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.

Everywhere I've seen the WYSIWYG rule, it states something to the effect of "All equipment taken must be modelled" with various exceptions for grenades, small wargear, etc (and usually a reiteration that weapon choices must *always* be modelled).

Is the converse also true? If I include a piece of equipment on the model, must I take the necessary upgrades for that model to possess and use that piece of equipment whenever I field it?

I started wondering about this while considering what extra gear to hang off my guardsmens' belts. I'm guessing grenades aren't a problem, since all the sources I've checked seem to agree that they don't have to follow strict WYSIWYG rules provided I have some way of clearly signifying which squads, if any, have paid the points to use them. I'm more concerned about things like holstered pistols and ornate weapons (where the codex states upgraded weapons should be modelled as particularly "ornate").

For example:
- If I include a holstered pistol on a sergeant who's holding a standard lasgun, does this mean he has to be upgraded to a veteran sergeant so that he can get the odd weapon combination from the armory (the two-handed rifle and the single-handed pistol)?
- If an officer model includes a power sword, am I forced to choose between modifying it to look like a chainsword or always taking the upgrade?
- If I give a Sanctioned Psyker an ornate close combat weapon, must that model always take the Force Weapon upgrade?
- For an example that would stretch the rules a lot, what if I give all my standard guardsmen both lasguns and holstered laspistols/close combat weapons? Could I then declare which they're using simply by taking or not taking the "warrior weapons" doctrine for the army? (Not that I think this doctrine is actually useful)

Short answer, no.

The WYSIWYG rules are something people play fairly fast and loose with. And while they state that you have to model major wargear and weapons, they don't say that things modeled must be purchased in game. So if you have an ornate close combat weapon, it can be an ornate close combat weapon and not a force weapon. Just like you could have grenades on a belt and not actually buy the model grenades. For the most part, as long as you let your opponent know what your models have and there are not any drastic changes (this guy with the las gun really has a heavy bolter), you're fine.

Playing WYSIWYG too closely really ruins the game for people who are experimenting with different configurations for their army lists.

4ed rulebook had no such WYSWIG rule (although many codexes did have them. 5ed has this to say

‘What You See Is What You Get’
Character models in particular tend to have a lot
of options as to what weapons and wargear they
can use – given in the army list of their Codex.
The rule is that such equipment must be visually
represented on the model so your opponents can
clearly see what they are facing. This concept is
often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for
‘what you see is what you get’.

Of course, many gamers enjoy trying out different
combinations of wargear in different battles.
So, for example, a player might decide that for his
next game a model’s power sword will simply
count as a close combat weapon, but he will also
equip the model with melta bombs. While some
tournaments may be more strict about this kind
of thing, most opponents are happy to
accommodate a small degree of one thing
counting as another, so long as you explain
exactly who has what at the start of the game.

The key point to your question is:

The rule is that such equipment must be visually
represented on the model so your opponents can
clearly see what they are facing.

I think that is the most important part, especially in competive play. In your examples, consider if it will confuse your opponent such that he doesn't know what he is facing. I think consistency and clarity is the key here. I doubt any player or TO would have much of an issue with the examples given, as long as it is consistent. For an example, if you are counting a sword that could easily be a PW as a ccw, then all such bits should be ccws unless painting or some such can help distiguish them (eg ccw is bare metal, pw is blue). Or say the arming of bp/ccw and lasgun, if all models in the army equipped such use the same rules then it would be fine, however if some have lasguns and some have lp/ccw then it would be an issue.

HTH

I agree with everything winterman said.

winterman wrote: I think consistency and clarity is the key here. I doubt any player or TO would have much of an issue with the examples given, as long as it is consistent. For an example, if you are counting a sword that could easily be a PW as a ccw, then all such bits should be ccws unless painting or some such can help distiguish them (eg ccw is bare metal, pw is blue).

HTH

I agree with everything you said, except the part I quoted. Which I actually agree with it quite a bit, but feel that it is really hard to make useful. You can't really say all swords carried by characters/elite units are either pw's or not. I agree that the best way to represent a power-weapon ccw is by paint or extra bits, but some people aren't that good of painters, so I make a point of asking my opponents which weapons are power/force weapons and which aren't. It's just not something that is easily recognizable unless the owner of the army is competent at painting/modeling and takes the time to do so.

Playing orks and Tau I never have to worry about this - powerklaws are the only power weapon (well burnas, but all burnas are pw's so it doesn't matter) for orks and Tau have a single pw that I have never taken. But facing IG I never know just by modeling who has a pw and who doesn't.

to the OP: you're probably fine with everything you listed as long as you're polite about it and your opponents aren't asshats. You might get docked a point on sportsmenship if everything is not completely WYSIWYG, but for regular play I wouldn't worry about it as long as you have tried to the best of your ability to model what you have.

budro wrote:I agree with everything you said, except the part I quoted. Which I actually agree with it quite a bit, but feel that it is really hard to make useful. You can't really say all swords carried by characters/elite units are either pw's or not. I agree that the best way to represent a power-weapon ccw is by paint or extra bits, but some people aren't that good of painters, so I make a point of asking my opponents which weapons are power/force weapons and which aren't. It's just not something that is easily recognizable unless the owner of the army is competent at painting/modeling and takes the time to do so.

How does not being good at painting make it any easier/harder to paint a weapon "blue" rather than "silver"?

You might also run into models with scabbarded swords or holstered pistols. I generally make a point of saying "This chick has a plasma pistol, this one is just standard" or "This girl has an eviscerator, but all the rest are just chain swords." Usually if you make a point to give people the lowdown on what has what they don't worry, even if they forget later. Of course, Sisters are a slightly obscure army, so I get a lot of "WTF is that thing? A dreadnaught on crack?"

Usually WYSIWYG is enforced pretty much by major weapons or wargear. Such as units with lascannons but instead have bolters would be a violation of WYSIWYG. I dont expect people to model a refractor field on a junior officer or to model a shadow field on their archons (if they do thats major props to them). I usually ask for consistency and if an IC has a bike or something that represents a bike (steed, or flying discs, or grots carrying the boss).

I feel it is a question of consistency. I don't care if you (no one specific) say; "This lascannon is a heavy bolter" as long as any lascannon in the army is counted as heavy bolters.
"This sword is a powersword". Fine as long as any sword that looks like it is a powersword.
"This is an Eviserator". See above.

"This lascannon is a HB, this one is a lascannon and the one on my LR is actually Hurricane Bolters. My commander has a power sword. This sword is just a CC weapon and this one is actually a bolter."--------Go home, kid.

The WYSIWYG rule upsets me quite a bit. Now don't get me wrong I love modeling but I also love money so I don't really feel it necessary to buy separate models for different options, I just spend 20 bucks on a big mek with a shokk gun, now should i choice to equip him with a KFF according to the WYSIWYG rules I have to go out and spend another 20 bucks so he can have a KFF. It's annoying too that I started playing 3rd ed when having shoota's was a poor choice (rapid fire?!) now if i want shootas i have to rip the arms off my boyz and slap on a gun (I'm working with allot of boyz!) but at least this is free. Back when i got my boyz Rokkits didn't come with the sprue nor did big shootas, burnas or any option, clearly if i wanted burnas I'd have to buy a box of burna boys. With constant rule changes, model changes (i'm still dealing with old school 2nd ed trukks) and codex's I've given enough money to GW I enjoy the game but i don't enjoy GW getting my every dime. [/soapbox]

I think the downsides to WYSIWYG are why newer games like WM/Hordes keep it out of the equation.

aburnflags wrote:, I just spend 20 bucks on a big mek with a shokk gun, now should i choice to equip him with a KFF according to the WYSIWYG rules I have to go out and spend another 20 bucks so he can have a KFF.

Yeah. It's as bad as those idiot Squash officials who wouldn't let me compete with a tennis raquet. Why the heck should I have to pay for another piece of equipment just because I want to do something different to what I wanted when I bought the first one?

aburnflags wrote:The WYSIWYG rule upsets me quite a bit.

Werewolves upset me quite a bit too, until I realized that it's silly to get upset over imaginary things.

I just spend 20 bucks on a big mek with a shokk gun, now should i choice to equip him with a KFF according to the WYSIWYG rules I have to go out and spend another 20 bucks so he can have a KFF.

Could you please tell me what page this WYSIWYG 'rule' is on, along with where it tells you that in order to follow it, you MUST spend money instead of making your own KFF?

I think the downsides to WYSIWYG are why newer games like WM/Hordes keep it out of the equation.

I find that rather unlikely. Otherwise why couldn't a Khador player field nothing but identically painted Winter Guard, some of them actually being warjacks, Widow-makers, and Shocktroopers?

aburnflags wrote:The WYSIWYG rule upsets me quite a bit. Now don't get me wrong I love modeling but I also love money so I don't really feel it necessary to buy separate models for different options, I just spend 20 bucks on a big mek with a shokk gun, now should i choice to equip him with a KFF according to the WYSIWYG rules I have to go out and spend another 20 bucks so he can have a KFF. It's annoying too that I started playing 3rd ed when having shoota's was a poor choice (rapid fire?!) now if i want shootas i have to rip the arms off my boyz and slap on a gun (I'm working with allot of boyz!) but at least this is free. Back when i got my boyz Rokkits didn't come with the sprue nor did big shootas, burnas or any option, clearly if i wanted burnas I'd have to buy a box of burna boys. With constant rule changes, model changes (i'm still dealing with old school 2nd ed trukks) and codex's I've given enough money to GW I enjoy the game but i don't enjoy GW getting my every dime. [/soapbox]

Thats an issue in tournaments. In private gaming it shouldn't be an issue if you know your opponents. Again, consistency is the key.

Of course right now I'm using sheets of paper representing soul grinders with "I'm a defiler Grr!" and "watch out, I'm unbound!" on them so what do I know?

Werewolves upset me quite a bit too, until I realized that it's silly to get upset over imaginary things.

Werewolves are imaginary?

I think the downsides to WYSIWYG are why newer games like WM/Hordes keep it out of the equation.

I find this statement very strange. There is a WYSIWG equation in WM/Hordes (at least in tournament play): WYSIWYG is always in effect. And it is very strict WYSIWYG. Sorcha has a scythe, so she cannot have be armed with any other type of ccw, even for conversion purposes. Create a fig that is armed like sorcha but isn't actually her model? Illegal. The GW rule is much more forgiving.

winterman wrote:I find this statement very strange. There is a WYSIWG equation in WM/Hordes (at least in tournament play): WYSIWYG is always in effect. And it is very strict WYSIWYG. Sorcha has a scythe, so she cannot have be armed with any other type of ccw, even for conversion purposes. Create a fig that is armed like sorcha but isn't actually her model? Illegal. The GW rule is much more forgiving.

My point is that WM/Hordes has no WYSIWYG rules in the way that GW does, except in the broadest sense of forbidding "this bottle cap is a Dire Troll Mauler". PP avoids the subject entirely by disallowing unit customization. By comparison, in GW, we need (and have) a more full set of rules and constraints to address unit wargear/equipment choice.

when i was starting my guard i didnt have that many heavy weapons and i built the heavy weapons i had as heavy bolters but later wanted them to be auto cannons
most people were ok with that and i got to play with the stuff i was trying out
but there was one kid who tried to pass off a sergant with a bp/ccw as a terminator lord with dual lightning claws
thats a bit to far

groz wrote:

winterman wrote:I find this statement very strange. There is a WYSIWG equation in WM/Hordes (at least in tournament play): WYSIWYG is always in effect. And it is very strict WYSIWYG. Sorcha has a scythe, so she cannot have be armed with any other type of ccw, even for conversion purposes. Create a fig that is armed like sorcha but isn't actually her model? Illegal. The GW rule is much more forgiving.

My point is that WM/Hordes has no WYSIWYG rules in the way that GW does, except in the broadest sense of forbidding "this bottle cap is a Dire Troll Mauler". PP avoids the subject entirely by disallowing unit customization. By comparison, in GW, we need (and have) a more full set of rules and constraints to address unit wargear/equipment choice.

So, your lack of options is a feature? That's special. Or something.

groz wrote: By comparison, in GW, we need (and have) a more full set of rules and constraints to address unit wargear/equipment choice.

We do?

Where?


Some of the codexes specify that upgrades must be represented on the model, but other than that there are currently no actual rules for WYSIWYG in Warhammer 40K, outside of specific tournament packages... at least so far as I'm aware.


WYSIWYG has always, in GW gaming, been more of a gaming convention than a rule set in stone.

My personal rule of thumb. If its somthing that will cause your opponent to make a tactical descision based on the assumption that your models are WYSIWYG and it has game altering ramifications. Then you whould WYSIWYG it. Otherwise I do not care. I just play in a style where I do not CARE whether my opponent is WYSIWYG or not. It does not affect my strategy. However that is because I am a defensive player. FOr others it will matter and you should respect that. That is one thing I have learned over the seasons.

So, take the above image.

Should I play with this Baal Predator if I don't take Extra Armor? If I don't take a storm bolter? If I don't take side sponsons? Can I use it as an Annihilator?

Completely seriously, where do you personally draw the line with it? In what situations do you proxy and not?

I just think it's easier on everybody if it's strict WYSIWYG.

Personally, I'd play it exactly as the model, and if it was anything other than a friendly game, I'd expect the same from an opponent.

In a friendly game, I'd be fine if an opponent said 'Hey, don't have the points for the extra armour in this list, so I left it off...'

Although the group I game with sort of fell into pretty strict WYSIWYG over time. We generally just found it easier to use the models as is. If you wanted something different, you either built a customisable model or built a new one.

Valhallan42nd wrote:So, your lack of options is a feature? That's special. Or something.

Lol, sarcasm. Lack of options is a feature when it positively impacts gameplay by removing an unwieldy rule.

What rule are you talking about?

In my opinion people take it too far. If I want to use kasrkin models to represent guardsmen, I feel that I should be allowed to without some idiot telling me my army is illegal because guardsmen don't have carapace armor or hellguns. Why can't these people accept that kasrkin weapons and armor could just be lasguns and a 5+ save? There is nothing confusing about it; they are modeled to have small arms laser weapons and light armor. I know this thread is old, but I feel it is an important topic that warrants more discussion.

This thread is hungry.

Hungry for...B R A I N S!

"send more cops"

This thread is banished!