I keep seeing this phrase that WYSIWYG is dead but I don't understand it. Is this simply because the rulebook no longer has the stipulation?

Do tournaments enforce this rule? I don't play in tournaments but hope to soon. (I'm a very slow painter).

Do people you meet in casual pick up games mind?

In my gaming group and all my previous gaming encounters it is still the thing. So in your experiences do you let it slide or enforce it and what shades of grey are acceptable?

I've literally never heard anyone saying this. If anything, power levels have strengthened the need for it.

Of course what people choose to do in their private games is their prerogative.

I recently went to Cancon and none of the opposing armies I played against were strictly WYSIWYG. Conversions were everywhere, non GW models, loadouts that didn't have an official model (e.g. inferno pistol seraphim). My army had boyz in it with shootaz that were actually slugga/choppa, but I brought 180 boyz and they were all the same on paper (all slugga/choppa). People didn't care because the army was clear.

I don’t think it’s been a formal rule for a while.

From a tournament POV, it eliminates a lot of misunderstandings and potential for abuse. On a more casual level, it is still a nice things to have, as the game can flow more smoothly.

As a community I think we strive for WYSWYG. While nice to have, I think most people are willing to temper it with common sense. Things like basic gear does not necessarily need to be modeled. But try to get the big important stuff.

I myself have heard it only on dakka and in my local group. I should probably check it myself before I build any more models . But hey, lazy is as lazy does. Ill go do some digging before I open my maw next.

Edit https://www.th3crossroads.com/single-post/2017/10/22/WYSIWYG-in-competitive-play

Also, until GW starts producing boxs with all the options available then you will find people who really cant be bothered. the blightlord box in the above article is an example. So id say, if you play tournaments its best to be as close to WYSIWYG as possible to avoid conflicts.

Who is telling you that?

When 8th 1st came out and players with Indexs most likely dont want to rebuild their army just yet, thats understandable, but its not the same as it being dead.

All events are fully wysiwyg and it is easier to be wysiwyg now.

I too have not heard its dead.

It is true that its not 100% applied to all aspects and it NEVER has been.

WYSIWYG is generally applied too the primary weapons of the model; and is coupled to the idea that each individual type of model in your army looks like it should and is distinctive enough. Ergo that you've not converted everything to look the same.

It has generally never been enforced on things like upgrades/biomorths etc... because those are very small details that not only are easily overlooked (seeing extra carapace or many tyranid biomorphs is very hard unless they are shown to you); and because in the practical world of collecting and building miniatures its not cost effective to require people to build them into models perfectly. Otherwise we'd need thousands of models if players wanted to chop and change upgrades taken

It has also never applied to paint schemes (even the famous "red ones go fasta" rule for orks was easy to get around provided you used ork logic to prove how it was really red even though it wasn't painted red). The paint schemes is one that has kind of raised its head again because how GW has added sub-factions into most new codex, but its not nor ever been a requirement to use official schemes for any army.

I used to be a big proponent of WYSIWYG in the olden days. But with how little GW puts enough parts into a kit, and usually the effort required to convert them or just the money to go hunt for bits (I've seen like one combi-melta go for $10 on ebay!) I care a lot less about it now as long as you are up front about what a unit has, and don't like change your mind about it midway through.

Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

I play against everyone and everything. But I strictly observe the WYSIWYG rule, in fact I put over 600 magnets in my armies to do that

Conversions and kitbashings are not against the rule, if size and weapons are correct or very similar even scratch built vehicles in plasticard, models completely scuplted in green stuff or other similar materials or third party models can be 100% WYSIWYG.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

It's a lot easier to play the game if units are equipped with the weapons they have. Take a Tyranid Warrior. It can be armed with anything from a pure close combat build to a pure shooty build and a huge variety in between. If you just stick random weapons on and then only reference the army list its confusing for the opponent to remember which is which in a given battle.

It also helps ensure a continual appearance; that Venom Cannon is always a VC its not sometimes a barbed strangler or a devourer.

And also its part of the reason we use models in the first place. IF we purely played with the army list chances are we culd give up and just use tokens; visually representing your model as it is in the game is part of the game itself (for the overwhelming majority of players).

Wysiwyg is not dead, I look at wysiwyg like this.

In casual, Do you have a codex?
If yes, you have 60 days after release to get your models in order. Before i give you flack.
If no, just make sure you communicate what your proxy weapons are.

Are you testing a list? Cool, proxy away.

Is it a tournament game?

Wysiwyg should be enforced

I use WYSIWYG for the same reason I paint my armies; it's something I believe I should provide to the game and my opponent. My opponent shouldn't have to remember what my models have or don't have. They should have what is modeled on.

Now, I don't care if you're running Primaris and have slightly different bolter rifles or plasma rifles - the differences are so tiny as to be irrelevant and I still know you have bolt rifles or plasma rifles, etc. Same goes for little Tyranid bio-enhancements.

But I do think it's discourteous to your opponent to run empty turrets or proxy constantly.

I can't think of any other game ever where it's cool to say your pieces are other pieces because you can't be bothered to get the right pieces.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

This is pretty absurd. How do I tell which unit has the plasma gun and which does not?
How can I tell if that plasma gun is in range instead of magically teleporting around to shoot?

I am a modeler and painter first and a gamer second for 20 years now, so it's my goal that nothing I own will ever break WYSIWYG. That's the most rewarding part of converting, is the challenge of making a model unique but easily distinguishable to what it is standing in for. I even make sure things like great weapons on my fantasy models are visually large enough to not be easily confused with a single-handed weapon, or that they are painted specifically special so they look non-generic.

For 40k, I make sure to accurately model any wargear from pistol-size up as what it would actually be.

I live for the bitz hunting.

If its one model or some abstract upgrade like a relic no wysiwyg.

If its these three tacticals with bolters are devistators with lascannons eh no.

If its alt scuplts because the GW ones are derpy looking (cad fireblade) alsong as they only ever play as that model and no others randomly mixed in else where in the army cool.

Plasma/melta etc now when most armys are plastic magnatising allows you to be wysiwyg with minimal effort. Its just being a good sport

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

It's to avoid having to double checb all the time that flamer is actually lascannon. Easy to say start of game. Not so easy to remember what squad had what. Especially time limited enviroment like tournament that's crucial

If you don't care about WYSIWYG then why not just play with cardboard tokens?

Much cheaper.

Serious, why pay $50 a box for dudes if you can't even be bothered to assemble them properly?

Half the fun is customizing your dudes. If everyone says nah bro powerfist is a las cannon then we be stuck with monopose kits forever.

Play necrons, wysiwyg problems solved.

I have a tyrannic army

I have no idea what half the weapons are meant to look like, there isn't a list of them anywhere, nor what the various biomorphs are meant to be in terms of models.

Its not all that clear cut, but use the right model, if one in the unit has different weapons try to find something suitable to make it obvious

if its not confusing fill your boots

Whats about single pose models? GW cultist are 50/50 ccw and range, all single pose. No current Model for Weapon Upgrades.

Before the game I state which blob has which weapons, no probs til now.

What are your thoughts about?

elodingens wrote:
Whats about single pose models? GW cultist are 50/50 ccw and range, all single pose. No current Model for Weapon Upgrades.

Before the game I state which blob has which weapons, no probs til now.

What are your thoughts about?

It's actually even worse. Those 5 monopose guys are 3 guns 2 CCW.

So even their Cultist assault box can only ever get 12 autoguns and 8 CCW.

It's been tough for me to do wysiwyg, as I've been doing Thousand Sons for both 30k and 40k and there's not a lot that can work for both, but I've been trying my best. Now I'm at the point where I need to find a way to make the paint schemes match as close as possible.

Speaking of wysiwyg, since I don't like the look of the Cultists minis, would you all consider it ok to use Guardsmen? Or is that not good enough for wysiwyg?

Arcanis161 wrote:

Speaking of wysiwyg, since I don't like the look of the Cultists minis, would you all consider it ok to use Guardsmen? Or is that not good enough for wysiwyg?

They're both normal humans with peashooters (autoguns and lasguns have the same profile, so it doesn't matter) so that is absolutely fine.

My armies are all wysiwyg. Most of the games I play both of our armies are wysiwyg.

I do not think WYSIWYG is dead at all. Its just as alive and well as it has ever been. Personally I think its a great thing to have from both a hobby and gameplay perspective, but not required. I think the main thing holding a lot of people back from fully going WYSIWYG is just the time, effort and $ involved with keeping up the new rules and the desire to try new things out for the sake of gameplay. Like just recently I started an AoS army for a warband campaign with my friends. I intend to run my Volkite Berserkers with double hand axes in normal games, but I have decided to arm them with pick and shields for the gameplay purposes of the warband campaign. Should I really be expected to go out and spent $180 for more volkite berserkers just to WYSIWYG a load out I do not think I will use in the long run?

What if I did not like my double hand axes after a few games and decided the pick and shield loadout was better? Do I need to go out and spent a large amount of time and money just for a simple switch of weapons?

I personally would say no that is just silly. If we all had infinite money then yeah sure I could see it, but as is its just not practical for a massive portion of the community. I am fine with so many proxies where the only line I would draw is if that proxy is negatively affecting gameplay such as proxying a rhino for a landraider. That size difference is just going to be too much. Same goes for say using a dreadnought for a primarch. It just wont fly. But if you had say 150 ork boys armed with shootas on the model, but ran them as choppas I think that is totally fine because its uniform. Uniform and reasonably sized proxies are A ok in my book.

So I'm pretty new and have only played a few games. I made a squad of Hellblasters as heavy Hellblasters because they just look cool. But, I run them as just regular Hellblasters.

Would people whine about that?

WYSIWYG is not so much a written rule as much as an unwritten code of playing. It's all based on common sense and subjectivity. As the poster above me asked, if you have a squad of Hellblasters with Heavy Plasma, no one will bat an eye if you use them as standard Plasma because it's easy to know and it's all uniform. It's pretty close so no big deal.

The issues come into play when you start saying "This guy with the notch here has a power sword and plasma pistol. This guy hunched over has a combi plasma and power axe. This guy with the red dot on his back has a sniper rifle." and nothing has that model. One or two models is fine, especially characters. Even entire units are fine if they are uniform and easy to recognize (and identified before play). But don't go doing things like Command Squads where everyone has a different loadout than what they are physically holding. That gets super confusing and bogs down way too much playtime figuring out.

I don't care about WYSIWYG beyond at least having SOME sort of starting point, i.e. the guy holding the melta is actually holding a plasma gun. Or all 5 chaos terminators are armed with combi-plasmas. And so on. Otherwise, I don't care.

Some players I've played with care, others don't. No one has ever suggested WYSIWYG be applied to my army, though. It's only ever a personal choice thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

This is pretty absurd. How do I tell which unit has the plasma gun and which does not?
How can I tell if that plasma gun is in range instead of magically teleporting around to shoot?

Basic fething communication? It's not hard to remember what unit has what if you and or your opponent has an IQ above room temperature.

WYSIWYG is certainly not dead.

I've seen people get flat-out told, "They must be modeled to represent what they are carrying". You have some folks that will get mad about it, but I don't think it's fair to expect someone to take your Devastator Squad with three different heavy weapons as 'Counts as Grav'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

Basic fething communication? It's not hard to remember what unit has what if you and or your opponent has an IQ above room temperature.

Sounds great if you're playing a small game with only one or two proxies. Not so much when multiple proxies are on the table.

It's not hard to properly model your units.

Is this a troll post? It really feels like a topic made for the sake of making crap arguments and throwing obscure references that may or may not support thr OP's point.

WYSIWYG is far from dead, I find it a requirement for my games unless it is currently incapable due to finanacial restrictions my opponent has.

tneva82 wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

It's to avoid having to double checb all the time that flamer is actually lascannon. Easy to say start of game. Not so easy to remember what squad had what. Especially time limited enviroment like tournament that's crucial

Don't ever seem to have that problem with any games we play. Can the majority of you even tell the difference between a blaster vs dissy? Probably not - so who cares which one it is on the table as long as you know its *something* other than what the rest of the vannila squad has.

Maybe its just Imperials who need the visual aids


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


Sounds great if you're playing a small game with only one or two proxies. Not so much when multiple proxies are on the table.

It's not hard to properly model your units.

Who said proxies? And yeah, it is hard to "properly model" units that aren't imperial. Seems like folks forget this ain't marinehammer.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Don't ever seem to have that problem with any games we play. Can the majority of you even tell the difference between a blaster vs dissy? Probably not - so who cares which one it is on the table as long as you know its *something* other than what the rest of the vannila squad has.

Maybe its just Imperials who need the visual aids

'Visual Aids' - AKA 'the models the entire game is based around'?

By your logic, you may as well throw some rocks on some bases and call them 'Warhammer Miniatures'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Who said proxies? And yeah, it is hard to "properly model" units that aren't imperial. Seems like folks forget this ain't marinehammer.

No, it isn't. Because you are the only person I've ever heard making this complaint.

Properly model your units. It's not hard.

*I* do WYSIWYG 100% of the time when I play. No joke. I. F*****g'. Do. I take pride of this very thing.

I kind of expect everyone else to follow this as well, to the best of their ability. I'd prefer that. WYSIWYG gives you power in the long run, because you have to think about your tactics and strategies in the long run.

But I don't enforce this. I'm cool as long as I can actually tell what miniature is what.

Yeah...

I just turned a powerfist into an axe, kit bashed a Sorcerer, and now I'm making barricades out of crap. Like, what else are you doing with your time? We're hobbyists. This is what we do. Financial considerations? Okay. Lemme ask this, how much did you spend on your army? Books?

What is one peasly lascannon?

Some factions don't have all the options? Yeah okay, my War Walker can't even WYSIWYG out of the box, only 1 Shuricannon. Do I glue on a scatter laser? No, because these are my dudes and they're gonna look dope when they hit the table.

Does that mean I'm gonna make you go buy lascannons if you wanna use lascannons? No. But if every time we play you are proxying weapons I WILL start making fun of you, your taste in beer and the shabbiness of your clothes.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

'Visual Aids' - AKA 'the models the entire game is based around'?

Again, you're confusing the armament problem with the model. 40K is unit based. What is in a unit is spelled out in words. If you/your opponent find it difficult to track what a unit has and need the 1:1 relationship between model and list, then by all means stick with wysywig. The OP, and the spirit of the entire post, was centered around the need for accurate wysiwyg - not just does there need to be *differentiation* between models. As I said before, if you can ID that 4 models have one type of gun and 1 model doesn't, does the *actual* type of gun matter? No, no it doesn't.

By your logic, you may as well throw some rocks on some bases and call them 'Warhammer Miniatures'.

Damn! There goes my business plan...

No, it isn't. Because you are the only person I've ever heard making this complaint.

Well *obviously* if you you've never heard anyone else say it... who needs sample sizes anyway right?

Properly model your units. It's not hard.

Getting 20 blaster trueborn built would beg to differ.

Or, heat lances under reaver jetbikes --- that you can't even fething *see* when looking at the model. Yeah, wysiwyg is *super* important

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Again, you're confusing the armament problem with the model. 40K is unit based. What is in a unit is spelled out in words. If you/your opponent find it difficult to track what a unit has and need the 1:1 relationship between model and list, then by all means stick with wysywig. The OP, and the spirit of the entire post, was centered around the need for accurate wysiwyg - not just does there need to be *differentiation* between models. As I said before, if you can ID that 4 models have one type of gun and 1 model doesn't, does the *actual* type of gun matter? No, no it doesn't.

Incorrect. Subjective.

I play a league game. I play multiple opponents in one day, some with different armies. I do not want to slow down the game by asking which weapons are supposed to be which because someone was too lazy to model it properly.

You also assume that only 4 models will be armed one way, and one other. I thought this wasn't Marinehammer?

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Getting 20 blaster trueborn built would beg to differ.

And yet, it still manages to happen. It's almost as if one can get resourceful and find bits for sale online, or modify models, or find third party companies...

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Or, heat lances under reaver jetbikes --- that you can't even fething *see* when looking at the model. Yeah, wysiwyg is *super* important

It is. And I can make an exception for someone with financial constraints, and will even help them- but someone who just shrugs and says 'the way I model them isn't important, just remember exactly what I have' can kick rocks and find someone who wants to spend 3 hours on a game.

Well I play a lot of 'count as'

I have tons of metal armies.

So my Dark Reaper Exarch with a Warp Jump Generator and Web os Skulls is an Exarch for the Warp Spiders. I buy the Power Blades and either the normal gear or one from the index and tell my opponent that the stats for it are a combo of both weapons.

Hey I bought this GW model and I want to play with it.

I have some GW Exodite Scout Walkers that I use as count as War Walkers.

I have a Dark Eldar jetbike with a Shredder.....I bought it to play 40k and now it dont have any rules in the index. So do you tell me NOT to play with it or can I use count as????


Your answer REALLY tells me what type of player you are.


In my FLGS I have 2 or 3 'pals' that cry about my old models. They even told me to throw them in the trash can.

Now I have won a Players Choice award with one of my armies in a 44 person tournament. I have between 1 and 3 different players come over to my table EVERY time Ive been at that store for the past 4 months and tell me how freakin cool my old models or kitbashed models or super rare models are. I think some of them may be jealous.

I mean most Guard Tanks are basically 90's design
A bunch of Nid models have superficial changes at most from the 90's.
I see old old Beaky marines all the time.
There is no more 'bitz' service to kitbash.

Ripping someone on their models or their painting level is no different than ripping some kid on his tactics.
Saying that you 'suck' for any element of the game is uncool.

 admironheart wrote:
[lots of stuff]

One or two? Maybe. But if I can't tell your models apart, and have to keep asking (in larger games this can be an issue), it's going to slow the game down for both of us.

 admironheart wrote:
Your answer REALLY tells me what type of player you are.

I understand that you really like your models. I am going to need you to understand that this can also be really frustrating for some people. I need you to understand that it's considerably easier for me to be able to look at a model, see what it's using, etc. Also, for every one person like you there's a dozen or so more that decide that the guys with the red shoulderpad had weapon A, but then suddenly 3 turns later when I ask again those guys with the blue shoulderpad have weapon A and the red shoulderpad guys have weapon B.

It can create a lot of confusion, especially with a lot of games, a lot of models, etc. Just because YOU like and and YOU can remember it is only part of the issue. You must remember that this game requires another person to play, and some courtesies must be extended to your play partner.

 admironheart wrote:
In my FLGS I have 2 or 3 'pals' that cry about my old models. They even told me to throw them in the trash can.

To be fair, I tell people to do this with Tau all the time.

 admironheart wrote:
Ripping someone on their models or their painting level is no different than ripping some kid on his tactics.

"I think Beakies look dumb" isn't the same as "you suck at painting".

Recently played in a tournament where 2/3 of my opponents were not WYSIWYG. But when it's an RTT i'm not going to disqualify someone unless it's really modeled for advantage. We're all there to have fun, i don't care if your power axe is a thunder hammer, it doesn't detract from my enjoyment in the slightest.

darkcloak wrote:Yeah...

I just turned a powerfist into an axe, kit bashed a Sorcerer, and now I'm making barricades out of crap. Like, what else are you doing with your time? We're hobbyists. This is what we do. Financial considerations? Okay. Lemme ask this, how much did you spend on your army? Books?


What is one peasly lascannon?

Some factions don't have all the options? Yeah okay, my War Walker can't even WYSIWYG out of the box, only 1 Shuricannon. Do I glue on a scatter laser? No, because these are my dudes and they're gonna look dope when they hit the table.

This is true; the "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome" mantra definitely has to come out sometimes.

As is, it's not that I know what weapon A or B should look like, it's more that this is done consistently throughout your army.

Want to replace those Tyranid...spore gun things...with a head-mounted version? Be my guest.

darkcloak wrote:
your taste in beer

Uh oh

I am meticulous about modelling my units as WYSIWYG. I don't expect everyone to do the same, but I do expect you to at least proxy consistently; no this flamer is a lascannon and this flamer is a meltagun nonsense.

Well I've always thought that sometimes a little criticism and yeah, some negativity, is in order for one to properly learn how to handle life. So, telling someone they suck isn't exactly a big deal. I mean, it can be, but..

If you're gonna get hot under the collar when someone calls your proxy shenanigans, well then I can throw down the "who you really are" bomb too. Or the infamous "I wouldn't play you".

But really, come on. It's not like we're saying glue on lazors or die. But like really, you own models for years and maybe once in awhile a bit gets invalidated. For the most part we all know what wargear does what, so unless you're new you should know how to equip a squad. And what? You're just gonna let people run wraithguard as wraithblades because they don't wanna shell out for another box of toys?

And counts as? Lol. We all know the rules for counts as. Must be recognizable as the intended unit and must be cool. If you don't have enough bits to give your dudes combi meltas, but you're going and trying to at least make your bolter look the part with a fuel tank and a melta barrel, well gak son, that works.

Like, why are we so blaise about our models? If we stop caring about how the models look on the tabletop we will soon be bereft of multipart kits. Why would GW make options for you to customize your dudes when they can just give you one model and say, pretend. This ties into GW dropping codex options that they didn't currently make. If GW is allowed to shrink the options on sprues, they will. And you know what? Then you'll be stuck with monopose everything and those codex options you were proxying into meta choices will disappear.

Too Long Did Not Read:. If you don't WYSIWYG you are actively making 40k more bland.

 Luciferian wrote:
...I do expect you to at least proxy consistently; no this flamer is a lascannon and this flamer is a meltagun nonsense.

That. This is what I'm talking about.

For example, I put my Alpha Legion against Black Legion a while back. The 'Heresy Heavy Bolters' were actually Autocannons, and the regular Chaos Heavy Bolters were Heavy Bolters. Then it changed, I'm fairly certain. At least once. Then these Berserkers didn't have Chain-Axes, only this one in particular. But this OTHER squad is different. Oh and these three (originally Loyalist) Terminators with power fists actually have power mauls, except this one, but this one has a power sword.

This is a pain, and I had to just shake his hand and walk away after turn 3. I get it, the dude was on a budget. I know full well that it sucks trying to get a full squad of certain weapons, or even get your hands on certain bits- But at the VERY LEAST, if something has a different weapon- maybe glue something to the base, or make an effort to modify the model.

Feel bad, Space Voodoo. Now melt all your metal models and WYSIWYG yourself a tear catching cup.

My local scene pretty much everyone runs WYSIWYG. Every once in a while we'll say something like "this dude doesn't actually have this weapon cuz I didn't have the points for it," but it's usually only on a model or two. Pretty lucky in that regard. So I'm not too sure where this idea that WYSIWYG is coming from, at least in my scene.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I play a league game. I play multiple opponents in one day, some with different armies. I do not want to slow down the game by asking which weapons are supposed to be which because someone was too lazy to model it properly.

There's your problem - you've taken on the attitude of a tourney player and assuming if something isn't modeled, the person must be "too lazy". That's a toxic attitude.

And yet, it still manages to happen. It's almost as if one can get resourceful and find bits for sale online, or modify models, or find third party companies...

No one ever said it was impossible to do, rather the time sink vs. reward is questionable for some. I used the blasterborn as examples because

1) There is no official design for trueborn
2) You don't get enough blasters to ever make up a full blasterborn squad without massive bits hunting
3) 95% of the time, they aren't on the table. DE run in transports. By the time they're on the table, they're only going to be there for a round at best anyway

I'm not going to spend extra time maging the guns on all my voidravens just so you can see if it's a d-cyth or voidance - or bother bolting missile pods to the bottom of it. Some things - like modifying SoB to fit loadouts that don't even exist anymore - is a bit more tricky.

Rule of cool >>>>> What some random cock at the gamestore things a model should be modeled as.

but someone who just shrugs and says 'the way I model them isn't important, just remember exactly what I have' can kick rocks and find someone who wants to spend 3 hours on a game.

Irony: Complains about his friend being TFG; acts like TFG.

You are welcome to decide whom to play with, however do not assume your way is the only way - nor the right way. 20 years into the hobby and I still find the same pattern of people.

But at the VERY LEAST, if something has a different weapon- maybe glue something to the base, or make an effort to modify the model.

Oh, so now we're cool with IDing that doesn't have WYSIWYG? Make up your mind kiddo... because that sounds suspiciously like what I've said from the fething get go


It's clear we're never going to agree - and that's fine. That's what make discussions interesting.

Well, I've spent too much money on magnets to say "wysiwyg doesn't matter" now.

In the end everything is about the immersion. Yeah, you could say wysiwyg doesn't matter, proxy your Space marines as Orks and put some bottles on the table as terrain. That's totally fine for starters. But I think, the longer you play the more you'll try to get everything "right". And that means everything is painted and every guardsman carries the weapon he has in the list.

And if GW screws you over that's something else altogether. My DG terminators lost their fists and maces with 8th edition and I haven't found 3rd party alternatives that sell terminator arms, so I'll have to tell my opponent, yes, no matter what, those are all axes.

 darkcloak wrote:
If you don't care about WYSIWYG then why not just play with cardboard tokens?

Much cheaper.

Because a terminators with a combi-plasma gun still locks better than a cardboard token with "combi-melta" written on it?

 ncshooter426 wrote:

2) You don't get enough blasters to ever make up a full blasterborn squad without massive bits hunting

Well, if you need 8-10 blasters in your army it won't be a problem. Of course if you want 20 of them you really must hunt for bitz, but this is applied to all special weapons in the game, owning 20 dudes with a specific special weapon is kind of a big deal.

You can have 1 blaster from the kabalite box and another one from the scourges one. But in the kabalites, scourges and wyches kits there are blast pistols, you can cut their barrel, cutting the shredder one, and glue it on top of the shredder. it's a conversion but you'll got a reasonable "count as" blaster. That's what I've done with my trueborn, and after all they're elites so their weapons can be a bit customized

Reavers also have blasters you can use for trueborn, but you usually want them for the bikes.

Reaver ones are bigger. And this is only true for players with a large collection.

if you are starting out and only have 2200-2400pts there is NO WAY to have 2 Trueborn units with load outs that you want and still have the 3 Kabals with a Blaster and Pistol as well.

I have 80+ Kabals, 15 Scourges, 20+ Reavers and i still dont have enough Blasters, i had to cut up Shredders for mine.

Edit just spelling.

Man, any hostility on either side just seems so unnecessary.

If you don’t care, cool. If you care, cool. If you don’t want to play against people who don’t use wysiwyg, cool. If you have to suck it up because there are no other opponents to play, so be it. If your group decides everyone must use wysiwyg, so be it.

Clearly the answer to the OP question is no, it’s not dead, with the caveat that not everyone gives a cuss about it, and if they don’t, it would be nice if things were clearly communicated. Any snark-flinging back and forth, just... why?

 Blackie wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

2) You don't get enough blasters to ever make up a full blasterborn squad without massive bits hunting

Well, if you need 8-10 blasters in your army it won't be a problem. Of course if you want 20 of them you really must hunt for bitz, but this is applied to all special weapons in the game, owning 20 dudes with a specific special weapon is kind of a big deal.

You can have 1 blaster from the kabalite box and another one from the scourges one. But in the kabalites, scourges and wyches kits there are blast pistols, you can cut their barrel, cutting the shredder one, and glue it on top of the shredder. it's a conversion but you'll got a reasonable "count as" blaster. That's what I've done with my trueborn, and after all they're elites so their weapons can be a bit customized

Reavers also have blasters you can use for trueborn, but you usually want them for the bikes.

Yeah, I've been stealing from my scourge sprues quite a bit these days. I run 8 blaster 4 DL (2 7 man squads) in the tantalus, and typically a blaster in each of my 4-5 venom. I need enough to also fill 10 man in 5 raiders. Need more of those cool back veins for trueborn - hate their "face" mask head...just looks weird.

This hobby is expensive and time consuming enough with out being freaks about WYSIWYG. Are you that overwhelmed with potential opponents that you can look down at someone’s army because they haven’t spent a ton of money and time to magnetize individual arms? Or spent loads of money on having extra miniatures to cover all the options?

I’m happy if my opponent has PAINTED his troops and they’re from the right boxed set.

 argonak wrote:
This hobby is expensive and time consuming enough with out being freaks about WYSIWYG. Are you that overwhelmed with potential opponents that you can look down at someone’s army because they haven’t spent a ton of money and time to magnetize individual arms? Or spent loads of money on having extra miniatures to cover all the options?

I’m happy if my opponent has PAINTED his troops and they’re from the right boxed set.

This. I'm somewhat anal when it comes to WYSIWYG on my own models but I'm not going to expect my crazy standards from others!

I simply take immense pride in the hobby aspect of my collection, so WYSIWYG is gospel in my house, and I am glad the few friends who I share the game with do to.

Each time you show up with something new it's a chance to show off your talent. Bare metal armies kind of make me disappointed, because it always just seems like a token effort to me. But that's probably because any games I have seen using unpainted minis usually had players who never really 'got into it' during the game, but rather went about things in a cold, business-like manner like they were simply performing a task, while I have had 2,000pt games take 5 hours because we were having so much fun alongside the game, after a pre-game show-and-tell of what was new.

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Basic fething communication? It's not hard to remember what unit has what if you and or your opponent has an IQ above room temperature.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

Maybe its just Imperials who need the visual aids .

 ncshooter426 wrote:
That's a toxic attitude.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

Irony: Complains about his friend being TFG; acts like TFG.

Speaking of irony.

Let me summarize your argument:

"I want to field units that have the best weapons possible, but I don't want to do what other people have done and actually craft my models to represent the unit properly. I don't want to spend money, either."

Welcome to tabletop wargaming.

This is not a 'tournament' mindset. I dislike tournament play unless I know people in the tournament. This is one of the most basic tenets of the game: "Your units must be modeled in a way that represents what you are fielding". If using a pair of snips, a crafting knife, a file, and glue are 'too time consuming' then I think 'lazy' would be the appropriate word. But based on your attitude alone, you strike me as the guy that would exploit the confusion.

I strongly prefer WYSIWYG and wouldn't field something non-WYSIWYG, even if it means that I don't field the most competitive possible option for a unit. Most of the people I play with are casual enough that there's no need to go with a 100% optimized army anyway. My Tactical Marines are a hodgepodge of options built from 2nd to 7th editions.

I can't force model accuracy on my opponent's (nor can I enforce fully painted requirements), but I do find I enjoy games so much more with fully painted WYSIWYG armies that it's disappointing to play any other way.

 Asmodai wrote:
I strongly prefer WYSIWYG and wouldn't field something non-WYSIWYG, even if it means that I don't field the most competitive possible option for a unit. Most of the people I play with are casual enough that there's no need to go with a 100% optimized army anyway. My Tactical Marines are a hodgepodge of options built from 2nd to 7th editions.

Exactly. WYSIWYG is more important than competitiveness, just build the list with the stuff you actually have models for.

I'd like to point out that my previous viperous comments were entirely comedic. Just saying. Actually when you read a post by DC you should probably ask yourself before you reply 'is DC trying to be funny?' and then go from there.

That being said I think Asmodai sums it up pretty good. WYSIWYG is alive and well. We enforce it on ourselves because we are terribly obsessed with toy soldiers and wanna make them look cool. It's like reverse penis measuring.

Oh yeah, that's a pretty tiny campaign badge freehand looks good. Check out my Farseers head gem. Seven colour fade, no biggie.... I'm seeing your mom, cough!

As long as it's uniform I don't really mind proxies, aka "every tac squad has melta/lascannon". That's easy to keep track of during a game. But if we're playing 2k and each squad has a different loadout proxied, I'm going to be annoyed and say as much. That's a favorite trick of TFG's for teleporting melta guns so unless I know the person I'm going to be suspicious. With so much going on in a 2000pt game, it can be quite difficult to keep track of who has what, especially since you need to remember your army too. This is why wysiwyg exists after all, so your opponent can identify things at a glance. Granted some armies like eldar or nids about all I'm going to know at a glance is big gun/little gun or shooty/stabby, but that still is an important detail that plays into your tactics. Having to ask what units have what also slows the game down, and with everyone's insistence on playing 2k anything that slows down the game should be avoided at all costs.

I try to avoid proxies wherever possible. I'm currently rebasing all my heavy weapons and deciding what kind of power weapon I want to model my officers with, so that's the one place I'm stuck with having to proxy a bit right now. I always make it consistent though to keep things simple. If guns are being proxied then they're all going to be the same type. Same with gear or close combat.

Lots of people in my area are still figuring out what they want to run in 8th so we've been seeing lots of proxies. I don't really care much, most of them are already starting to settle on what they like, or learning how to magnetize. With the constantly shifting meta of 8th I can't blame people for being unsure of what they want to build at first.

I also have to agree with WYSIWYG over comp.

I can raise my hand in the air and say I will choose an autocannon over any other option if it's available. And I will shoot those autocannons and love it even if I'm doing so at penalty because I moved. Even if you make all your saves, I shot you with an autocannon and it was awesome.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Speaking of irony.

Let me summarize your argument:

"I want to field units that have the best weapons possible, but I don't want to do what other people have done and actually craft my models to represent the unit properly. I don't want to spend money, either."

Welcome to tabletop wargaming.

This is not a 'tournament' mindset. I dislike tournament play unless I know people in the tournament. This is one of the most basic tenets of the game: "Your units must be modeled in a way that represents what you are fielding". If using a pair of snips, a crafting knife, a file, and glue are 'too time consuming' then I think 'lazy' would be the appropriate word. But based on your attitude alone, you strike me as the guy that would exploit the confusion.

Now that's just funny...and sad, all at the same time.

I only need to know which models are which.

Otherwise wysiwyg is a waste of time.

I used to try to stick to it. But ive never seen anyone kitbash/model their relics. Ive never seen anyone get down to every combination of weapons and wargear.

You either care enough to do it 100% (nigh impossible) or its really not that important.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

Now that's just funny...and sad, all at the same time.

>Be you
>Come into thread insulting people
>Claim you don't have the time or effort to dedicate to properly constructing models
>Claim it's not important unless people are stupid
>Get mad when people call you lazy
>Pretend you are not the embodiment of TFG
>Call someone toxic
>Never have a single shred of self-awareness
>Double down

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

Now that's just funny...and sad, all at the same time.

>Be you
>Come into thread insulting people
>Claim you don't have the time or effort to dedicate to properly constructing models
>Claim it's not important unless people are stupid
>Get mad when people call you lazy
>Pretend you are not the embodiment of TFG
>Call someone toxic
>Never have a single shred of self-awareness
>Double down

Edit: Nah, I'll take the high road here. Have a good weekend!

 ncshooter426 wrote:
How's that game mechanics coming?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751124.page

In its early phases. Much like your impending boot, I hope.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Edit: Nah, I'll take the high road here. Have a good weekend!

Too late.

One less troll on the forum.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:
Why would wysiwyg even matter any more? You choose the model to remove, no more weapon destroyed events. Print your loadouts, and just reference it.

A heavy weapon is easy to id as one, but I dont care which one it is. Just say what it is, and have it written down in the list

This is pretty absurd. How do I tell which unit has the plasma gun and which does not?
How can I tell if that plasma gun is in range instead of magically teleporting around to shoot?

Had a guy do this in a GW store I used to frequent. He had half assembled/painted models all over as he would hop from SM codex to codex and that special weapon (or whatever was most convenient would ALWAYS be the last to die). fething annoyed the hell out of me as the staff looked the other way as he spent a lot of cash (plus they fancied his mum too).

Ah, mum fancying.

That is always a problem for losers with hot moms.

 Crimson wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:
I strongly prefer WYSIWYG and wouldn't field something non-WYSIWYG, even if it means that I don't field the most competitive possible option for a unit. Most of the people I play with are casual enough that there's no need to go with a 100% optimized army anyway. My Tactical Marines are a hodgepodge of options built from 2nd to 7th editions.

Exactly. WYSIWYG is more important than competitiveness, just build the list with the stuff you actually have models for.

my models are wysiwyg and modeled that way because that's how my army is kitted out. I have stuff magnetized but only for transport and very occasional swapping but when I play its all right there in 3d. I also fully paint my stuff and love it when my opponent has put the time and effort into creating an eye-pleasing and easy to identify army. If I really want to have different options I'd rather go buy another unit and do it up that way.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
>Be you
>Come into thread insulting people
>Claim you don't have the time or effort to dedicate to properly constructing models
>Claim it's not important unless people are stupid
>Get mad when people call you lazy
>Pretend you are not the embodiment of TFG
>Call someone toxic
>Never have a single shred of self-awareness
>Double down

That takes me back.

 Infantryman wrote:
That takes me back.

Been a while. Too many normie greentexts. Even saw a boomer greentext.

F

Well my stuff is almost always painted except for a unit or 2 at most. My opponents rarely field a painted army. Sometimes I am lucky to get a fully painted army.

I am more concerned with the dozen or more units that I have converted....some are GW serial numbered kitbash/bitz pieces but now they dont have rules.

My dark eldar Reaver jetbike with a Shredder for instance.

My Archon modeled on a Hellion Skyboard is not legal...so she has become a Succubus with a +2 move combat drug to represent the faster move.....but still can fly model. I even magnetized her feet to the skyboard so I can take her off it.

You see players like me that make every cool model or conversion out there show cased in the past with supporting rules...now see no love for them to bring said models to the game.

Guess what WE who do that IN EVERY WAY have taken the time and the love of the hobby to do that as any of you chestbeating your WYSIWYG armies....at least as much effort and time. So enough about how much you can pat yourself on the back....Cause this can go all nite long as we piss on each other....lets not be neanderthal about it.

I myself dont like an unpainted opponents force .....than some highly done force with 'count as' pieces. You see each to their own. It dont make one better than the other.

 admironheart wrote:
Guess what WE who do that IN EVERY WAY have taken the time and the love of the hobby to do that as any of you chestbeating your WYSIWYG armies....at least as much effort and time. So enough about how much you can pat yourself on the back....Cause this can go all nite long as we piss on each other....lets not be neanderthal about it.

I'm fine with you enhancing the cool of your models. I've put two pistols on guys with one pistol, combat knives in place of a chainsword, silencers on bolters, etc. You think I won't be using the Alpharius model as a Chaos Lord in 40k? However, that's not the issue...

The issue is, like we said, when people are trying to say that the guy with the flamer actually has a melta, the guy with the melta has a plasma, the guy with no arms has a missile launcher, this random dude with a bolter has a grav, etc.

We mean to a point where it can cause confusion while playing the game. To be clear, no one is saying you can't make cosmetic conversions on characters and whatnot. That's fine and outright encouraged. The issue is when people are generally just shrugging off some pretty reasonable things, like placing models on the table that can represent what they are actually supposed to be. Even if in some way making that weapon a different color or sticking a bit onto the barrel.

It can be really, really frustrating when you have to keep asking which squad has what weapons over and over again. These aren't even big fancy models, these are basic troops that come in multiples and can easily be purchased on eBay loose and added to your forces.

I don't care if you make autocannons out of tongue depressors and tooth picks, but I do want to be able to tell which guy has what from a glance, without having to ask. It's just common courtesy, in my opinion.

You make it look consistent, and you make it look good, and I'm happy.

The "at a glance" talking point cracks me up. I'm probably too new and or optically challenged but plenty of weapons are nearly indistinguishable at a glance.
What's that one? A combi plasma. Where's the bolter part? Over here behind the chain sword. Is he equipped with a chain sword? No that's just part of the gun.

Eldar weapons? I'll have to keep asking no matter how accurate.

The thing that hurt my ability to play was that my list is made for 2000pts, and the local tournament was for 75pl. It didn't translate super well but a bunch of converting made it in with sub optimal loadouts. At least I didn't paint that army, I would hate having to chop up finished models swap bits and repaint to play at all competitively. But that's just this salty noobs impression. Still, so glad to have randomly chosen the right gun for my fire warriors in the vey beginning.

When I said I want to be able to tell who has what at a glance, I didn't mean I expect everyone to have the official GW weapon for each weapon in their list. Just that if you tell me 5 guys in your squad have weapon x and the other 5 have weapon y, I would like to see that each of those groups can be easily identified by some kind of visual indicator. It's really not that big of a deal. If you want to call all of your storm bolters combi-plas, that's fine. Just don't say all of your storm bolters are combi-plas, except these ones which are heavy flamers, and these ones which are just storm bolters.

 Luciferian wrote:
When I said I want to be able to tell who has what at a glance, I didn't mean I expect everyone to have the official GW weapon for each weapon in their list. Just that if you tell me 5 guys in your squad have weapon x and the other 5 have weapon y, I would like to see that each of those groups can be easily identified by some kind of visual indicator. It's really not that big of a deal. If you want to call all of your storm bolters combi-plas, that's fine. Just don't say all of your storm bolters are combi-plas, except these ones which are heavy flamers, and these ones which are just storm bolters.

^ Pretty much this. As long as it's clear on what's what I'm cool with whatever.

Issues start to arise when you're playing a game and the opponent army is a mess of proxy and counts-as, and half way through he'll say "hmm.. which ones were these again?" or against people with the infamous teleporting weapons "oh no, the plasma guns were over here" - I've had games in the past with both examples.

I think the setting you play in and the reason you play the game will largely determine how important WYSIWYG is going to be.

If you play tournaments or pick-up games it helps to create a more fluid gaming experience.
If you’re into the modeling aspect it is going to increase your enjoyment of the game.
If it is more about hanging out with some friends it really doesn’t have much of an impact.

I’ve been playing with the same group of people for the last 20 years and it’s really the social aspect that’s most important to us.
We play so many different games that it is impossible to collect all of them, so we’ve played with everything from proxying entire armies, cut out cardboard verslons to just empty bases with the troop type written on it. As long as we have fun we really don’t care.

I like to have WYSIWYG on my army as a matter of pride, but am quite happy for my opponent to proxy or whatever (I think the most extreme case was half an old WW2 army vehicle chassis (unpainted green plastic) on a transparent dice case to represent a Falcon...)

GW removing many wargear options for models without actual plastic representation of those options on the sprues has if anything strengthened WYSIWYG...

Mark.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
...I do expect you to at least proxy consistently; no this flamer is a lascannon and this flamer is a meltagun nonsense.

That. This is what I'm talking about.

For example, I put my Alpha Legion against Black Legion a while back. The 'Heresy Heavy Bolters' were actually Autocannons, and the regular Chaos Heavy Bolters were Heavy Bolters. Then it changed, I'm fairly certain. At least once. Then these Berserkers didn't have Chain-Axes, only this one in particular. But this OTHER squad is different. Oh and these three (originally Loyalist) Terminators with power fists actually have power mauls, except this one, but this one has a power sword.

This is a pain, and I had to just shake his hand and walk away after turn 3. I get it, the dude was on a budget. I know full well that it sucks trying to get a full squad of certain weapons, or even get your hands on certain bits- But at the VERY LEAST, if something has a different weapon- maybe glue something to the base, or make an effort to modify the model.

I really feel for you in this example, but I would be firmer about the WYSIWIG here. Sure, maybe someone doesn't have the skills to convert or money to buy more parts - maybe the original models were a gift or bought second hand. BUT... if you can't create the upgrades on your models, just run the list without the upgrades. Got 15 pts left over and want a plasma gun? Don't actually have a plasma gun? Too bad - you lose the 15 points!
I mean, what's worse? Playing a game and not having all the upgrades you'd ideally like to combat this foe, or (for the other player) being really confused, having your immersion broken and having a slight nagging feeling that your opponent might have cheated at some point? I think running cool upgrades is a part of growing your hobby, becoming a better modeller, saving up your cash, etc.

*NB I'm only talking about 'verbal' non-WYSIWIG here (i.e. "this bolter is actually a lascannon, that sword is a power fist etc). Conversions are all absolutely fine.

One word of advice that I would give for someone who is venturing into this world is to be consistent. For example, my models have all kinds of weapons to represent power weapons, from actual power weapons to Chaos marauder axes and wrathmonger daemon weapons. But you can always tell what's a power weapon in my armies because their painted with a blue glow. Force weapons are purple, axes of Khorne have lava threads on them, and hellblades look like fire. There is no confusion, and those weapons are always power weapons. I never change them, because it's confusing for my opponent. And my opponents learn very quickly. Hell, my friend learned after one game that glowing purple swords were scary force weapons, after I killed all his monstrous creatures with them! Haha!

 argonak wrote:
This hobby is expensive and time consuming enough with out being freaks about WYSIWYG. Are you that overwhelmed with potential opponents that you can look down at someone’s army because they haven’t spent a ton of money and time to magnetize individual arms? Or spent loads of money on having extra miniatures to cover all the options?

I’m happy if my opponent has PAINTED his troops and they’re from the right boxed set.

It depends on what you want from this hobby. I love assembling models, IMHO it's the best part of the entire GW world, I enjoy assembling and converting more than playing and painting. So magnetizing models is actually a lot of fun for me. Painting (and basing) is an absolute nightmare instead, and it's way more time consuming and expensive. Don't know about the USA but here in europe you can get 100 chinese magnets from ebay for less than 3$, including shipping. In fact I've bought 700 2mm x 1mm N52 magnets and paid less than 6 pots of colour. Sites that sell bitz also exist and sometimes you can have good deals, trading and exchanging bitz from other players is also another viable option.

 Blackie wrote:
It depends on what you want from this hobby. I love assembling models, IMHO it's the best part of the entire GW world, I enjoy assembling and converting more than playing and painting. So magnetizing models is actually a lot of fun for me. Painting (and basing) is an absolute nightmare instead, and it's way more time consuming and expensive. Don't know about the USA but here in europe you can get 100 chinese magnets from ebay for less than 3$, including shipping. In fact I've bought 700 2mm x 1mm N52 magnets and paid less than 6 pots of colour. Sites that sell bitz also exist and sometimes you can have good deals, trading and exchanging bitz from other players is also another viable option.

It's funny how we are in (friendly) disagreement on pretty much every aspect of WH40k but we are 100% agreement about building our models

Building&Converting > Playing > Painting.

Whenever I try to paint a unit of boyz I somehow end up with another (unpainted) unit of nobz or flash gits

Slightly off topic but since we're talking about taking in things at a glance- one of my pet peeves is the lack of easily seen squad markings. Since my store uses ITC in a lot of games it's nice to be able to tell who belongs to which unit. And by easy I don't mean "See this guys shoulder pad it has a little spot of green at the very top as opposed to this guys little spot of blue. I mean how hard would it be to band a base or make all the bases of one unit different from the other same equipped unit.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I mean how hard would it be to band a base or make all the bases of one unit different from the other same equipped unit.

Because I've seen WMH players do that and it looks fething terrible.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slightly off topic but since we're talking about taking in things at a glance- one of my pet peeves is the lack of easily seen squad markings. Since my store uses ITC in a lot of games it's nice to be able to tell who belongs to which unit. And by easy I don't mean "See this guys shoulder pad it has a little spot of green at the very top as opposed to this guys little spot of blue. I mean how hard would it be to band a base or make all the bases of one unit different from the other same equipped unit.

Can make it a pain if you want to try swapping out models within squads to try different weapon combinations... (although you can just say "the special weapon guy has a different shoulder pad because he's a special weapon guy, not because I lifted him from a different squad to try twin lascannons for a change...)

Mark.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I mean how hard would it be to band a base or make all the bases of one unit different from the other same equipped unit.

Because I've seen WMH players do that and it looks fething terrible.

Yeah, it's quite hard to keep your army looking unified while denoting squads. I don't find distinguishing squads is too often required - it is normally only in a massed combat that it becomes necessary, and then only once casualties have been removed - if the squads are identically equipped, you aren't going to be too worried about who is whom when fighting them in melée, surely?

But it is important to denote them all the same. It's easy with Imperial space marines, since they have squad markings. For Chaos marines, or even worse, cultists (!), it's really hard to denote squads, but I usually find a way with each army. With cultists, I write info on the base rim, so alpha-1 is squad 1 from alpha platoon, beta-2 is squad two from beta platoon, and so on. For my Khorne Berzerkers, I make the models look visually distinct, so whilst they all have the same equipment, one squad has double handed chainaxes, the second has double-hand chainglaives with shields, one squad are all bare-chested, and so on. My opponents find that easy to grasp: "are these berzerkers different to these ones?" "No, they're all the same - just different squads."

I did the same with my Dark Eldar Warriors. Each has its own helmet style. Some with Plumes, some with spikes, some with spikes and plumes, etc....It twas easy to make 8 different squads that way.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slightly off topic but since we're talking about taking in things at a glance- one of my pet peeves is the lack of easily seen squad markings. Since my store uses ITC in a lot of games it's nice to be able to tell who belongs to which unit. And by easy I don't mean "See this guys shoulder pad it has a little spot of green at the very top as opposed to this guys little spot of blue. I mean how hard would it be to band a base or make all the bases of one unit different from the other same equipped unit.

Major problem then is what happens when you have variable unit compositions regularly like say I have? I don't have same unit loadouts all the time so that would require tons of spare models to swap around.

I’m a big proponent of WYSIWG. It helps everyone, speeds up gameplay, and is kind of the point, yes? If you like swapping out stuff all the time (as I absolutely do), magnetize your stuff.

Obviously there are going to be exceptions, some proxying when starting a new army and so forth, some wiggle room for cool conversions, etc.. but seriously just play with the models you have.

I’d put WYSIWYG even above painting.

Someone mentioned trading bits, that is a great idea and there is probably a lot of people willing to do that.

One thing I always liked was buying bits online and sometimes even building whole models out of bits sites on eBay. I used to have a pretty awesome Honour Guard of five dudes, two with swords and two with axes and the champion had a T-Hammer and Combat Blade. The whole squad I made from Blood Angels, Space Wolf and Dark Angels bits I got online and I mashed em up with some vanilla marine stuff. Everyone was jealous of that squad and they turned into such a fire magnet, not only because they smashed faces relentlessly, but because they were the centerpieces of the army. All I did was mash up a bunch of space marine bits, no more skill involved than putting together a normal kit. But the results were amazing and the squad looked great on the table. Sadly they went with all my other GW stuff in the Great Purge.

I could have just said my regular Tacs were HGs and ran proxies and not spent what amounted to about the same as an SM command squad. But would that have been as fun for me or anyone else?

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Is this a troll post? It really feels like a topic made for the sake of making crap arguments and throwing obscure references that may or may not support thr OP's point.

WYSIWYG is far from dead, I find it a requirement for my games unless it is currently incapable due to finanacial restrictions my opponent has.

I assure you this is not a troll post. To give you some background I have about 8k in orks half of which is fully painted; 2.5k in White scars fully painted; 2k of Grey knights fully painted; and a whole host of other bits and bobs. My post is not in reference to proxying but it is more in the realms of I've spent the last 2 editions equipping things in certain ways. I have a full time job a 3 year old son and a wife that persistently questions the cost of my hobby(if only she knew the truth). My most valuable resource right now is time. I've never been a true hobbyist preferring reading all the lore I can get my hands on and actually playing the game. I have fat fingers and have never gotten down to magnetising anything.

In this context I have marines equipped with grav guns rather than plasma and grav cannons over lascannons. I've got hordes of choppa boyz and have repurposed many of my shoota boyz into tankbustas. The idea that as the edition shifts priority for listbuilding shifts and certain weapon loadouts become redundant. I'm actually in the bizarre situation that I'm now looking for plasma guns which was never an issue before.

I paint my models not because I love the hobby but because I have a level of respect for my opponents to match their basic hobby requirements but true WYSWYG is a pepretually moving target in 40k

I think it's sort of a two way street where both players should be reasonable. You should do what you can to be WYSIWYG and your opponent should be cool when you can't be 100%. I don't mind non WYSIWYG stuff as long as it's reasonable and not confusing. Saying "All flamers on my marines are actually plasma rifles" is no problem. Saying "That flamer in that squad is a plasma gun, that flamer in that squad is a melta" is kinda crappy. Even then I'd let that slide in a casual game if you mark the model with a piece of paper or something.

For characters I usually don't care because those usually have the most options and you own the least of them. A marine player will probably end up with 2-3 of each special weapon, but you might only have 1 captain. I only have the newer plastic Farseer with the spear, but I pretty much only run him with a sword. Stuff like that never bothers me.

Has anyone mentioned that it's not unusual for people to be a bit looser about WYSIWYG when new codices/editions launch and people want to experiment with new builds/units etc. Given the constant updates to the game atm, it's not surprising if people overall noticing less emphasis in their local area on it for the moment.

WYSIWYG does not equal "no conversions".

Conversions, IMO, are amazing; as long as they are consistent. As long as my opponent tells me "this Demon Prince has claws and wings" and it looks like, well yeah, he does... sure. It only becomes an issue if its not outlined properly, or if people are pulling "proxies" out; i.e. models they didn't even attempt to convert into something they are supposed to be. Unless, of course, its a friendly game.

I guess this becomes an issue when people abuse conversions, i.e. modeling for advantage. I make a very conscious effort to do WYSIWYG to avoid confusion, like I converted ALL my CCW cultists to have weapons that could be seen as autoguns, or double pistols to be auto-guns; or strapped rifles over their backs.

I try to use WYSIWYG, but I don't take it too far. For instance, I've switched my Death Company to bolters in this edition instead of bolt pistols, but I already had 20ish DC models with bolt pistols. I'm not just going to stop using those models and build all new ones with bolters/chainswords. Nobody I've played so far has had an issue with me saying that all those bolt pistols are actually bolters.

My group plays power levels and thus WYSIWYG becomes more important. We allow exceptions and insist on any deviations get identified before the game begins. The only two poor games where one player tabled another were both examples of one player taking advantage and having multiple proxies that just happened to exploit the other players weaknesses. So we have started a discussion on how many exceptions we will allow.

My two cents,

CB

I really only enforce WYSIWYG for big stuff. That guy is supposed to field a hammer? Please don't model a sword then. He has a banner/shield? Please give him one.

Guns I don't care so much about. I can't tell 90% of the gun models apart anyway. So just give me the list.

Tiny gear like Tyranid sacs, grenades, e.t.c. I really just do not care if they're on the model or not.