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.

My question is about what is generally allowed at tournaments regarding models and with what they are equipped. Following are situations:
1. tyranid warriors armed with 2 sets of scything talons - but want to use as deathspitter armed
2. genestealer brood of 8 with feeder tendril biomorph - however only one model has feeder tendrils on it (one set in a box of stealers)
3. tyrant guard with lash whips - though the models come only with scything talons

In the first example, I would expect that the tournament would not allow this because tyranid warriors come with deathspitters and should be modelled accordingly - I would not try this at a tourney.

However, example 2, since a box of stealers only comes with one feeder tendril head (certainly not 8), and if I only had one box of stealers would this be allowed in tournaments (not just local tourneys but the bigger ones).

Lastly, since tyrant guard don't come with lash whips and would require some significant modelling because of how the arm with the talon was made, would a tourney accept that someone could use tyrant guard with lash whips, even if not modelled that way as long as it was listed in their army list?

Can the knowledgeable and experienced players let me know how these situations (particularly #2 and 3) are usually handled? Thanks

Well, it really varies from person to person. Some people are cheesy as hell and will call you out on it.

However, i think a normal tournament would say:

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

The weapons are the most important part of WYSIWYG. The point behind it is that your opponent shouldnt have to charge a unit only to find out he loses his bonus attacks (lash whip). However, in the case of the stealers with the tendrils, your opponent should know once he sees the one tendril that the entire squad has it. This is how I would play it in a serious game, but in a friendly I dont give a damn.

For Tyranids I have started to make one completely WYSIWYG unit that is the "leader." It gets a red edged base (as opposed to black like the rest of my army). All models in that squad have that load out. I try to keep them close (CC oriented or ranged oriented) but will leave things like Flesh hooks or Toxin Sacs.

For tyranids I gave my warrior 1 thing of scything tallons and a thing of regular arms (sword type) as rending claws.

It is really up to the TO. Technically, everything should be WYSIWYG to prevent confusion. Providing an army list can reduce the confusion but people tend to not read army lists.

Night Lords has the right answer and Mattlov has a great solution as well. BUT you should ask your TO BEFORE you get there what the criteria is for the event.

At the one's I am a part of, There is no problem with models not being WYSIWYG because we don't want to limit the agmout of players that can attend. Other events have enough of a player base to exclude unpainted and/or non WYSIWYG armies. You left to their desires.

Thanks for the replies. I agree WYSIWYG is important to prevent confusion. I would never do #1 with warriors at a tourney because I could easily put deathspitters on them. I like the comment about the stealers where one has the proper loadout and the base is somehow different to stand out as the rep for the brood biomorph-wise. THe tyrant guard issue will be a bit more difficult for me as I am not a skilled modeller and have never used greenstuff. Does greenstuff harden enough not to easily break (during transport) if some is made into a lash whip like the hive tyrants lash whip?

The letter of the law for WYSIWYG is that all weapons, armor, and upgrades are modeled on the figure.

The spirit of the rule, or the reason behind it, is to allow your opponent to "read" your army just by looking at it, without constantly referencing an army list.

weapons are a big one, especially shifts from close combat weapons to ranged weapons. Most people dont' know the difference between devourers and deathspitters by look alone, but they can tell the difference between rending claws and deathspitters.

If all models in an army have the same upgrade (like feeder tendrils), then you have the best chance of avoiding problems. With nothing to keep apart, it's not totally unreasonable to ask that your opponent remember one or two things about your army. This is particularly true when the upgrade in question is by far the strongest choice....

For the lash whips, that' the toughest call. I think most people would appreciate some form of conversion, rather than simply calling one thing (scything talons) another (lash whip).

Ventus wrote:1. tyranid warriors armed with 2 sets of scything talons - but want to use as deathspitter armed
2. genestealer brood of 8 with feeder tendril biomorph - however only one model has feeder tendrils
3. tyrant guard with lash whips - though the models come only with scything talons

1. NO.
2. OK, unless you have otherwise identical-looking broods *without* feeder tentacles!
3. NO.

Weapons should always be represented as clearly as possible.

Unit distinctions should also be clear. For example, if playing Chaos Marines and the CSM, KB, NM, EC, and PM all use the exact same basic, generic CSM models, then that's not cool.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Weapons should always be represented as clearly as possible.

Unit distinctions should also be clear. For example, if playing Chaos Marines and the CSM, KB, NM, EC, and PM all use the exact same basic, generic CSM models, then that's not cool.

I agree, but I'd argue that even a solid paint job can set apart the cult troops. Rusty brown & green, blue/gold, blood red, and pink are pretty easy to tell apart.

OK, I'd accept a cult-specific paint job.

But not: "This black squad #2 are actually EC and other black squad #3 are PM different from black squad #4 which is regular CSM".

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, I'd accept a cult-specific paint job.

But not: "This black squad #2 are actually EC and other black squad #3 are PM different from black squad #4 which is regular CSM".

No, that is problematic. I'm just shoring up support for when I eventually build an all power armored Iron Warriors list, painted as IW but using Plague Marine rules. I figure enough bionics should make up for the lack of rot.

Something that hasn't been brought up yet is the fact that WYSIWYG is in the section refering to characters (IC's and upgrade characters). Doesn't this mean that tyranid warriors are able to change their weapon options without actually having modelled them? I try not to but I think it's a viable alternative as long as you let your opponent know beforehand.

Well, WYSIWYG isn't really a core 40k rule, it's more of a tournament rule. Nearly every tournament holds that every model must conform.

What about the fact that CSM's are supposed to have bolters, bolt pistols and CCW's?

Do you actually have to put all that on the model, or because they all come with that regardless, do you not have to model it?

SilverMK2 wrote:What about the fact that CSM's are supposed to have bolters, bolt pistols and CCW's?

Do you actually have to put all that on the model, or because they all come with that regardless, do you not have to model it?

It has generally, althought certainly not always, been the case that "basic" equiptment doens't need to always be modeled. Space Wolf Grey Hunters can take bolter and CCW, but nobody needs to model a CCW on every guy. Marines don't need a holster to claim a BP shot. Guardsmen can use frag grenades even if not modeled.

Again, look to the reason for the rule. You don't need to tell CSMs with bolters apart from those with bolter, bp & ccw. There's no really need to model everything.

Aah, it shows then that I don't play enough tournaments.

SilverMK2 wrote:What about the fact that CSM's are supposed to have bolters, bolt pistols and CCW's?

My CSM model up as a mixture of models armed with BP&CCW, B&BP, B&CCW and plain Bolter. That way, there will be models armed with all of the options as a visual reminder to me and my opponent.