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.

I don't play CSM but have someone who does, i was flipping through the codex and found that the CSM's wargear includes Pistol, CC Wep, and a bolter. Does this mean you can have a model with a chainsword and a pistol and still shoot a bolter?

Absolutely. However, you cannot shoot the Pistol and the Bolter in the same turn. Also, if you shoot the Bolter, no assaulting for you! Keep in mind that CSM get a bonus attack for two CCWs.

This might be a WYSIWYG question, now that I re-read it. I guess it would depend on one's interpretation of the "rule". Given that the above items are part of the CSM's standard wargear, I wouldn't hold the WYSIWYG rule against a player if they didn't have all three bits modeled somewhere on the base.

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I don't play CSM but have someone who does, i was flipping through the codex and found that the CSM's wargear includes Pistol, CC Wep, and a bolter. Does this mean you can have a model with a chainsword and a pistol and still shoot a bolter?

No, you have a model with a Bolt Pistol, CCW and Bolter that can fire the bolter.

However, many people will let you get away with sloppy WYSIWYG because it is "standard equipment". I personally wouldn't, but many would.

And before people get pissy, all my Space Wolves/Grey Hunters are WYSIWYG, and I am in fact now retrofitting them to be WYSIWYG for when the new codex comes out

Gwar! wrote:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I don't play CSM but have someone who does, i was flipping through the codex and found that the CSM's wargear includes Pistol, CC Wep, and a bolter. Does this mean you can have a model with a chainsword and a pistol and still shoot a bolter?

No, you have a model with a Bolt Pistol, CCW and Bolter that can fire the bolter.

However, many people will let you get away with sloppy WYSIWYG because it is "standard equipment". I personally wouldn't, but many would.

And before people get pissy, all my Space Wolves/Grey Hunters are WYSIWYG, and I am in fact now retrofitting them to be WYSIWYG for when the new codex comes out

Seeing as you are not allowed to not bring certain basic wargear. Its not legal to leave standard equipment behind, I can't see people enforcing WYSIWYG on basic wargear.

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I don't play CSM but have someone who does, i was flipping through the codex and found that the CSM's wargear includes Pistol, CC Wep, and a bolter. Does this mean you can have a model with a chainsword and a pistol and still shoot a bolter?

No, you have a model with a Bolt Pistol, CCW and Bolter that can fire the bolter.

However, many people will let you get away with sloppy WYSIWYG because it is "standard equipment". I personally wouldn't, but many would.

And before people get pissy, all my Space Wolves/Grey Hunters are WYSIWYG, and I am in fact now retrofitting them to be WYSIWYG for when the new codex comes out

Seeing as you are not allowed to not bring certain basic wargear. Its not legal to leave standard equipment behind, I can't see people enforcing WYSIWYG on basic wargear.

Well, my view is, if I cannot Tell from looking they have Bolter, CCW and Bolt Pistol, it is not WYSIWYG and should not be played. I don't come with a bunch of Coins and say "This one has XYZ Weapons and That one has ABC weapons", so why should I have to remember what wargear your troops have?

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I don't play CSM but have someone who does, i was flipping through the codex and found that the CSM's wargear includes Pistol, CC Wep, and a bolter. Does this mean you can have a model with a chainsword and a pistol and still shoot a bolter?

No, you have a model with a Bolt Pistol, CCW and Bolter that can fire the bolter.

However, many people will let you get away with sloppy WYSIWYG because it is "standard equipment". I personally wouldn't, but many would.

And before people get pissy, all my Space Wolves/Grey Hunters are WYSIWYG, and I am in fact now retrofitting them to be WYSIWYG for when the new codex comes out

Seeing as you are not allowed to not bring certain basic wargear. Its not legal to leave standard equipment behind, I can't see people enforcing WYSIWYG on basic wargear.

I would only not enforce it if it doesn't come in the box set for the CSM. If it does and the person doesn't put it on then that's not right. I only follow this for basic war gear otherwise I almost always enforce WYSIWYG.



-Orkishly

Even if it doesn't, that is not my Problem. Make your models WYSIWYG or go back to playing Chess

Gwar! wrote:Even if it doesn't, that is not my Problem. Make your models WYSIWYG or go back to playing Chess

If the base model doesn't even come in the box set for the base model how am I suppose to play with the models I just bought?

I don't buy a set of scouts and then have to go find legs for all them from a bits dealer.

Gwar! wrote:Even if it doesn't, that is not my Problem. Make your models WYSIWYG or go back to playing Chess

So this leads to a question, do I have to spend my time trying to model a bolt pistol on Shrike? He is equipped with one, but his model doesn't have one.

Just remind me not to play against Gwar with my CSM

cablecing wrote:Just remind me not to play against Gwar with my CSM

And that's really the key to remember. Not with Gwar specifically (though I'd personally find the "arguing" entertaining). You really do get to choose whether or not you play with a specific opponent. That is, unless you do nothing but play in tournaments. If that's the case, then you should be used to a variety of individuals and probably play to a standard closer to Gwar's anyway.

Firstly... it is difficult to justify WYSIWYG from a RAW perspective, as the discussion on WYSIWYG is not in the rules themselves, but rather in one of the greyed out sidebars, like:
- Wobbly Model Syndrome,
- A line of sight discussion basically saying 'be sporting' (page 16),
- Speedrolling, cocked dice, etc.
So - WYSIWYG is not Law - its a 'polite suggestion on how to resolve disputes'.

Also, the actual ‘What You See Is What You Get’ greyed out sidebars states at the start:
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’.

If read as is, it may be argued that it does not apply further than character models only - at no stage are 'all models' referred to. Further, as stated, it appears to be limited to 'optional equipment. you could model your CSM's barehanded and nude, and as long as they are CSM's, they come with standard equipment.

I think this interpretation of course severly limits the application of the principal, and its unlikely that is how they intended WYSIWYG to be used.

I consider the ultimate question is 'how do you want to play'?
I have my CSM's in a variety of poses, and state that they are 'standard marines' per the codex, and therefore regardless of how they are armed, they carry bolters, bp's and ccw. I also let my mate sub his tyranids for eldar when he runs out of eldar models. i dont care that much, Im there to have fun.

However it is perfectly reasonable for tournaments to draw a hardline, (or the GWARline as it appears) and say, no, WYSIWYG applies in its strictest interpretation.

I would rather add flexibility and actually play some games, than have my perfectly equipped and possibly ugly models (there is only so much a model will take before it looks stupid), sitting in a case because Im too pissy to play a game with.

You may find that in friendly games if you take the GWARline, you have less friends than you thought!

darkkt wrote:Firstly... it is difficult to justify WYSIWYG from a RAW perspective, as the discussion on WYSIWYG is not in the rules themselves, but rather in one of the greyed out sidebars, like:
- Wobbly Model Syndrome,
- A line of sight discussion basically saying 'be sporting' (page 16),
- Speedrolling, cocked dice, etc.
So - WYSIWYG is not Law - its a 'polite suggestion on how to resolve disputes'.

Also, the actual ‘What You See Is What You Get’ greyed out sidebars states at the start:
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’.

And there you go.
Models have a lot of gear options, this wargear must be visually represented.
Having a bolter, bp and ccw on a CSM isn't an option, its mandatory so it does not need to be represented per RAW

So a Leman Russ Battle Tank does not have to have a Battle Cannon Modelled? Sweet! Looks like Super Flat Leman Russes for me.

as a chaos player myself what I can say is that should you put all of a CSM's wargear on them(including grenades) you end up with a lot of awkward looking models(similar to a pile of weapons with spikes) so not all of my models are WYSIWYG,but the squad as a whole is represented as having all of the wargear and I think that is all you need(making the squad WYSIWYG)

warsmith pyrus wrote:as a chaos player myself what I can say is that should you put all of a CSM's wargear on them(including grenades) you end up with a lot of awkward looking models(similar to a pile of weapons with spikes) so not all of my models are WYSIWYG,but the squad as a whole is represented as having all of the wargear and I think that is all you need(making the squad WYSIWYG)

I agree, i've found that Genestealer boxes don't come with enough heads to let them all have Feeders/FL/Acid/Implant so having the 2 of the head i want on 2 of the 8 genestealers shows me what the group has.

Personally I think some people here are taking WYSIWYG a bit too far. CSM are CSM you know they have a bolt pistol, CCW and bolter. Now if one takes a different weapon then it must be clearly shown.

It would only be come a grey area if you started to use loyalist Space marine models as they are not WYAIWYG and they would need to be changed so they fitted.

Gwar! wrote:So a Leman Russ Battle Tank does not have to have a Battle Cannon Modelled? Sweet! Looks like Super Flat Leman Russes for me.

No, because now you're modeling for advantage, and going to an extreme. I know you love to say "where does it stop?", and that's fine that you're that kind of player. Unfortunately, this is a game, and most people play do try to have a good time with it. Having to scratch build or purchase 40+ extra bolt pistols is relatively unfeasible for a large portion of players.

The point that I'm poorly communicating: Extremes - in either direction - are bad.

No offence, but there is no difference.
In the CSM Case:
You are not modelling the Stock Weapon Options.

In the Leman Russ Case:
You are not modelling the Stock Weapon Options.

No modelling for advantage whatsoever, just doing the same thing in both cases.

My bad. It seemed to be implied with the "Super Flat" comment that it would provide some sort of LOS/Obscurement advantage. Also, there is a difference, now that I think about it. Range and LOS are measured from the base when it comes to infantry, whereas they are measured from the actual weapon in the case of a vehicle.

KaloranSLC wrote:My bad. It seemed to be implied with the "Super Flat" comment that it would provide some sort of LOS/Obscurement advantage.

Oh, it will, because the Turret is missing. Doesn't change the fact that one is considered "acceptable" and the other considered "abuse".

Gwar! wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:My bad. It seemed to be implied with the "Super Flat" comment that it would provide some sort of LOS/Obscurement advantage.

Oh, it will, because the Turret is missing. Doesn't change the fact that one is considered "acceptable" and the other considered "abuse".

per RAW you are correct. As you have stated in other places we can not make assumptions about rules. So yes, as long as its not that way to obtain an advantage I would be fine with it.

The only question I ask is, don't you measure shooting distance from the gun barrel on vehicles vs. the model on infantry?

Also the above reference for WYSIWYG is for character models. I would have to see the BRB rule for vehicles to confirm that this is correct. However if it says the same thing, yes I would allow it per RAW.

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:My bad. It seemed to be implied with the "Super Flat" comment that it would provide some sort of LOS/Obscurement advantage.

Oh, it will, because the Turret is missing. Doesn't change the fact that one is considered "acceptable" and the other considered "abuse".

per RAW you are correct. As you have stated in other places we can not make assumptions about rules. So yes, as long as its not that way to obtain an advantage I would be fine with it.

The only question I ask is, don't you measure shooting distance from the gun barrel on vehicles vs. the model on infantry?

Also the above reference for WYSIWYG is for character models. I would have to see the BRB rule for vehicles to confirm that this is correct. However if it says the same thing, yes I would allow it per RAW.

What is yakface's number 1 rule for 40k? YOU CAN USE MODELLING TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.

You always could, in every edition of 40k, and you still can. Kneeling wraithlords, weirdly sized ork trukks, etc. It's all there and it's all legal.

whitedragon wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:My bad. It seemed to be implied with the "Super Flat" comment that it would provide some sort of LOS/Obscurement advantage.

Oh, it will, because the Turret is missing. Doesn't change the fact that one is considered "acceptable" and the other considered "abuse".

per RAW you are correct. As you have stated in other places we can not make assumptions about rules. So yes, as long as its not that way to obtain an advantage I would be fine with it.

The only question I ask is, don't you measure shooting distance from the gun barrel on vehicles vs. the model on infantry?

Also the above reference for WYSIWYG is for character models. I would have to see the BRB rule for vehicles to confirm that this is correct. However if it says the same thing, yes I would allow it per RAW.

What is yakface's number 1 rule for 40k? YOU CAN USE MODELLING TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.

You always could, in every edition of 40k, and you still can. Kneeling wraithlords, weirdly sized ork trukks, etc. It's all there and it's all legal.

I don't particularly like that rule, thank you very much.

KaloranSLC wrote:I don't particularly like that rule, thank you very much.

You don't have to like it. It is fact.

Gwar! wrote:

KaloranSLC wrote:I don't particularly like that rule, thank you very much.

You don't have to like it. It is fact.

That may be so, and I would never call someone out on it - well, maybe a little. However, I won't put it to actual practice myself. I guess I'm not much of a min/max player?

That being said, I think I've helped derail this topic enough. My apologies.

Best(or worst) case of modelling for advantage is adding riders to bikes.

Autarch + jetbike + Laser lance +Reaper launcher

Modelled with 4 people riding it = all guns blazing (and no friends)

Slightly more on topic
Chaos lord + Bike + mark of Tzeentch + Daemon weapon + Twin linked bolter

Again model on 4 people riding it, all guns blazing (and no friends)

In fairness, I think the Leman Russ w/o the battle cannon is fine for play. I would have no issue.

You still need to draw LoS via vehicles rules though.

kirsanth wrote:In fairness, I think the Leman Russ w/o the battle cannon is fine for play. I would have no issue.

You still need to draw LoS via vehicles rules though.

In which case, you technically would not be able to fire the battle cannon since you cannot measure/determine LOS from something that does not exist.

My group plays very sloppy WYSIWYG.
Last night my foe borrowed some UltraMarine terminators to use in his Chaos Marine army. THe BLue ones were armed with standard CSM(T) gear, and the red ones had flamers.
My 3 squads of boyz were all armed with Shootas, even though 1 squad was quite clearly AoBR slugga/choppa models.
His predator had sponsons and a turret. I can't tell the difference between each weapon model, so asked "What's it armed with?" he told me "sponsons lascannon, turret autocannon". No problem.
I haven't modelled an attack squig for my boss yet, but he does wear an iPod, so i say "He's playing Goffic Rock, and it inspires him, so +1A for me. I paid for a squig". No-one has complained yet.

We play to what is in the list, not the exact WYSIWYG of the model. None of us have enough money/talent/inclination to make multiple armies/variation of models to make everything perfect, so we just write a list, and play to it with whatever toy soldiers he have to hand. So long as we are all clear what is what, we're all happy (and that is all that matters)

For Chaos and Orks, I think this is how it works best. Anyone telling me that my Lootas are not armed with deffguns, as I have modelled a scratch-built rokkit-launcher with retro-fitted plasmagun and side-bolter is not a foe I'd enjoy playing against.

To the original question, yes a Chaos Marine carries a CCW, a pistol and a bolter. In the shooting phase he can fire either a pistol or a bolter. In the assault phase he uses a CCW and a pistol (for +1A).
Model it how you like.
I'm happy for people to say "His pistol is inside his jacket, on a shoulder holster, his knife in his boot, covered by his trouser leg". Frag Grenades? See that pouch on his belt? And his backpack holds krak.
It's basic, standard equipment, it's paid for, its in the list - use it

Putting extra, non-paid-for, not-in-list, not-in-codex models onto bikes so fire extra weapons is just wrong. Until you can show me where it says "Can add extra riders" in the Codex, you just get the ones it says you get.