a "Devastators upgrade box" that is nothing but heavy weapon arms and backpacks, sort of like the Black Templar upgrade kit: no complete models, just bits. As for the size of the weapons, I don't have a Devastators boxed set so I can't really speak to that, but I'll use the IG Cadian Command Squad sprue as an example...

A ton of space is taken up by tassels for the Regimental Standards. Two standards are included on the sprue. A bunch of real-estate is also taken up by canteens and a vox, of which you will have tons of leftovers if you buy infantry boxes which are pretty necessary for an IG army.

They could easily drop one of the Regimental Standards and some of the knick-nacks and include more special weapon options.


I'll sum up my feelings on the matter like this: instead of including flavorful "character" bits, they should focus on including bits that are actually meaningful in gameplay. For the Valkyrie kit, they could easily have ditched a couple of the interior pieces and included the parts necessary for making a Vendetta.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators.

That was my point, though: How often does anybody field more than a single squad of Devastators?

insaniak wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:You could just as easily throw the extras on cheaper Tactical Marines to make more Devastators.

That was my point, though: How often does anybody field more than a single squad of Devastators?

C:SM don't, but BA players often do. The Long Fangs boxed set is basically the equivalent of the Devastators box, and everyone runs 4-5x MLs in those squads. What you end up with is an overinflated bitz market, crappy conversions, or illegal recasting.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:GW would make a lot of people happy if they made the current Melta gun and Plasma gun packs in Finecost, then made Blaster, Lance, and other Heavy Weapon kits available in blisters.

As for sprue real estate, people are saying that Devastators couldn't possibly come with all of the weapon options...IG Heavy Weapon Teams do, and they're generally clunkier as they require unique arms for every heavy weapon.

I'd be happy with this as well. It also helps reinforce the WYSIWYG. So, when people want to have 5 missile launchers, or 5 heavy bolters, or what not they can easily. It just seems so big business to me and well I suppose GW is the big business of the war gaming world.

Crom -and again, it really isnt. Your premise has no basis in reality.

GW dont give yoiu every weapon in a devastator box set for simple economics when they designed the sprue all those years ago,and nothing more.

I think it's highly situational. I usually just want my opponent to be clear about what they are fielding, and for their army to not look like crap.

That is actually my biggest gripe with Proxies and non WYSIWYG armies. I don't really mind having to remember a few extra details, I don't even care if its a lot of details. What really pisses me off about these armies though, is the fact that they have a very high chance of looking like a half-assed, unpainted, unfinished, assortment of random crap, that has been thrown together without any thought or effort.

If someone was to present me with a nice, finished, well painted, BA army. But instead of using Meltaguns in their assault squads they had instead used ordinary boltguns painted bright orange. Maybe they even fluffed it out by saying that these guys actually carry boltguns with special experimental melta ammunition, which has the same profile as meltaguns... Then yeah that's fine, because it looks fine and they've put some effort into making it clear and cohesive.

I would much prefer that to someone fielding and unpainted or unfinished army that was WYSIWYG, but had the weapons and jump packs stuck on with Blu-tack.

I think this is kind of an extension of the rule of cool (though in this case perhaps it is more the rule of 'uncool'). If you are using a decent proxy which looks good then I think more people are likely to accept it, and make allowances. If you are using plastic Genestealers to represent sternguard then you might need to go die in a fire.

I obey WYSIWYG. I just had to surgically remove meltabombs from a dozen Seraphim, killing the paintjob on their backpacks in the process. Thanks, Cruddace.

Regarding other people, it varies - I tend to be fairly easy going with friends, or folks who give me a full, written army list including upgrades for me to refer to. Folks who just ream off a list of 'count-as' as a game starts, I politely ask them to write it all down. My sister, who also plays, takes rolls of 3mm adhesive tape of weird and wonderful patterns and varieties, and invites folks who want to avoid WYSIWYG to attach bits to the bases of models that aren't as they appear to be, so she can keep track.

I play Necrons...


I wish I had to obey WYSIWYG

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crom -and again, it really isnt. Your premise has no basis in reality.

GW dont give yoiu every weapon in a devastator box set for simple economics when they designed the sprue all those years ago,and nothing more.

There is no empirical evidence to say my premise is not realistic. GW hasn't done much to modernize their business model. They could make huge profit margins off of accessory sales, booster blisters, and the like, as well as things like ebooks for their books.

They don't, they say buy boxed sets, why is that? It is because their business model is for profit off of their product as is. It is because they don't care about expanding sales and make more money long term, they want to hike prices and product limit to make money now short term. Any basic business course could show you this, it is not like I am making this stuff up.

And now I am officially done with my opinions.

good chat

Actually, you're entirely wrong. Do you know why the bitz service, which they ran for many years, closed? It lost money. Exactly what you wanted lost them money.

Secondly, you dont have the first clue it seems about the economics of generating plastic models (molds are more expensive than you would think) and actually stocking them: retail space is expensive.

Another case in point, just to prove your opinion wrong again: the plastic rhino, prior to the current one, broke even the year it was withdrawn. Their margins are horrible. Retail is expensive.

Finally: none of what you posted, AT ALL, addresses your central flawed premise: that WYSIWYG is a requirement to boost sales.

We have proven, time and time again, that this is wrong.

Wow. I mean Wow. What alot of dumb high school bully jocks in here.

Is this your way of becoming a High School jock by telling people how they are inferior to you because they like proxies?

There is a few people here who don't like proxies but do not say that others have to abide, but there are alot of people here who do not like proxies saying they have to abide by them.

How come it's ok in the BRB that says it's ok to use proxies and they encourage this sort of thing? I clearly remember when, GW has said, use the shoe box for a Rhino or Land Crusader, or a Pop can as a drop pod.

So basically you are becoming a bully or the Jock that you always got picked on in High School when you say it's not ok to do this, when clearly GW says it's is ok to do so.

Geeze grown adults and their plastic toy solidiers.

Of the three stores I usually play at all three would definitly tell you to take your trash off the gaming table if you are drop-podding pop cans. Two of them have those huge yellow and red letters we're all too familiar with above their window fronts.

At a tournament if what I see isn't what I get then it shouldn't be on the table. In friendly play I'm happy to work with more or less anything; the better I know you the more goodwill I'll extend.

What do people think about using an unmodified Drop Pod as a spod?It is definatley not WYSIWYG,they're not even the same army.INAT FAQ says to use drop pods or similar,but what about friendly games?

There is a guy in my FLGS who uses a softball sized foam covered with kidney beans as his SPOD. Looks really cool, has about the right size footprint, and nobody has had a problem with it before.

-cgmckenzie

hsojvvad wrote:how come it's ok in the BRB that says it's ok to use proxies and they encourage this sort of thing? I clearly remember when, GW has said, use the shoe box for a Rhino or Land Crusader, or a Pop can as a drop pod.

Quote please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cgmckenzie wrote:There is a guy in my FLGS who uses a softball sized foam covered with kidney beans as his SPOD. Looks really cool, has about the right size footprint, and nobody has had a problem with it before.

Nothing wrong with making custom models - doubly so when there's no official model.

Depends on the game. Tournament (any level), I'm pretty strict with myself.

Friendly games, trying new lists out - much more lenient