Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

No more irrelevant than the gun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Magnets.... nuffsaid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Er...

6. That's it.

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

Can't people talk to each other at tournaments?

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

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

*Checks OP* - Dash did it!

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

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

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

Can't people talk to each other at tournaments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janthkin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless of course my opponent was so drunk I could relax and still kick his ass...

My Blue Angels.... I may take them to Da Boyz GT. Hope they dont confuse anyone. The pic is of my Corbulo model.

http://meltaspam.blogspot.com/2011/04/blue-angels-lists.html

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

I guess that Emperor's Champion isn't WYSIWYG either, since the Emperor's Champion does not have an Iron Halo.

Redbeard wrote:

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

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


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

It's in the independant character section, and essentially says that only IC's have to have correctly modeled equipment.

Heffling wrote:
It's in the independant character section, and essentially says that only IC's have to have correctly modeled equipment.

And it says 'tournaments may be more strict' which means 'Ask your TO'... and it says opponents must accommodate your request to proxy and nothing says they have to accept it... which boils the whole entire 'rule' down to opponents consent. Technically any rule is legal if both players agree on it.

...and the Eldar codex requires it for the entire codex, not just characters, which blows a whole in the whole scatterlazer thing and the Eldar as Spacewolves thing.

I am unsure why anyone thinks they have the 'right' to field proxies. In a tourney it is TO discretion, in a casual game it is opponents consent. Both basically live and die by 'rule of cool'. Why is asking permission such a big deal? If you have made a legitimate effort or ask nicley, this will handle 99% of situations.

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

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

Some people (myself included) find obviously-drunken people annoying in situations outside a bar or party. There's a place for everything, and everything in its place.

In more detail - I view the playing of a game of 40k in a tournament environment in the context of a social contract: I will respect you, your models, and your time, and I will give you my undivided attention while we play (same reason I won't be texting during our game, or wandering off to chat with others). If you're drunk, I do not feel that I have your attention.

nkelsch wrote:

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

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

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

I think you may have misread what I wrote.

It doesn't matter if GW are obliged or not to provide models for everything, the fact is that they don't.

Colouring things differently is no help for colour blind players, or if there aren't enough parts in the box and what are the official colours for anything. Anyway, I thought one of the problems is people colouring things differently -- i.e. Space Wolves who aren't grey.

Converting things is great and I do it a lot. Let's not pretend the conversion is 'official' WYSIWYG though. I've got to explain it to my opponents at the start of the game and they have to either remember or ask during the game.

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

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

Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

I guess that Emperor's Champion isn't WYSIWYG either, since the Emperor's Champion does not have an Iron Halo.

I got the Iron halo off a captain set I had but don't worry I got this.



I only stuck it on for aesthetic reasons. I thought it looked cool . Is there anything that could cause instant death to mesphiston? He has toughness 6. Either way it is easily removed if it was an issue at an event.

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

1. I have to deal with drunks all day. And by that I mean my associates have to deal with a drunk all (hey its 8.00AM somewhere, give me a highball).
2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

Why? I've seen no reasons given yet.

Potentially impaired judgment? Works to your benefit.
Forgetting to move my stuff or shoot them? Works to your benefit.
Happy go lucky and friendly? Works to your benefit.

There's no link between cheating and drinking. Sober people do that just fine.

So what's your beef?

The thing is---when most drunks think they're being happy go lucky---in reality they are being sloppy, loud and annoying.

The above. I don't mind someone who is mildly buzzing. Had a beer or two and are just chilling while we play. I do have a problem with full blown drunk. It's my time too and personally I don't want to waste it like that.

Frazzled wrote:

2. If I'm playing a drunk in a tournament forget the tourney organizer. I'm calling the cops.

Alright...WHY?!?

Janthkin: You're presuming that someone drinking isn't giving you their undivided attention. Why? I bet that half the people there hung over from the previous night are not giving you undivided attention. And you're using assumptions.

Frazzled....calling the cops why? Over 21, not engaged in any illegal behavior....what's the issue?

This line of discussion started because someone made a comparison of drinking to not bringing a WYSIWYG army. Like, "Playing against someone who is drinking is as bad as playing against someone who who is proxying in a GT."

I'm still looking for the why, but I don't see any - just some guesses about what behavior might be, stereotypes, flat misinformation....its almost malicious. That's like saying, "I'm not playing against anyone using GK because they will obviously be proxying their army and cheating." That's an equally broad and bad assumption.

Frazzled, Janthkin - lets hear it. Illuminate me.