Sorry didn't want to abbreviate a topic title.

But how do people on dakka feel about WYSIWYG? An do any people who play in tournaments know the general rule for WYSIWYG when playing in them?
I ask this because I have not really played in any tournaments before, just friendly matches from time to time. I play tau with a suit heavy army and did not bother with magnetizing the different weapon systems that go on the suits. What I did was take what weapons looked cool, or a couple crazy conversions for some of my crisis suits. In general though when playing competitively I go with TL missile pods, plasma rifle, and multi tracker, even though not all of the crisis suits have those built on. I also take the TA now and again and that is also not represented on most of the models. I always specify what models have what load out before the game to avoid any confusion though.

So would you say that this is not an acceptable way to play for competitive events hosted by local gaming stores? I personally do not see what difference it makes, like those stores that require 3 colors for playing, but thats a whole nother topic lol

Tournaments are pretty strict on WYSIWYG, since it prevents confusion, keeps your sergeant from mysteriously having a chainsword one turn and a thunder hammer the next, and reduces conflicts.

Personally, I'm a strong advocate of it, since it keeps aforementioned confusion out of the game. I don't mind a proxy here and there, but I'd rather have everything be what it actually is. The models are generally cool enough that it's not an issue.

I agree with the rule, you have the parts and I'm sure that you've made your army list before game time, so there should be no excuse as to why your model doesn't have the correct gear, other then pure laziness. lol

It's mostly a toss-up depending on what your opponent thinks, generally speaking most people will be okay with conversions as long as you explain everything to prevent confusion beforehand and are consistent across the board (if that funny-shaped tube is a lascannon on one model, another identical funny-shaped tube can't be an autocannon, it has to be a lascannon; for instance).

See that's what I am saying. How is their confusion if you tell them before hand and you have the list printed out with the model mark for the specific upgrades/wargear? That should prevent something crazy like your marine sergeant turning into the Emperor of Mankind

So I agree that wysiwyg should (and generally is) a pretty iron clad rule in tournaments. You just don't have the time to be able to explain and then re-explain what's going on in your army. Plus, tournament environments place extra pressure on a person to cheat, which is enabled much more easily in a break from wysiwyg.

Outside of this, though, wysiwyg is something that should always be aspired to as much as possible, but doing a few subs here and there isn't so big of a deal, especially if they're tastefully and clearly done. Playing a vulkan list and saying "all of my heavy weapons are multimeltas and all of my special weapons are flamers" is one thing, using a rhino to proxy a tyranid monstrous creature is another...

Tournies kind of have to stick to WYSIWYG. The majority of players are on the up and up, but there's always going to be people who either aren't going to remember or are going to maliciously misrepresent what their model is carrying. In a friendly game, I really don't care. I understand that enforcing it for casual play would be kind of prohibitive (since I, for one, would like to test a new configuration out before I saw all the hands off of my Marines to replace them with, say, powerfists).

When you're playing in a tournament, there is a lot on your mind.

You don't want to have to remember that some squad with all lasguns is half plasmaguns, etc etc

The burden is on you to make your models easily recognizable.

If you're too lazy to have the correct models, don't go to a tournament.

The only thing I don't mind not being modeled on models are grenades. Those bastages change between codex to codex, on whether they cost points or not, or which ones you can use...

But for everything else, it should be WYSIWYG. That Lascannon in that squad is suddenly an autocannon, or that guy with the chainsword has a power fist...

Alright well it makes sense for tournaments. Like I said I haven't played in any so I was just wondering what their position is on it.
But that grenade thing crazy brought up is just one of the things I was hopping you might be able to get away with. Like when I got my first Fire Warrior models I put together all the pieces, including the grenades. I would hate to have to break them off or be required to pay the points for them. I suppose rules are rules though.
A little off topic here but I find it a real shame that people would try to cheat in an easy going environment like 40k. Some of the cheating I have heard of is ridiculous, and really unnecessary. I can see that tournaments would require WYSIWYG even if people did not purposely want to cheat though.

Every tournament I have played in is WYSIWYG and I think is is the best thing for tournaments.

At a club/fun level I don't really care much as long as the other guy tels me whats going on with his army. Alsoalows people to experement with there armys before they go off and custom there guys or by new gear fro them.

Weapon upgrades, I'm for sticking with WYSIWYG.

Non-weapon upgrades and grenades (things like melta bombs, adamantine mantle, bionics, etc) I'm not too fussed about as long as it's perfectly clear when the game starts what has what.

I'm not going to get annoyed if someone decides to run an adamantine mantle on a character without a cape or put melta bombs on an assault squad without showing melta bombs on the models, because these are upgrades people will likely change game to game. Just as long as there's some identifying mark on the squad if there are multiples of it (say, 2 assault squads but only one has melta bombs) so confusion mid-game is cut down.

Though, as I said, I draw the line at weapons. Weapon upgrades should be represented, at least if it's a common occurance. If someone wants to proxy a Marine with a heavy bolter as a Marine with a Lascannon to give it a try, go for it, as long as they intend to make a Marine with a Lascannon if they intend to keep using it.

what if it's a weapon that you put on a model but don't want it used? I.e. Storm raven with the hurricane bolters but don't want to use them yet glued on a long time ago since it looks cool? Would people be ok if I just put a piece of masking tape over the barrels or something?

sudojoe wrote:what if it's a weapon that you put on a model but don't want it used? I.e. Storm raven with the hurricane bolters but don't want to use them yet glued on a long time ago since it looks cool? Would people be ok if I just put a piece of masking tape over the barrels or something?

for fun/club games I could not see a problem but for a tornament I don't think it will work

It's terrible for 2 reasons:

#1: Just have a clearly defined list on you, showing what you have; putting call-signs/symbols on the unit (a little sticker or something) if there is a lot of variation. proxy models can be used to distinguish between models with a heavy weapon and those without, putting notes in the list if it's not already obvious.

#2: Unless you magnetise your models, it looks like a commercial ploy by GW; getting you to pay for another model just so that it has a power weapon rather than a chain sword.

for fun/club games I could not see a problem but for a tornament I don't think it will work

Not even the masking tape idea?

It's not terrible for tournaments.

You have a limited time allotted. Any time wasted asking, getting reminded, trying to remember, takes away from that time and could cause one or the other of you to lose the match. (yes, seconds matter... I watched someone lose a match because he didn't have time to do his turn that consisted of only a single CC of 10 men vs 1 - literally a 30 second affair)
Plus, there's a lot going on in my mind when playing in a tournament. Having to remember 1, 2, 3 or more different things, per army I face, is annoying. Be courteous and model upgrades.

I'm for it when it comes down to unique weapons things which you actually have pieces for. For example, I need to see a meltagun if my enemy has one. I do not necessarily need to see meltabombs.

I think that WYSIWYG should be applied generally in any kind of game. I was playing a friendly game in which my opponent left a bolter space on his bikes empty and claimed they had meltaguns. That was just plain bad from a gaming and modelling point of view.

I wouldn't play you. Not in a tournament, not in a friendly game.

Sounds harsh? Well, I think it is just common courtesy to show any and all equipment on your models and not force your opponent to have to remember your unit's loadouts.

So you have three squads of suits on the field, each equipped differently, maybe even every suit, and it isn't shown on the model - you really think I can remember that?

And having to ask you what they've got in mid-game may reveal my plans to you, too, aside from simply being annoying and leading to oversights and thus tactical mistakes that would not happen had you modelled your suits according to the rules you chose for them.

Forget it. Sure, if it's something very simple, like all your FW squads having a single grenade type that is not represented on the models - fine, I can deal with that. But several different models having their weapons counts as something other than they are is too complex, and I do not want to have to think about gak like that during a game, plus it reduces the coolness factor if we don't use models that look like what they represent - that is the point of playing with miniatures after all.

I don't agree with it at all. It's just another form of the elitism that's plaguing all types of gaming these days.

It's also a scam by GW to force players to spend more money on different iterations of the same model. How many articles on GW's website mention WYSIWIG? Zilch. Yes, you can buy magnets, but does GW sell them? No. Hey, I wonder why that is...

How many new players do you think are told about WYSIWIG by the store attendant when they purchase their first battleforce? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say not one.

So some 12-year-old has saved up their pocket money to buy 500 points of whatever, spent the time to glue and paint said models, then comes along to your gaming club one night.

If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

Ulthanashville wrote:I don't agree with it at all. It's just another form of the elitism that's plaguing all types of gaming these days.

It's also a scam by GW to force players to spend more money on different iterations of the same model. How many articles on GW's website mention WYSIWIG? Zilch. Yes, you can buy magnets, but does GW sell them? No. Hey, I wonder why that is...

How many new players do you think are told about WYSIWIG by the store attendant when they purchase their first battleforce? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say not one.

So some 12-year-old has saved up their pocket money to buy 500 points of whatever, spent the time to glue and paint said models, then comes along to your gaming club one night.

If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

Not that GW needs that customer, as WYSIWYG probably makes them a pretty penny..

-Loki- wrote:Weapon upgrades, I'm for sticking with WYSIWYG.

Non-weapon upgrades and grenades (things like melta bombs, adamantine mantle, bionics, etc) I'm not too fussed about as long as it's perfectly clear when the game starts what has what.

I'm not going to get annoyed if someone decides to run an adamantine mantle on a character without a cape or put melta bombs on an assault squad without showing melta bombs on the models, because these are upgrades people will likely change game to game. Just as long as there's some identifying mark on the squad if there are multiples of it (say, 2 assault squads but only one has melta bombs) so confusion mid-game is cut down.

Though, as I said, I draw the line at weapons. Weapon upgrades should be represented, at least if it's a common occurance. If someone wants to proxy a Marine with a heavy bolter as a Marine with a Lascannon to give it a try, go for it, as long as they intend to make a Marine with a Lascannon if they intend to keep using it.

This! Although, I can live with weapons being different as long as they are all different the same way (if that squad's flamer is a meltagun, then every flamer should be a meltagun).

Ulthanashville wrote:I don't agree with it at all. It's just another form of the elitism that's plaguing all types of gaming these days.

It's also a scam by GW to force players to spend more money on different iterations of the same model. How many articles on GW's website mention WYSIWIG? Zilch. Yes, you can buy magnets, but does GW sell them? No. Hey, I wonder why that is...

How many new players do you think are told about WYSIWIG by the store attendant when they purchase their first battleforce? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say not one.

So some 12-year-old has saved up their pocket money to buy 500 points of whatever, spent the time to glue and paint said models, then comes along to your gaming club one night.

If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

Evil GW for wanting people to enjoy the game, really. Look, I am at the moment not really making a lot of money, and certainly not enough to buy everything as many times as there are weapon options. And I do not use magnets much. But you know what? I can simply live with none of my current tac squads having a meltagun. I don't get less enjoyment from the game because I cannot use one. Hell, if I needed to use one so badly, I'd rip the plasmagun from one of my models and replace it with a melta. It's a matter of an hour to get that back to painted.

That poor, poor 12-year-old can very easily play a list that is wysiwyg with his models. That the poor, poor 12-year-old just spent all his hard-earned cash on the battleforce has nothing to do with whether he plays wysiwyg or not. If he tells me he didn't know about wysiwyg (and if it is, in fact, believable), I certainly won't stop the game in the middle of turn 4. But I'd tell him to read up on it and adhere to it next time.

I am not a jerk for wanting to enjoy my game any more than anyone whose opinion on this matter differs and who wants to enjoy trying out lots of options without changing his models all the time. Our way to enjoy the game simply differs and we will not become gamer buddies. No need for calling me a jerk, and if you are not a jerk, sir, you will see this and apologize.

You might as well get used to strictly representing all upgrades (except grenades) on your models.

Rules or not, it will make your future gaming life soooo much easier, if not a little more bereft of money.

I'm strict about weapons, but relaxed about other things.
If you want to play a game against me, I expect all the weapons in the unit/on the models to be accurate.

My army is kinda lax on WYSIWYG, so I don't think I could play in many tournaments. So of my Plague Marines have two close combat weapons, the vast majority of them still have true grit (even though they lost that rule with Codex: Spiky Marines), some are possessed miniatures with mold, ect. I only play friendly games though, and I usually explain to my opponent, "All of these guys are normal Plague Marines" prior to the game. I'd be a jerk if I didn't.

Ok I can totally agree with demanding a higher standard for tournaments, such as having the actual gun represented by the actual gun its supposed to be.
But I am more like that 12 year old, only not 12 lol I started the hobby as just modeling before I got into the game play and didn't find out about WYSIWYG until later. In fact it took me a while to just figure out which bits represented which weapon because I didn't get a codex until I wanted to start playing matches.
So I personally am not to strict with WYSIWYG. I say if you have the weapon represented, even if it is by the wrong weapon, then I am good to play. I do not know a lot of the bits for most other armies, so it is not like I could tell the difference anyways.
An you would never really play a game with me skylifter? :(
As I said the weapons are represented on each suit, they are just not the right ones I can understand this as being a problem for tournaments. I feel bad so most of the time I do what you do and just play them as is. But if my opponent knows nothing about the tau codex or what the weapons look like what difference to him does it make if the right weapon is not represented? You guys see what I am getting at?

Remember that some people want WYSIWYG is casual games too because they want an astetically pleasing game, and having to constantly get reminded whats what detracts from the appearence.

one or two weapons that are different is ok, but to do it with an entire army is kinda tacky and can convey a sense that you don't care about these things.

If my opponent's army doesn't have a single tournament-worthy model in their army I won't be impressed, I meant even point and laugh; but providing that their army has roughly accurate proxies (eg. every melta is a flamer, the Crisis Suits are Meganobs) and they have a printed list with them so that they can't cheat, I'll still gladly play a match with them because the last time I checked- I'm not a GW sales rep and thus I feel no obligation to peddle their wares.

Of course

Ulthanashville wrote:It's also a scam by GW to force players to spend more money on different iterations of the same model. How many articles on GW's website mention WYSIWIG? Zilch. Yes, you can buy magnets, but does GW sell them? No. Hey, I wonder why that is...

Sorry, but... what?

How on earth are you getting the idea that GW not telling you about WYSIWYG makes them more money?

The 'WYSIWYG is a commercial gimmick' idea inevitably comes up in every discussion of WYSIWYG. But it's a baseless claim. If GW were really using WYSIWYG as a tool for selling more models, for starters it would be an actual hard-and-fast rule in the rulebook, rather than a vague mention about modelling options hidden away in the character section.

Telling you upfront when you are in the store would result in more sales, since they would be able to point out that in order to field, say, that devastator unit with 4 missile launchers, you're going to need to buy multiple boxes of models.

WYSIWYG is nothing more than a gaming convention intended to make the game easier to play. And it has never been something that GW have pushed, outside of tournaments where it is important for all sorts of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with increasing sales.

How many new players do you think are told about WYSIWIG by the store attendant when they purchase their first battleforce? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say not one.

So some 12-year-old has saved up their pocket money to buy 500 points of whatever, spent the time to glue and paint said models, then comes along to your gaming club one night.

If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

No, on second thought, I agree completely. It's like when I bought that tennis racquet, and the guy at the store didn't tell me I couldn't use it for playing squash. He's clearly a jerk, and so are the guys at the squash court who wouldn't play against me just because I didn't have the right equipment...

It's easy to just assume that people are being jerks in discussions like this. In actual practice, at least from my experience, few players will refuse a pick-up game just because a couple of models aren't fully WYSIWYG. What's more likely to happen, particularly if there's a kid involved, is that the game will go ahead anyway (unless the army is just too confusing to keep track of) and/or someone will sooner or later sit down with the kid and explain what they need to do to make their army more playable.

Don't just assume that because some people say they prefer to stick to WYSIWYG that they are jerks about it.

Thank you insaniak.

@ darkcloud92: It isn't that hard to learn - I can see that for someone who never looked through a codex and only modeled and painted, it seems hard at first, but I would not mind having you look at my models pre-game and looking up each weapon's statistics in order to learn. If you do that, it won't take you forever, and you'd learn while you play, too.

I might even cut you some slack and help you configure your suits correctly if you were willing to learn wysiwyg and adhere to it. But if you insist on playing with non-wysiwyg models and not do something about it, I would not play you, no. And just so I am not called a jerk again: my decision not to play you in such a case has nothing to do with disliking you personally or thinking you were stupid, but simply with me not enjoying a non-wysiwyg game very much.

insaniak wrote:
No, on second thought, I agree completely. It's like when I bought that tennis racquet, and the guy at the store didn't tell me I couldn't use it for playing squash. He's clearly a jerk, and so are the guys at the squash court who wouldn't play against me just because I didn't have the right equipment...

That sounds more like the metaphorical store owner isn't telling you that you can't play AT-43 armies in 40K. It's obvious, so he doesn't need to say it. .....but this thread isn't about using armies from other rules systems or using unofficial 40K armies in GW-supported tornaments; it's about people not liking the fact that the model doesn't show exactly what's in your list. This then begs the question- why not have GW-supplied magnets, make magnatising part of the game. If you really want your fellow players to have WYSIWYG then surely easier access to magnetising would only be a good thing, right?

what are your alls feelings towards having extra weagear on the model being covered up for tourny play? Just leaving the actual guns visible? Or would the masking tape be too much?

sudojoe wrote:what are your alls feelings towards having extra weagear on the model being covered up for tourny play? Just leaving the actual guns visible? Or would the masking tape be too much?

Haha! Perhaps you've found the answer- turn your model into a one-man-band of wargear and just cover up the one's you're not using. Sure the masking tape would make the model look ugly as sin, but WYSIWYG matters.

sudojoe wrote:what are your alls feelings towards having extra weagear on the model being covered up for tourny play? Just leaving the actual guns visible? Or would the masking tape be too much?

My feelings towards that are not good.

WYSIWYG or stay home.

SDFarsight wrote:. This then begs the question- why not have GW-supplied magnets, make magnatising part of the game.

The obvious answer being that GW clearly doesn't think it's a big deal...

Outside of the tournament scene, WYSIWYG is really down to the individual players... and from my experience, most players are fairly casual about it, so long as people make some effort to explain what is what.

It's only the tournament scene that is big on WYSIWYG... and that's an aspect of the game that GW has never been particularly focussed on.

i think the whole idea of wysiwyg 'avoiding confusion'... is valid. I don't want to have check your army list. Your army should look like what it is.

That said, I have a termie 'heavy flamer' that's two flamers glued together, a crozius made out of a back standard, and a power sword made from two combat knives. But they at least resemble what they represent. I've also taken crap for not having sleeves on my power armor, but I feel like that's a cosmetic choice, like having helmets or not.

Without diverting the subject too much, how does everyone feel about the 'angry marine' look, provided no codex rules are outright broken?

insaniak wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:. This then begs the question- why not have GW-supplied magnets, make magnatising part of the game.

The obvious answer being that GW clearly doesn't think it's a big deal...

Outside of the tournament scene, WYSIWYG is really down to the individual players... and from my experience, most players are fairly casual about it, so long as people make some effort to explain what is what.

It's only the tournament scene that is big on WYSIWYG... and that's an aspect of the game that GW has never been particularly focussed on.

Really? Considering how unofficial armies and units, even semi-official ones like Kroot Mercs, Human Auxilleries, DeathWatch, LatD etc. Sure people don't want to be playing in a tournament against something which hasn't been thoroughly play-tested, but from the strictness that I've heard of you'd think that a GW employe was walking around checking if the player had brought the models from a GW store rather than buying off eBay.

SDFarsight wrote:Really? Considering how unofficial armies and units, even semi-official ones like Kroot Mercs, Human Auxilleries, DeathWatch, LatD etc. Sure people don't want to be playing in a tournament against something which hasn't been thoroughly play-tested, but from the strictness that I've heard of you'd think that a GW employe was walking around checking if the player had brought the models from a GW store rather than buying off eBay.

I'm guessing, since you appear to have wandered off mid-sentence at the start there... but if you're talking about GW stores not allowing people to use unofficial or out of date armies instore, that's a completely different issue. It's nothing to do with WYSIWYG... it's just about stores not wanting to promote out of date or unofficial armies.

insaniak wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:Really? Considering how unofficial armies and units, even semi-official ones like Kroot Mercs, Human Auxilleries, DeathWatch, LatD etc. Sure people don't want to be playing in a tournament against something which hasn't been thoroughly play-tested, but from the strictness that I've heard of you'd think that a GW employe was walking around checking if the player had brought the models from a GW store rather than buying off eBay.

I'm guessing, since you appear to have wandered off mid-sentence at the start there... but if you're talking about GW stores not allowing people to use unofficial or out of date armies instore, that's a completely different issue. It's nothing to do with WYSIWYG... it's just about stores not wanting to promote out of date or unofficial armies.

Then it makes me wonder, where is the strictness with WYSIWYG comming from?

In casual play, it's coming from a desire to get on with playing the game rather than having to sit through your opponent pointing out that this lascannon is actually a missile launcher and that flamer is actually a powerfist... and then having to remember that for the entire game.

In tournament play, it's coming from a need for transparency to prevent shenanigans.

Again, at its core, WYSIWYG is simply a tool for making the game easier to play. Strict adherance to WYSIWYG makes it much easier for your opponent to tell what is what, and gives you both one less thing to keep track of through the game.

There shouldn't really be any need for your opponent to insist on WYSIWYG... you should be following it anyway out of courtesy for your opponents.

If any opponent of mine wants to know if I'm proxying any special weapons, all they have to do is ask--I'll be happy to clear things up for him. Obviously I wouldn't be gauche enough to do this in a tournament, but in a casual setting where the only time pressure is when the store closes, what's the big deal? How dare you spend 15 seconds asking your opponent to clarify something!

Scambone wrote:i think the whole idea of wysiwyg 'avoiding confusion'... is valid. I don't want to have check your army list. Your army should look like what it is.

That said, I have a termie 'heavy flamer' that's two flamers glued together, a crozius made out of a back standard, and a power sword made from two combat knives. But they at least resemble what they represent. I've also taken crap for not having sleeves on my power armor, but I feel like that's a cosmetic choice, like having helmets or not.

Without diverting the subject too much, how does everyone feel about the 'angry marine' look, provided no codex rules are outright broken?

If that marine has a plasma pistol and chainsword as his base equipment, I think he's quite cool.

Custom modelling is at the core of the hobby, if someone doesn't like them, tell them to go play HeroClix.

Grey Templar wrote:Remember that some people want WYSIWYG is casual games too because they want an astetically pleasing game, and having to constantly get reminded whats what detracts from the appearence.

one or two weapons that are different is ok, but to do it with an entire army is kinda tacky and can convey a sense that you don't care about these things.

I agree entirely.

I don't mind player's proxying a model to try it out and see how it works in a couple of games. But if you repeatedly represent one of your carnifexes as a Tervigon in almost every single game you play, I'm going to start wondering why you won't just buy the damn thing or at least convert the carnifex to be a more accurate representation.

Teln wrote:If any opponent of mine wants to know if I'm proxying any special weapons, all they have to do is ask--I'll be happy to clear things up for him. Obviously I wouldn't be gauche enough to do this in a tournament, but in a casual setting where the only time pressure is when the store closes, what's the big deal? How dare you spend 15 seconds asking your opponent to clarify something!

I would hope that if you are proxying anything your opponent doesn't need to ask for you to inform them. You should be telling him before the game even starts, rather than waiting to see what's what.

I'd be very annoyed if I charged into a SM squad and it turns out the sergeant has a power fist rather than his represented chainsword, and even moreso if my opponent felt the onus was on me to check if he was proxying anything.

Teln wrote: How dare you spend 15 seconds asking your opponent to clarify something!

Let's not try to make this into a bigger deal than it actually is. It's not unreasonable to expect an opponent to make some effort to represent their army correctly on the table top... but ultimately, most players won't care if there are one or two proxies scattered through your army, so long as you point them out ahead of time.

players not minding proxies though doesn't mean that it isn't easier to have everything (or as much as possible) accurately modelled.

sudojoe wrote:Not even the masking tape idea?

I think masking tape would be nicely obvious and though ugly, accepted by most opponents.

Otherwise, there are *really* small Post-It pieces that ought to be okay for one tourney. Attach to the XV8's back, with a clear :
Pulse Rifle, Missile Pod
on it and you're good. But if you show to the *next* tourney and you still haven't applied a hobby knife to the unwanted gun ... then you're just not being as dedicated as the rest of us.

I'd still play you, but you're gonna pay the price of some thorough ball-busting.

I'm very for a strict adherence to wysiwyg but at the same time I'm very open to 'counts as.'

You don't need to magnetize every weapon option and painstakingly order out of production bits to convert options that they don't even support in the model range anymore or anything. But for serious if you have like 3 unpainted crisis teams that all look like they have burst cannons and you just point at each as they're deployed and say 'this squad actually has this and this and this and that squad has hard wired thats and more of those and that squad actually has burst cannons' that's a huge pain in my butt to keep track of on top of your entire codex worth of weapon profiles and stat lines as I play.

Post-its are a great idea, or you can grab some oatmeal packets and cut out some pieces to make to scale paper bags and write 'fusion blaster' or 'flamer' on them or paint little symbols or color code them or something and stuff them over the ends of the burst cannons. Suddenly I can tell at a glance what everything is and you don't need to be captain hobbyphile mcmagnetsoneverything. If you think a crisis suit brimming with crude paper bags over shamefully unmodeled weapons looks silly, well, so does a big shoota that shoots rokkits in the same mob as a big shoota that shoots bullets.

Sudojoe's masking tape over hurricane bolters example sounds perfectly okay by me, you don't need to cut up your model to play your list a little differently some days.

I'm for wysiwyg for my army only. That has to do with my OCD more than anything. However I will not require it from Nyone else or refuse to play if your army isn't. I prefer my models to look exactly the way thy they should which adds to my frustration that GW doesn't give you enough bits in the squad box to outfit them correctly. I could convert them I suppose however anything I could come up with wouldn't look as good as the real thing. My nobz box only comes with 1 combi flamer so if I want another then I have to buy more boxes. Then I have what amounts to a 25 dollar flamer and a bunch of nobs I don't need.

I do proxy at this point on occasion since my bits are limited and so is my budget but it's mainly to try different variations of wargear. Its my goal to have everything wysiwyg though. I usually us the colored glass beads next to the proxies as a visual reminder for myself as well as my opponent though. e.g. red for flamers, green for poison (always forget about the poison), blue for lasgun.

so no sleeves are a pass. How about permanent 'counts-as' that are intended to represent things that I can't afford

would this be easily recognized as what it represents? It's not like it can be 'mistaken' for a storm bolter on the shooting turn. I know its not pretty but would this form of proxy be acceptable for continuous use?

Yeah, conversions are cool.

Its pretty obvious that he's got a heavy flamer and a chainfist.


It would be ok if you occasionally ran him with an assault cannon instead just to try it out, but I would want to eventually see you get a real assault cannon termie if you want to stick with it.


and magnets are actually pretty easy. especially with terminators. Rare Earth Magnets are the perfect size for their shoulder joints and the Terminator box has seperate arms for each weapon. You can easily just pop them off and on depending on what you want.

The biggest issue with converting is getting started. Once the initial fear is passed it can be surprisingly easy to do conversions.

insaniak wrote:In casual play, it's coming from a desire to get on with playing the game rather than having to sit through your opponent pointing out that this lascannon is actually a missile launcher and that flamer is actually a powerfist... and then having to remember that for the entire game.

In tournament play, it's coming from a need for transparency to prevent shenanigans.

Again, at its core, WYSIWYG is simply a tool for making the game easier to play. Strict adherance to WYSIWYG makes it much easier for your opponent to tell what is what, and gives you both one less thing to keep track of through the game.

There shouldn't really be any need for your opponent to insist on WYSIWYG... you should be following it anyway out of courtesy for your opponents.

This.

insaniak wrote:
There shouldn't really be any need for your opponent to insist on WYSIWYG...

I agree.

you should be following it anyway out of courtesy for your opponents.

Oh my, how that last half totally changed the whole sentence.

I think there's a balance to be struck- try to make your army represent your list so that it doesn't turn into a game of 'guess the model' for both you and your opponent, but to expect 100% WYSIWYG out of "courtesy" is pompous. I assume that the person has the chance to at least do some research into magnetising rather than "look at that oik who hasn't even bothered to put Flatchette Dischargers onto his Hammerhead, the utter nerve of him!! To come infront of I, presuming that I would- HA! Actually play a match with him and his peasant models..."

What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

Indeed, if you assembled your models in a poor fashion then thats your problem not your opponents.

You learned your lesson, now you can fix it and you won't do it again.

lledwey wrote:What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

Having a weapon or two which isn't WYSIWYG = no passion and effort put into model making?

I don't mind people proxying occasionally, most people round here like to try out new lists, builds and units before they go out to buy them.

I'm also not too bothered about WYSIWYG in friendly play either; if it's instantly identifiable from a distance (i.e post-its) then I'm game.

For a tournament game I'd consider it poor form if your models weren't WYSIWYG, I've taken the time to ensure the game runs as smoothly and quickly as possible, why can't you?

Iranna.

SDFarsight wrote:

lledwey wrote:What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

Having a weapon or two which isn't WYSIWYG = no passion and effort put into model making?

No, but having the majority of the army be wrong is. especially if combined with no effort being put into correcting it.

You made a mistake, ok thats fine. Not correcting your mistake, thats lazy.

Grey Templar wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

lledwey wrote:What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

Having a weapon or two which isn't WYSIWYG = no passion and effort put into model making?

No, but having the majority of the army be wrong is. especially if combined with no effort being put into correcting it.

You made a mistake, ok thats fine. Not correcting your mistake, thats lazy.

As I'm sure you know, modeling takes time so I wouldn't call it a "mistake"; but I agree, showing no will to correct and model your armies, turning up with the same unpainted Carnifex game after game is poor form.

Mistake in the sense that you didn't put the weapon you actually would want on the model, or possably an illegal combination of wargear.

Like there was a newb who showed up with a DA army and he had a plasma gun, meltagun, and missile launcher in one tac squad. Of course its easily solved by getting a new tac squad so the weapon ratios are legal, and he was getting a 2nd squad soon anyway.

darkcloud92 wrote:See that's what I am saying. How is their confusion if you tell them before hand and you have the list printed out with the model mark for the specific upgrades/wargear? That should prevent something crazy like your marine sergeant turning into the Emperor of Mankind

Beceause on the middle of a game, your opponent may forget that the Sgt has a power fist and try and tank shock his unit, the tyranid warriors he's been avoiding actually have wings, or the model that comes out of nowehere to fix your necromancy is actually a tomb spyder. Unless you are reminding.someone constantly, ot is easy to lose track of specific models while playing, hence the courtesy of fairly representing what you are fielding.

It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

To play devil's advocate, yes it is.

I put effort into my personal appearence, is it too much to ask the same from others? Yes, it is.

Unless it is a rule, guidlines are just that, guidelines. It is a courtesy, one that I partake in, and hope that others do as well. They are free to not partake, and I am free to choose to not deal with them if I wish, just as you are. But neither of us are allowed to outright ask of them to do so, and if we were to, we're openning ourselves up to their response, and must be ok with both receiving their response as well as respecting their decision. Just as they must be of ours. That can be too much though, as simply asking can instantly imply wrong doing, which puts the person asked at a disadvantage and on the defensive in their mind, as they fend off a perceived attack against their beliefs. This should be avoided, unless what they are doing is dangerous or harmfull to either themselves or especially others, as safety is everyone's responsibility.

What we can and should do, is hope that others show common coutesy and follow generally accepted guidlines.









Please do not take anythin I said to heart or personally, I'm just playing point counterpoint.

Of course.

Effort is obviously subjective. I have a reasonable stance that if you at least tried its ok. I tolerate, by my standard, sloppy paint jobs because not everyone has the ability to paint well. I'm only so-so myself. However the point is that you at least painted them. And I can understand unpainted models, people have lives of their own. However I would expect progress to be made if and when you did have time, like over Summer.

SDFarsight wrote:I think there's a balance to be struck- try to make your army represent your list so that it doesn't turn into a game of 'guess the model' for both you and your opponent, but to expect 100% WYSIWYG out of "courtesy" is pompous. I assume that the person has the chance to at least do some research into magnetising rather than "look at that oik who hasn't even bothered to put Flatchette Dischargers onto his Hammerhead, the utter nerve of him!! To come infront of I, presuming that I would- HA! Actually play a match with him and his peasant models..."

I would respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure what point you think you're making.

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

This is one of the problems with the environment of 40k, over pompous pricks that expect things out of courtesy from their opponents and who try to enforce them on other players. For tournaments its different. Its a higher level, playing with rules in order to prevent cheating and to make it more standard and official.
But for someone to post you SHOULD have wysiwyg, or you SHOULD have a fully painted army to enjoy the same rights to playing like everyone else it over the top. I say feth you to that. (Not you personally grey templar lol). That is the same thing they are saying back to me. 40k is about making the game your own for the sake of fun and playing the game, while building cool models. "I" payed for them so "I" get to decide what is aesthetically pleasing for my army, not you or anyone else. If I want my army to be painted a certain theme or have certain weapons represented by other bits b/c I think they look better, that is up to me. Just the same as you get to decide whether you want to play with my army or not. I understand if it is your "opinion" that wysiwyg should be enforced, or that good looking fully painted armies should be enforced, perfectly reasonable. But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

insaniak wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:I think there's a balance to be struck- try to make your army represent your list so that it doesn't turn into a game of 'guess the model' for both you and your opponent, but to expect 100% WYSIWYG out of "courtesy" is pompous. I assume that the person has the chance to at least do some research into magnetising rather than "look at that oik who hasn't even bothered to put Flatchette Dischargers onto his Hammerhead, the utter nerve of him!! To come infront of I, presuming that I would- HA! Actually play a match with him and his peasant models..."

I would respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure what point you think you're making.

I think there's a balance to be struck........................................

Scambone wrote:so no sleeves are a pass. How about permanent 'counts-as' that are intended to represent things that I can't afford

Like I said, I have no problem with people trying out a proxy to see how it works and it can be used. I don't enjoy playing against people repeatedly using proxies because 'I can't afford it.'

If you can't buy it or convert your model to represent it acceptably, don't run it in your list until you can.

*Image*

would this be easily recognized as what it represents? It's not like it can be 'mistaken' for a storm bolter on the shooting turn. I know its not pretty but would this form of proxy be acceptable for continuous use?

If you're representing a Heavy Flamer and Chainfist, then yes this is WYSIWYG. There's no confusion here at all, it's not even a proxy.

darkcloud92 wrote: But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

I would suggest that you do the same. You just took a relatively inane post of one player's opinion and blew it all out of proportion with a rather insulting rant.

The fact that a player prefers to play WYSIWYG, or prefers to play against fully painted armies, or whatever else they may state as a preference in no way suggests that they are forcing that style of play on anyone else. The comment about it being a courtesy is based on the fact that making your army easier for your opponent to now what is what goes a long way towards making the game easier to play. That's really all there is to it.

So, please, take a step back and look at what is actually being said before you decide to wind up and insult people for not sharing your viewpoint on the game.

darkcloud92 wrote:See that's what I am saying. How is their confusion if you tell them before hand and you have the list printed out with the model mark for the specific upgrades/wargear? That should prevent something crazy like your marine sergeant turning into the Emperor of Mankind

I don't know a lot about Tau. So when you tell me that this model with these weapons actually has those weapons, and the stats are XYZ, and then that model with those weapons is actually carrying these weapons, and the stats are ABC, and then this other model with these other weapons is actually carrying these OTHER weapons with stats 123...

I'm going to be confused. When I'm making decisions in my turn about what to target, where to move my units and why, I want to have a rough handle on the capabilities of my enemy. WIth something like non-wysiwyg battle-suits I'm going to be constantly referring to your list and cross-referencing models to uderstand whats going on. I can do that, but why should I have to?

Just make them wysiwyg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ulthanashville wrote:If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

No one should refuse to play him, but he should have the etiquette explained to him. If he has glued missile launchers into his squad and he wants lascannons, then tough. He'll have to just use the missile launchers.

This, IMO, is an important lesson for all gamers: You should just take what you like and what looks cool, and not stress about whats the 'best'. Who cares if you haven't glued the 'best' weapons to your model? Just go with what you have and enjoy the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oppressor wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

To play devil's advocate, yes it is.

I put effort into my personal appearence, is it too much to ask the same from others? Yes, it is

You're only reading part of the equation.

If I put effort into my army, I expect my opponent to do the same, and if he does not I am less likely to engage in a game with him.

Just the same as, I put effort into my appearance, and I expect others to do the same, and I am less likely to engage in social interaction with people that don't.

People can dress however they want, and paint their armies however they want, but I don't have to like it and I don't have to play them, and I'm certainly allowed to post on forums telling them what I think of them and their 'peasant' models.

insaniak wrote:

darkcloud92 wrote: But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

I would suggest that you do the same. You just took a relatively inane post of one player's opinion and blew it all out of proportion with a rather insulting rant.

The fact that a player prefers to play WYSIWYG, or prefers to play against fully painted armies, or whatever else they may state as a preference in no way suggests that they are forcing that style of play on anyone else. The comment about it being a courtesy is based on the fact that making your army easier for your opponent to now what is what goes a long way towards making the game easier to play. That's really all there is to it.

So, please, take a step back and look at what is actually being said before you decide to wind up and insult people for not sharing your viewpoint on the game.

I would suggest you read my whole post. I clearly said I wasn't referring to grey knight directly lol

I just realized, that, my Tournament army is going to need a bit of an overhaul, since, getting 10 combi meltas on my Sternguard Vets is going to be a pain. Any suggestions?

This is a little off topic but somewhat relevant so bear with me.

In my opinion, the main problem with WYSIWYG in 40k is that the current wargear rules create a “conundrum” type scenario when one has to represent specific wargear upgrades in order to play at the cost of wasting a lot of time and money on the modelling the “wrong” wargear choice (especially when the current meta and level of codex creep can make this a very difficult choice). Alternatively it is an extreme hassle to build additional models or magnetize alternate wargear choices (which is why I usually opt for building all comers lists). Additionally most kits don’t come with adequate enough bits to represent all the wargear options which in turn forces players to buy additional kits or third party products.

It is interesting that 40k is the only game that I am aware of where WYSIWYG is such a big issue largely because the rules are incredibly reliant on representing the specific wargear choices. There’s seriously no alternative process IMO considering the ramifications on the competitive scene if “large scale” proxying was allowed.

Personally I kinda wish that more ranged weapons had alternate firing modes/special ammunition (e.g. Missile launcher, Blastmaster etc) which would make the process of selection ranged weaponry less punishing.

Combi-meltas are a fairly easy conversion. there are tons of videos on Youtube on how to turn standard bolters into combi-weapons.


I made mine by taking a regular bolter and a Multi-melta(1 MM makes 2 combi-bolters)

Take one of the little fuel tanks and one of the front barrels. glue the barrel on just above the bolter's barrel(clip the little stick thingy just above it to get the flat surface)

the fuel tank can be placed anywhere convienient on the bolter.

bam, you got a fairly easy combi-melta.

Anyone who has bought Devestator squads should have a few Multi-meltas around(I don't remember if the Tac squads come with one)

The problem is I dont have any meltas/combi meltas laying around. I haven't bought Devastators because they are not competitive, unfortunately, and Missile Launchers are a strong (and come with Tactical Marines) heavy weapon.

I wouldn't refuse to play with a proxy army, but I think part of the idea is also that you have to commit. Yeah, if you wasted all your points on a lascannon in a tac squad, you have to fit that into your list. Its kinda lame to say 'oh I need to drop 15 points... uh, that's a missile launcher now'. As a guy who can't resist putting all the upgrades possible on my sergeants, I know the pain of having to squeeze them into points limits, but I don't go around pretending I didn't give them plasma pistols, power swords, and melta bombs. That was my fault and I'll live with it.
The opinion that its presumptuous to prefer wysiwyg is presumptuous Its just a preference, we'll still let you play with your goofy models (see my prior post w/pics before taking offense to *me* calling *your* models goofy).

candy.man wrote:It is interesting that 40k is the only game that I am aware of where WYSIWYG is such a big issue largely because the rules are incredibly reliant on representing the specific wargear choices.

It's not.

When I played FoW, I'd be annoyed if that Panzer I was actually a Tiger, or if that Ha-Go was actually a Panzer IV.
I'm pretty sure Warmachine has similar issues (but I don't play it so I can't say for sure).

There's just more options in 40k, and lots of codexes having lots of options, so it's harder to remember each little "change" from what's visible.

Indeed, FoW has WYSIWYG as a rule as well. its actually on the very first page of rules so actually has more of a legal requirement there then it does with GW.

IDK about Warmachine but I imagine they discuss it there too.

Scambone wrote:I wouldn't refuse to play with a proxy army, but I think part of the idea is also that you have to commit. Yeah, if you wasted all your points on a lascannon in a tac squad, you have to fit that into your list. Its kinda lame to say 'oh I need to drop 15 points... uh, that's a missile launcher now'. As a guy who can't resist putting all the upgrades possible on my sergeants, I know the pain of having to squeeze them into points limits, but I don't go around pretending I didn't give them plasma pistols, power swords, and melta bombs. That was my fault and I'll live with it.
The opinion that its presumptuous to prefer wysiwyg is presumptuous Its just a preference, we'll still let you play with your goofy models (see my prior post w/pics before taking offense to *me* calling *your* models goofy).

You mean when you've glued the weapon onto the model and then regret it? As otherwise it sounds like you're changing your list only minutes before the game starts.

Being a Tau player most of my weapons options are either on suits where it's relatively easy to blu-tac or (much cleaner) magnetise them, or Hammerhead/Devilish options where I just change the turret or drone. The most proxying I've done is using Orks for Kroot.

There is a difference between Count's As and Proxy.


Orks would be an ok Count's As for Kroot. You could say your Cadre has bribed some orks with some nice fancy shootas to fight for them.

Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference between Count's As and Proxy.


Orks would be an ok Count's As for Kroot. You could say your Cadre has bribed some orks with some nice fancy shootas to fight for them.

I'm glad for that, though it's really because they're the only massed infantry I had who weren't more Fire Warriors (I've built a couple of Kroot units now, though); and because Orks and Kroot are both lightly armoured CC infantry.

Having a metaphorical 'weapon rack' for my Crisis suits is actually part of the fun when building list-after-list, keeping dynamic. The problem comes when you're working with models which aren't so easy to tac/magnetise.

As deathwing I've had my fair share of pulling arms off models and gluing new ones on. It's an annoying pain in the rear but having the correct wargear on a model saves a lot of time and mental energy in a game. It just makes it easier on you and your opponent.

I have done proxies before though when testing things out. It's best to try and make things as clear as possible though. All the guys with green paint have plasma guns and red paint are melta guns for example.

If an opponent didn't want to play me because of that though I certainly wouldn't hold it against them. Who you want to play against is your choice and it's nothing to get bummed out over.

There's also a fine line here, which I think is a much more interesting direction to discuss. Full weapon swapping is obviously a problem for most people because visual misrepresentation causes confusion, but at the same time no one expects tesseract labyrinths or teleport homers or black sun filters to be represented.
Somewhere in between there is something like a combi weapon or melta bombs where you can put the melta nozzle on a bolter with maybe some guitar wire or a fuel can sticking off it someplace, are you absolutely required to call that a combi melta for every game without swapping arms, or can it just be a bolter with some flare some games? Is just painting a frag grenade red enough for it to count as a melta bomb? Doesn't everyone shave points to make lists fit by dropping or picking up those kinds of little things?
Where is the line of having your opponent look at the army list before game and see 'oh that dude has a melta bomb, better watch out for him getting near vehicles' and 'oh he's not running that banner as a chapter banner this game it's just a visual banner' and having an unreasonable model misrepresentation for you guys?

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed, FoW has WYSIWYG as a rule as well. its actually on the very first page of rules so actually has more of a legal requirement there then it does with GW.

IDK about Warmachine but I imagine they discuss it there too.

Additionally, pretty much any of the various collectible miniatures games require you to use the correct model.

I don't recall if Warmachine has it as a rule, but at least back when I was playing most units didn't really have options... It was just assumed that you would be using the correct models. Which seems to be more or less the standard for most games.

WYSIWYG most certainly isn't exclusive to GW games. It's just the fact that they allow for a lot more options makes it more problematic to make it stick, since a lot of players like to switch around their lists on a frequent basis.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm pretty sure Warmachine has similar issues (but I don't play it so I can't say for sure)

WYSIWYG is less of an issue in Warmachine because the wargear rules are less complex. There’s no standardised/pre-established weaponry (such as melta, plasma, flamer etc) and instead things are balanced on a unit level. You can’t extensively customise the wargear of squads the same way as 40k as well. All you can do with Squads in Warmachine is purchase a larger squad or add a unit attachment (usually an officer, standard bearer or special weapons guy).

In regards to Warjacks specifically, most Warjacks have 2-3 variant models (each with a specific weapons load out) and Plastic Warjacks kits normally come with all the options to represent the variant models. Considering most lists would only have a very small handful of warjacks, the odd proxy in a non competitive setting is less of an issue.

The conversion rules for Warmachine are a little interesting. As long as the converted model is made of at least 60% of the original model and is equipped with similar weaponry (e.g. pistol and melee weapon) it is allowed.

Now for stuff like SM and other places with guns, I can see this hold up quite well but how about things like chaos daemons?

If I had wings on a model that is somewhat angelic looking and had tattered angel wings with various wounds/ragged appearance being called a daemon prince I think most friendly games would think that would be decently cool.

If I suddenly showed up to a tourny, would I then rip off the wings and now the model doesn't make any sense as a fallen angel since I didn't pay for wings? How do I show things like bolt of breath upgrades? Do I need a harp to represent pavane somewhere on there? What do you do to show iron hide? Drawing marks or could I just have them hold a banner?

My seekers are actually all fantasy chaos knights, my chariot has horses pulling it, my fiends are forest spider goblins with parts of daemonettes on top. My spawn are actually from an anime series action figure that's kind of close to the same size as the spawn. Almost the whole thing outside of fateweaver, bloodcrushers, and plaguebeares are count as. I got 3 daemon princesses running around.

Specifically for daemons, I think there can be alot of leeway on what's counting as what.

I find it amusing that the tournaments at my FLGS don't really care for WYSIWYG. They won't always condone proxies if they see a steady effort from you, but for the most part it seems to go unnoticed and no one seems to really care. Its odd in my opinion since I've been playing casually until now and I've always been all about not using proxies.

Ok, so, for a Tournament, would all my Sternguard need to be toting Combi-Meltas (since, they are already built and painted, ruining their paint job would be a damn shame to get those little bits on) or, if I brought spare Army Lists, and gave it to my opponent, would it be fine as long as i had one or two in the squad to represent that I had it them?

I'd hate to destroy perfectly good multi meltas and such, and to ruin perfectly good paint jobs for it.

Crazyterran wrote:Ok, so, for a Tournament, would all my Sternguard need to be toting Combi-Meltas (since, they are already built and painted, ruining their paint job would be a damn shame to get those little bits on) or, if I brought spare Army Lists, and gave it to my opponent, would it be fine as long as i had one or two in the squad to represent that I had it them?

I'd hate to destroy perfectly good multi meltas and such, and to ruin perfectly good paint jobs for it.

I'd be dissapointed if they didn't have actual combi-meltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazyterran wrote: I haven't bought Devastators because they are not competitive

Says who? Devastators are awesome!

You will need to actually model combi-meltas for any guys who are equipped with them, in most tournaments. There are tournaments out there which don't require WYSIWYG, but they tend to be small local ones.

They are way overcosted at the moment in Codex: Space Marines.

I'd much rather have Predators or Vindicators for less points than it takes to make a decent Devastator Squad.

Mannahnin wrote: You will need to actually model combi-meltas for any guys who are equipped with them, in most tournaments. There are tournaments out there which don't require WYSIWYG, but they tend to be small local ones.

I figured as much... sigh. Just need to come up with 9 Melta bits or things that look like melta bits. Heh. (or not use Combi Meltas :()

Yup. There would be more sternguard and more double autocannon dreads on the tables of the world if they just came in ready-to-go kits.

lledwey wrote:What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

I don't know how someone can claim that they care about their models appearance in this game, and would at the same time suggest breaking your models intentionally.

Mannahnin wrote:Yup. There would be more sternguard and more double autocannon dreads on the tables of the world if they just came in ready-to-go kits.

Bah, Sternguard are worth their points even without Combi-Meltas. And really, they can be made out of a tactical squad if you aren't giving them anything special. Give them white shoulderpads and helmets if you use Ultramarines.

Autocannon Dreads though... Good luck >.>

Kaldor wrote:You're only reading part of the equation.

If I put effort into my army, I expect my opponent to do the same, and if he does not I am less likely to engage in a game with him.

Just the same as, I put effort into my appearance, and I expect others to do the same, and I am less likely to engage in social interaction with people that don't.

People can dress however they want, and paint their armies however they want, but I don't have to like it and I don't have to play them, and I'm certainly allowed to post on forums telling them what I think of them and their 'peasant' models.

As opposed to you only only quoting part of my post, as well as apparently only reading part of my post.

At least have the courtesy to quote what I actually posted and respond to that.

Oppressor wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

To play devil's advocate, yes it is.

I put effort into my personal appearence, is it too much to ask the same from others? Yes, it is.

Unless it is a rule, guidlines are just that, guidelines. It is a courtesy, one that I partake in, and hope that others do as well. They are free to not partake, and I am free to choose to not deal with them if I wish, just as you are. But neither of us are allowed to outright ask of them to do so, and if we were to, we're openning ourselves up to their response, and must be ok with both receiving their response as well as respecting their decision. Just as they must be of ours. That can be too much though, as simply asking can instantly imply wrong doing, which puts the person asked at a disadvantage and on the defensive in their mind, as they fend off a perceived attack against their beliefs. This should be avoided, unless what they are doing is dangerous or harmfull to either themselves or especially others, as safety is everyone's responsibility.

What we can and should do, is hope that others show common coutesy and follow generally accepted guidlines.









Please do not take anythin I said to heart or personally, I'm just playing point counterpoint.

-Loki- wrote:

lledwey wrote:What I'll never understand is how people play a game that involves building and painting models, and yet do not care about whether or not their models are built properly or painted. If you just want to fight stuff, go play a video game. If you're going to take the time to play a miniatures game, put in the tiny amount of effort it takes to build your stuff properly. Rip the guns off and replace them with what you actually want. If you don't have the proper guns, trade for them or convert. I'd suggest buying them but apparently spending money on an expensive hobby is a travesty.

Go play Starcraft if you don't want to take the time to model your army.

I don't know how someone can claim that they care about their models appearance in this game, and would at the same time suggest breaking your models intentionally.

Why not? It's pretty easy to remove a weapon and doesn't necessarily involve heinous damage to the paintjob. I'm certainly no Golden Daemon-winner, but swapping out a Melta for a Flamer or vice versa is something I've done many times before a tournament. Or swapping a backpack for a jumppack. If I glued it in place I wince a little and make the effort to be gentle (putting a model in the freezer often makes superglue brittle and easy to snap), then I repair the paintjob.

Mannahnin wrote:Why not? It's pretty easy to remove a weapon and doesn't necessarily involve heinous damage to the paintjob.

You use superglue, I assume. I use plastic glue on plastics. Let me tell you, swapping a weapon or arm that's been glued with plastic glue not only damaged the paint job, but sometimes even requires tools to help detach it, causing damage to the model itself.

And before the question 'Why use plastic cement', because I don't know a single person that cares if I proxy a Venom Cannon warrior as a regular Deathspitter warrior for one game (friends or randoms at my FLGS), and I dislike my models breaking in transit.

Oppressor wrote: At least have the courtesy to quote what I actually posted and respond to that.

Sheesh.

You said it was 'too much to ask' to expect people to have the same standards. Which isn't true. Then you went off on some touchy-feely spiel about what we should and shouldn't do.

We CAN tell people off for having crap armies. We SHOULD tell people off for inappropriate proxying. We don't need to be dicks about it though.

-Loki- wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Why not? It's pretty easy to remove a weapon and doesn't necessarily involve heinous damage to the paintjob.

You use superglue, I assume. I use plastic glue on plastics. Let me tell you, swapping a weapon or arm that's been glued with plastic glue not only damaged the paint job, but sometimes even requires tools to help detach it, causing damage to the model itself.

And before the question 'Why use plastic cement', because I don't know a single person that cares if I proxy a Venom Cannon warrior as a regular Deathspitter warrior for one game (friends or randoms at my FLGS), and I dislike my models breaking in transit.

And that's fine. If you played with folks that cared more about WYSIWYG, or more often played with strangers, you'd probably choose to just use the guys as you've modeled them, or build some more models with the loadouts you most prefer to use.

-Loki- wrote:You use superglue, I assume. I use plastic glue on plastics. Let me tell you, swapping a weapon or arm that's been glued with plastic glue not only damaged the paint job, but sometimes even requires tools to help detach it, causing damage to the model itself.

I use plastic glue. It's usually no more difficult to cut through with an exacto knife than the plastic itself.

I just wanted to clarify what I meant, since I did come on a bit harsh:

I'm not suggesting that anyone go pop the arms off of their Goldem Daemon entries to satisfy WYSIWYG, that's silly.

What I'm saying is that if, like most people, you have a tabletop quality army, that you want to use in tournaments, and has a lot of the wrong weapons/wargear/whatever represented, and you just can't be arsed to fix it, then YOU are being lazy. The people asking for WYSIWYG are not being jerks, they are not forcing you. If you CHOOSE (and it is a choice) to play this game competetively, you should accept that people expect your models to represent what they have in your army list. It isn't hard to do.

Nobody is asking you to have a professionally painted army that is perfectly modelled and a joy to look at. Just do it properly. Convert if you have to. Everyone else does it, you can too.

Kaldor wrote:

Oppressor wrote: At least have the courtesy to quote what I actually posted and respond to that.

Sheesh.

You said it was 'too much to ask' to expect people to have the same standards. Which isn't true. Then you went off on some touchy-feely spiel about what we should and shouldn't do.

I posted that because it is true, it actually can be too much to ask. I then went on to explain exactly why. The reason is because a standard is something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example. WYSIWYG is not esteblished by authority (as it is not a rule), and customs as well as general consent differentiate from player to player and region by region. Therefore, you have no right to impose your adhearence to a guidline on others. You do have the ability to avoid them though, like I have already said.

We CAN tell people off for having crap armies.

I never said otherwise.

We SHOULD tell people off for inappropriate proxying.

You honestly believe that everyone's opinions are exactly the same? As you are not an authority on a matter that is not a rule and highly subjective, you have no right to either, just the ability to.

We don't need to be dicks about it though.

You're not exactly proving otherwise.


You also decided to ignore my first post in this thread, explaining my opinion on the matter, the two different times I specifically stated that I was just playing devil's advocate or point counterpoint, and nearly all of what I posted again.

WYSIWYG is only for tournaments. I ask for it in friendly games but I'm not a dick about proxied models.

Wow I honestly was not expecting this to be such a hotly debated topic lol But thanks for the answers everyone, i do appreciate the opinions, even the ones I disagree with.
All in all the best thing is probably just to try and be "courteous", gosh I HATE that word now, to any players ideas. That is what the game is about, making it YOUR own universe. So that would mean trying to have your army as accurate as possible, but also recognizing that proxying and count as, or conversions need to be allowed to an extent. That is really what is the best part about 40k, making your army unique.

Also just another quick Q. I use a squad of 5 pathfinders, but only 3 are pathfinder models. The other 2 are technically FW models with pulse carbines, which look almost exactly the same as the Pathfinders. Surely this could be seen as reasonable. An no I do not plan on ever switching them out, b/c I like the way they look. It is not b/c I am "lazy." The reason is actually the opposite, same with the rest of my conversions. I put a lot of effort into making that pathfinder squad, and to making those FW's into pathfinders. Just the same as someone who used 5 pathfinder models. I just think the deserve the same recognition as any other pathfinder squad. You can like other peoples more, you just gotta recognize that they are not less valuable like so many people who posted on here seem to do.

I mean as long as they state what things are and its semi understandable like no rhino subbing for a land raider. ITs fine with me i undertsand sometimes its hard to get all the bits before you actually get to play

I will confess that I do have laid back demeanor but we do have a guy in the local store that is very vocal about wysiwyg even in friendly games. And he is a jerk about it even if we don't play with him. It's gotten to the point where me and my friend go out of our way to irritate him now just to see him get all pissy. Hey bob look at my new battle wagon. "holds up a rhino". It's my friends rhino for his space marines. He actually went on a 20 min rant about that one lol. Almost got asked to leave the store for annoying paying customers.

I'm sorry but if your gunna be that obnoxious then I have to poke the bear as they say. It's one thing if you don't want to play with more laid back people but it's another to come over an be an overbearing individual when others are playing.

^ Doesn't that classify you as That Guy in this situation?

darkcloud92 wrote:Wow I honestly was not expecting this to be such a hotly debated topic lol But thanks for the answers everyone, i do appreciate the opinions, even the ones I disagree with.
All in all the best thing is probably just to try and be "courteous", gosh I HATE that word now, to any players ideas. That is what the game is about, making it YOUR own universe. So that would mean trying to have your army as accurate as possible, but also recognizing that proxying and count as, or conversions need to be allowed to an extent. That is really what is the best part about 40k, making your army unique.

Also just another quick Q. I use a squad of 5 pathfinders, but only 3 are pathfinder models. The other 2 are technically FW models with pulse carbines, which look almost exactly the same as the Pathfinders. Surely this could be seen as reasonable. An no I do not plan on ever switching them out, b/c I like the way they look. It is not b/c I am "lazy." The reason is actually the opposite, same with the rest of my conversions. I put a lot of effort into making that pathfinder squad, and to making those FW's into pathfinders. Just the same as someone who used 5 pathfinder models. I just think the deserve the same recognition as any other pathfinder squad. You can like other peoples more, you just gotta recognize that they are not less valuable like so many people who posted on here seem to do.

That falls into the realm of Count's As. its not going to result in confusion and the models works in the situation. If you were using an Ork Boy for the same thing then it would be a proxy.

Na I didn't actually use the model. Was tease the other guy.

wowsmash wrote:I will confess that I do have laid back demeanor but we do have a guy in the local store that is very vocal about wysiwyg even in friendly games. And he is a jerk about it even if we don't play with him. It's gotten to the point where me and my friend go out of our way to irritate him now just to see him get all pissy. Hey bob look at my new battle wagon. "holds up a rhino". It's my friends rhino for his space marines. He actually went on a 20 min rant about that one lol. Almost got asked to leave the store for annoying paying customers.

I'm sorry but if your gunna be that obnoxious then I have to poke the bear as they say. It's one thing if you don't want to play with more laid back people but it's another to come over an be an overbearing individual when others are playing.

Lol the guy with the Fry troll avatar would do stuff like that :p
That's my response to most overly vocal people who take things to far as well. No one gets hurt, and you get a couple of cheap laughs at their expense. Trollolololol

@Actinium
...I guess I 'm a jerk I think that's what wysiwyg is, piddly 5 points for a melta bomb and all. Proxy-ing for a test match is perfectly fine of course, but I feel like its only polite in a match with a random person to visually represent *what is expected to be represented, *how its expected to be represented (in base form, not color or style), and not have to be told what things are. Again, I have pretty raw homemade's myself, but I try to make it clearly visible what the things are. Red frags as melta? How would I know that? Melta muzzle stuck on a bolter (doesn't fit, I tried it)? I would probably see that as a combi melta if both barrels were visible (if it was just a melta barrel I might think its a melta ). Now if you painted the word 'melta' on the frag, first I'd shake your steady, steady hand, then I'd play a random game with you and understand its a melta bomb.
Its a question of clarity. I think.

Pardon the and also laugh at my ugly army and losing streak before anybody gets upset

It's hard not to use count as when things like chaos daemons just don't have good model support. Chariot? doesn't exist. Blue scribe? doesn't exist. Herald? Some do, not all of them. skarbrand? nope. fiends are ugly as sin so I typically perfer to proxy. Essentially I think there'd be alot more room to proxy in some armies compared to others. It's virtually impossible to represent things like daemonic gifts without being at least a bit creative (i.e. someone might paint a mark, someone uses a standard, someone paints it green, all non-standard but all probably acceptable)

So some armies like daemons just really lends itself to proxy even in a wysisyg environment and definately will need some explainations before any fight.

Have to agree with that as well. It's a bummer when you have to choose ur army based on which one has more support. I didn't want tyranids or space wolfs when I started because I knew GW didn't have all the models for them :(