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.

 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.