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 try to stick to it myself, excluding specific combi-weapons.

However, I'm generally fine with letting my opponent use 'counts as' as long as it's not hard to remember. Like "all plasma are melta", or "all Sargents have power swords". Or even, 'blue dots are plasma, red dots are melta, green dots are heavy bolters."

Anything more complex than that, over a 1,000 point army or larger is a no go. Also, proxies need to eventually turn into actual models.

I don't like crazy counts-as attempts. If a high elf lord on a dinosaur is a wraithlord, what weapons does it have? Will they stay the same game after game? Will it become an avatar or a talos in another game? Can I just show up to the shop with a fantasy army, decide what I want them to be, and then claim I am not proxying anything?

 Mmmpi wrote:
I try to stick to it myself, excluding specific combi-weapons.

However, I'm generally fine with letting my opponent use 'counts as' as long as it's not hard to remember. Like "all plasma are melta", or "all Sargents have power swords". Or even, 'blue dots are plasma, red dots are melta, green dots are heavy bolters."

Anything more complex than that, over a 1,000 point army or larger is a no go. Also, proxies need to eventually turn into actual models.

Dot system seems fine to me, as again, it’s an easy visual cue.

Take my Manticores. I’m fielding three as part of my GSC. Except one I lost all the missiles for, many, many years ago. In a tournament situation, I’ll be making wee flags, numbered 1-4. As each Manticore fires, I’ll hand the relevant flag to my opponent. Easy way to keep track of finite ammo, and for my opponent to know which is still packing what.

Courtesy. That’s what counts. Don’t make me book keep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pink Horror wrote:
I don't like crazy counts-as attempts. If a high elf lord on a dinosaur is a wraithlord, what weapons does it have? Will they stay the same game after game? Will it become an avatar or a talos in another game? Can I just show up to the shop with a fantasy army, decide what I want them to be, and then claim I am not proxying anything?

For me, yes and no.

I’ve no problem with peeps proxying models for purposes of fine tuning or experimenting with a list. But, if it’s a long term, I have an expectation you’ll sort things out.

Its not even possible to be wysiwyg without 3rd party bits or conversions. So its a nonsense policy.

I voted 'other'... I prefer everything to be as close to WYSIWYG as possible. I don't expect it.

My marines are strict WYSIWYG. Badge numbers and everything.

My Tyranids are WYSIWYG but a bit more loosely. Weapons and models are correctly represented, but biomorphs aren't. I don't like the way the biomorphs look, usually.

My Chaos is similar, weapons are correct, but overall there are more stand-in models as the collection includes a lot of old models. Old Bloodthirsters are Daemon Princes, old Terminator Captains are run as Terminator Sorcerers. No badge numbers. And I'll mix and match CSM units together out of a pile of painted models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pink Horror wrote:
I don't like crazy counts-as attempts. If a high elf lord on a dinosaur is a wraithlord, what weapons does it have? Will they stay the same game after game? Will it become an avatar or a talos in another game? Can I just show up to the shop with a fantasy army, decide what I want them to be, and then claim I am not proxying anything?

For me, yes and no.

I’ve no problem with peeps proxying models for purposes of fine tuning or experimenting with a list. But, if it’s a long term, I have an expectation you’ll sort things out.

I don't mind honest proxies. You could stick a beer bottle on the table and say it's a proxied wraithlord. And if you're using a high elf lord, that's ok, but don't try to give me an elaborate excuse that it isn't really a proxy. If I have to remember what the model really is instead of it being what's staring back at me in the table, it's a proxy. I was trying to reference the earlier counts-as versus proxy distinction in the thread.

I guess it depends if it is recognisable.

An ork wired into a screamer killer where the face should be; that's a deft dread with four klaws; probably deffskull or snakebite.

An elf Lord on dragon... Some kind of large flying unit with strong melee capability and a flame attack... Does a wraithknight fit the bill? It's less clear to me.

For me, I have expect a high level of WYSIWYG from my opponent, and I try to provide it to my opponent, but I do occasionally pull stupid stuff ('that severed head is full of explosives so is a tank buster bomb' for my 40k orks or 'that dwarf musician can parry with his drumsticks so counts as having a sword' in Mordheim. In reality for both cases I've just been too lazy to paint the correct additional component and stick it to the model's waist).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Unfortunately - the difference between optimal and non optimal is great. ESP when sometimes the most expensive option is a lot worse than that build.

Crisis suits have the same problem, magnets are the answer.

However if you turn up and every single Warrior in you list has the same weapon load I am cool with them looking different. There is no possible confusion so why would I feel bad.

If on the other hand you have on your list that one bug in the squad has some special weapon combo that the others do not - I don't want to deal with that. I have been chill about that in tournaments before and been subject to the GOTCHA in a bad way; if I see that on the table now I'm calling a judge.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pink Horror wrote:
I don't like crazy counts-as attempts. If a high elf lord on a dinosaur is a wraithlord, what weapons does it have? Will they stay the same game after game? Will it become an avatar or a talos in another game? Can I just show up to the shop with a fantasy army, decide what I want them to be, and then claim I am not proxying anything?

Counts-as has a pretty high skill bar. A bad counts-as army is horrible. The best ones are almost breathtakingly good.

Aeldari riding dinosaurs are a fluff thing in 40K, I can see why someone would want to kitbash together Eldar and Seraphon model ranges to try to create it. If they do then the onus is on them to make it very clear what everything is and sometimes you have to just avoid certain units because you cannot model them clearly enough.

I have an entirely kroot themed T'au army. After one moment of opponent confusion in a casual game I dropped one of my conversions (pathfinders) forever as not being clear and obvious enough.

Close enough is good enough, but keep it constant.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WYSIWYG is not a rule. That's my position on it.

Whilst it may not be a "rule" physically in the rulebook any more, it is still a rule in the form of a gentlemen's agreement amongst players (which I expect you knew, but you had to come and barge in and say this as predicted ITT), just like the expectation to have your models assembled, to bring the relevant dice and codex etc. Saying "iTs NoT iN tHe RuLeS", whilst correct from a binary perspective is simply not true in the practical application of the game, as if you turn up with a load of random gak and expect people to play you then you're in for a rude awakening.

My policy is: be reasonable. Be clear. No gotchas.

My marines I hold to reasonably full WYSWYG, with all relevant options modeled.

My Eldar I play a little fast and loose with, as it’s a lot harder to get all the specific gear for guys like the autarch.

I don’t hold my opponents to any restrictions. I would prefer that they keep it down to 3 things I need to keep tack of, and make them sweeping (e.g. All flamers are actually plasma) and uniform (so no exceptions). Having to keep track of what’s what and asking who’s got what all the time detracts from my enjoyment of the game. Keep it simple. I’ll cut a lot more slack for people who want to try out new things, and starting players still getting up to speed. I’d not turn down a game (I take them where I can get them) but I do have my preferences.

For some things I don’t need to know the details. If you have a chaos lord with a stabby thing in each hand, I don’t really care that he’s holding the sword of excessive carnage, while you actually gave him the axe of the murder-hobo. What I see is a HQ blender, what I get is something that turns my squads into chunky salsa. WYSWYG, just not strictly literal about it.

You see that model? Good.
You see that kick as slick gun he got? Good.
Dat greeble? Good.
Dat gubbin? Gud.
Buh dat paint tho. Dang mang.
...
Here's his rules. Yeah he's got like none of that but I spent two hours and twenty bucks on him so that is what we got. It's a cool model. You see that. You get it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Consistency. That is all I ask.

Models are inherently representative. And that’s fine. A Lascannon is only a Lascannon because it’s called so. By the same extension, if you tell me, as your opponent, all the Lascannon are actually Missile Launchers, that’s fine and dandy with me. Visual representation still stands up.

But what I am most definitely not ok with is having to book keep. I cannot be bothered keeping track of which Lascannon is a Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, or actually a Lascannon. That’s putting too much onus on me, and is a Richard expectation from you.

Same with proxy models. Model X can represent Model Y for me with no problem. I only ask they be of roughly similar dimensions. But if Model X could be A, B, C or D? No, get to fornication.

basically this, in general, for 'casual' games, if an event specifies WYSIWYG for weapons then I expect it to be enforced - if it doesn't say then this the basic guideline.

as with everything if you hold yourself to a higher standard than you expect in return its not a bad starting point.

this is for weapons options, not all non-weapons options are obvious, e.g. various of the Tyranid upgrade bits, tend there to be with "all models have the same upgrades or none do - or take the time to model it or make it clear"

the purpose is to avoid confusion and allow "at a glance" to see whats what without having to ask, I was a beautifully painted Skaven army, all made of "minions", took a while to work out it was skaven, never mind what each bit was - I;d vote for it in a painting award any day but would hate to play against it

I try to be as WYSIWYG as I possibly can, but I do like taking artistic license every now and then. I run thematic lists, so I'm usually not bothered about their competitiveness. At the moment I'm building a R&H force, so I'm converting heavily to get those autoguns, autopistols, heavy stubbers, etc. My Renegade Commander is wearing power armor, even though that isn't an option, to make him instantly identifiable as the Warlord, who has a 5++ and all that stuff. I think it's a communications thing, like most people have said. If your opponent can easily identify your guys as what they represent, you're golden. If there is confusion, it'll slow the game and get annoying fast. Example: my militia are the Cadians in the better maintained armor, carrying lasguns, and they have heavy weapon teams; my cultists are the Cadians in rag-tag armor missing pieces, carrying autoguns, and the cultists with heavy weapons are cultist Ogryns. Side by side, even with the same colour scheme overall, they can be differentiated.

leopard wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Consistency. That is all I ask.

Models are inherently representative. And that’s fine. A Lascannon is only a Lascannon because it’s called so. By the same extension, if you tell me, as your opponent, all the Lascannon are actually Missile Launchers, that’s fine and dandy with me. Visual representation still stands up.

But what I am most definitely not ok with is having to book keep. I cannot be bothered keeping track of which Lascannon is a Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, or actually a Lascannon. That’s putting too much onus on me, and is a Richard expectation from you.

Same with proxy models. Model X can represent Model Y for me with no problem. I only ask they be of roughly similar dimensions. But if Model X could be A, B, C or D? No, get to fornication.

basically this, in general, for 'casual' games, if an event specifies WYSIWYG for weapons then I expect it to be enforced - if it doesn't say then this the basic guideline.

as with everything if you hold yourself to a higher standard than you expect in return its not a bad starting point.

this is for weapons options, not all non-weapons options are obvious, e.g. various of the Tyranid upgrade bits, tend there to be with "all models have the same upgrades or none do - or take the time to model it or make it clear"

the purpose is to avoid confusion and allow "at a glance" to see whats what without having to ask, I was a beautifully painted Skaven army, all made of "minions", took a while to work out it was skaven, never mind what each bit was - I;d vote for it in a painting award any day but would hate to play against it

There are other ways.

For instance, I’ve assembled my Acolyte Hybrids without Specialist Close Combat Weapons. But I am tempted to try unit’s of 10 with Heavy Rock Drills. Now, as the entire unit is currently identically armed, I can’t ‘X is Y’ here. But, what I could do? Get some thinnish dowel, and mount a wee flag on it. One gets blutakked to each Acolyte to show they’ve got a Drill. As a stop-gap ‘experimentation purposes only’ it serves much the same purpose. Both my opponent and I get a straight forward, clear visual aid as to what’s what, and arguably more importantly, where each exact weapon is.

In fact, flags like that can be used for other purposes. Take the forthcoming Havocs. Rotor Cannon things are ace, but few in the set. So for experiment purposes, flag ‘em up. If it works out as well as hoped, off to Bits or Third Party sites to fill out the ranks with proper WYSIWYG.

Same principle as I described before. A clear, visual representation that does not require book keeping and extra attention from opponents. (Could even write different weapons on different flags. Or draw the relevant weapon. Same outcome)

I mostly play competitively, and I only really care that it's not confusing.

If you tell me "My farseer actually has a singing spear but the model has a sword" or "All my sergents have plasma pistols" etc then it's perfectly fine. I think most of the more competitive tournaments that's the rule, it has to not be confusing. I think Sean Nayden had a list in one of the recent ITC GTs where he ran the Lelith Hesperax model as a Cursed Blade succubus with net/impaler. He had it written on his list and no one cared.

i always expect WYSIWG.

Any other attitude just opens a can of worms. An Ork player once wanted to proxy a Trukk with a box lid. His justification for doing so: "It has the same dimensons." I turned down the game immediately.

Other people are just sowing chaos with proxied weapons and in the heat of the battle no one knows for sure what is what.

I generally expect WYSIWYG in all situations, but I'm willing to budge for newbies or friends if its a simple "This Land Raider is actually a Land Raider Redeemer."

The other situation is base equipment. If a model has been models with upgrades - ie, a Space Marine Captain with a Combi-Melta and Power Sword - I'll completely be fine with it being counted as the base equipment of a CCW and pistol. This holds true for all units - a Stormraven modelled with a Twin Lascannon can be subbed for a Twin Assault Cannon (the base gear), and is completely fine. I dont think players should be punished for modelling an option that they liked and has since been changed, made stupid, redundant, etc, or just because they made a poor tactical error before coming to the Internet.

That said, I only allow base gear subbed in as upgrades are not mandatory. To me, its simply a case of "I'm not paying for that."

Are you using a different blunt weapon to represent your Power Maul vs Thunder Hammer?
Are you consistent?
Then you're good.

WYSIWYG or GTFO.

Most of the time it's ok as long you can reasonably tell what's everything is.

Worst though is the teleporting wargear being passed around several units and opportune moments..

Everything I include in my list is strictly WYSIWIG. With very few exceptions (meltabombs on sergeants for instance) I will not field any individual or piece of equipment if I don't have a model for it. In many instances, this results in me having sub par equipment selections for my units, much to the bemusement of my opponents, who don't seem to understand my fastidiousness. This probably contributes to my tendency to lose games, but I don't mind.

My opponents on the other hand, generally always proxy one or two things when making their lists. They are always mannerly enough to ask me first, and I always stress that I don't apply my standards on others, but what nobody knows, and what I take great pains to hide, is that every time they do this, a little piece of me dies inside.

I think wargear option changes are fine to not be WYSIWYG, so long as like many others have said: there is consistency / you mark the models in someway or its not outrageous. Personally i try to use what is on my models, but sometimes thats not possible due to points or circumstance. I always have blue tack with me so there is always a way to mark bases in some ways as well that's not permanent.

If someone says this predator has lascannon side sponsons equipped, but its actually modelled with heavy bolters, thats cool, i do that also. But if someone says that this primaris captain is actually Guilliman, thats not really cool, BUT i would still play that game with them if it was a friend who perhaps wanted to run a game using that model but hasnt got the money yet to buy him, or perhaps it hasnt been delivered in time for our game etc.

I think its very circumstantial how these things play out. Consistency is nice, but my opinion of what is ok or not depends also on the person im playing. If its a close friend and they say, i wanna run these 3 plasma guardsmen as 1 melta, 1 grenade launcher, 1 flamer im actually ok with that because i trust them enough to know that they will honour which they say is which at the start of the game, and thus is also dont need to keep track of that. But if its a person who i havent played a lot or dont know them that well, im not cool with it.

 FEARtheMoose wrote:
But if someone says that this primaris captain is actually Guilliman, thats not really cool,

Given that a Primaris Captain is a much more sensible size for a Primarch model, I'd be totally cool with that...

I voted other.

1) If you want to field a model, you should have that model, and I don't care whether its the original model, 3D printd, a conversion, a repurposed third party model, scratch built or made out of paper. If your toy tank has the right size to be a shadow sword, that's fine with me, as long as it's not a land raider the next time we play. A vindicator is not a predator and a wraith lord is not a wraith knight, but a tactical marine might be a special character if he is painted and converted accordingly. A bottle is a terrain feature at best, if you want to test a unit at least put a paper cut-out onto a base.
2) If you have the model, options do not need to be WYSIWYG. I've been building models since fifth edition and some of my opponent's since second. Options have been added and removed, made better and worse by GW so often, I do not expect my opponents to tear apart their lovingly painted models just because GW removed an option or decided that the options your Chaos Lord on a scenic base is modeled with should suck this edition. There is also the issue with GW not providing enough special weapons for squads like devastators, terminators or veterans, so I don't expect people to get third party bits or buy four boxes of terminators just so they can all have combi-plasma.
3) Be transparent with your weapon swaps. All terminators from blue squad have plasma, all terminators from red squad have melta is fine. All laser lances are eldari missile launchers is fine. This dreadnought with fist/melta is actually las/ML, this other one with fist/melta is actually two firsts and the third identical, unpainted dread is a venerable dread with autocannon and ML - no, sorry, just run them all in the same config of your choice.
4) You started Imperial Fists because you liked their look in 2nd edition, but now their Chapter Trait sucks? Sure, pick another one, but then my blood axes will get to pick whatever is best for them as well. If you are running your army as they were painted, so will I.

 Jidmah wrote:
I voted other.

1) If you want to field a model, you should have that model, and I don't care whether its the original model, 3D printd, a conversion, a repurposed third party model, scratch built or made out of paper. If your toy tank has the right size to be a shadow sword, that's fine with me, as long as it's not a land raider the next time we play. A vindicator is not a predator and a wraith lord is not a wraith knight, but a tactical marine might be a special character if he is painted and converted accordingly. A bottle is a terrain feature at best, if you want to test a unit at least put a paper cut-out onto a base.
2) If you have the model, options do not need to be WYSIWYG. I've been building models since fifth edition and some of my opponent's since second. Options have been added and removed, made better and worse by GW so often, I do not expect my opponents to tear apart their lovingly painted models just because GW removed an option or decided that the options your Chaos Lord on a scenic base is modeled with should suck this edition. There is also the issue with GW not providing enough special weapons for squads like devastators, terminators or veterans, so I don't expect people to get third party bits or buy four boxes of terminators just so they can all have combi-plasma.
3) Be transparent with your weapon swaps. All terminators from blue squad have plasma, all terminators from red squad have melta is fine. All laser lances are eldari missile launchers is fine. This dreadnought with fist/melta is actually las/ML, this other one with fist/melta is actually two firsts and the third identical, unpainted dread is a venerable dread with autocannon and ML - no, sorry, just run them all in the same config of your choice.
4) You started Imperial Fists because you liked their look in 2nd edition, but now their Chapter Trait sucks? Sure, pick another one, but then my blood axes will get to pick whatever is best for them as well. If you are running your army as they were painted, so will I.

I think your fourth point on paintjob and chapter-tactics is really important.

Let's be honest, prior to 6th Ed, paintjobs were non-impact on the game. Even in C:SM 5th Edition, where Chapter Tactics was linked to a specific character, the codex outright stated that paintjob was irrelevant, and that Vulkan Hestan can be painted blue Ultramarine if you felt like it.

Fast forward to 8th Ed, where every mofo and his squig has a chapter tactic, clan tactic, Hive Fleet tactic. Now, as Jidmah says, someone might have painted their Space Marines as Crimson Fists, was back in 1st/2nd edition, because those were the cover-boys. Those players shouldn't be shafted over a cosmetic job, or because their like a certain colour, especially when "Unknown" chapters like Blood Ravens can freely pick and choose their tactics according to whatever fluff the player makes up (I say that as a Blood Raven's player btw). Similarly, someone who started with 4th Ed's Battle for Macragge probably has their Tyranids painted as Behemoth. 4 editions ago, Behemoth vs Leviathan vs Tiamet was irrelevant. Or an Tau player who liked the original dust-yellow scheme back in 3rd ed, before white or blue was widely known. Your paintjob from years ago should not lock you into trash rules.

A few exceptions I would have are things like Black Templars, who are exceedingly different to the normal way of things, having been rolled from their own codex into another. Clearly, your models are designed to be nothing else, but I would still begrudgingly accept their use as Salamanders, Ultramarines or whatever else. Farsight Enclaves are another example - they have always been this unique sub-faction, with a different flavour and style, with a specific colour scheme to denote their difference. These examples are ones where a painter or players needs to go out of their way to pick "the different" option, so they should realistically stick to that option as a sub-codex within the codex. That said, I'll still begrudgingly accept them a Viorla sept.

I'd also expect players who start recently to adhere to their colour scheme as much as possible. Someone who started with Crimson Fists in 2002 shouldn't be bound to rules published 15 years later, but someone who started with Salamanders in 2019 with a full grasp of the rules and backstory - they've made their bed so they must lie in it. Legacy paintjobs are more a case of an episode of Hotel Hell where Gordon Ramsay turns up to a 5* hotel but gets a sofa bed in the boiler room instead.

So long as you know what your models do, and can consistently remember that information when asked, I really dont care. I would *prefer* visual consistency across squads, but it's by no means a requirement.

 Deadshot wrote:
Let's be honest, prior to 6th Ed, paintjobs were non-impact on the game.

Ork vehicles were slower unless they were painted red

I'd also expect players who start recently to adhere to their colour scheme as much as possible. Someone who started with Crimson Fists in 2002 shouldn't be bound to rules published 15 years later, but someone who started with Salamanders in 2019 with a full grasp of the rules and backstory - they've made their bed so they must lie in it. Legacy paintjobs are more a case of an episode of Hotel Hell where Gordon Ramsay turns up to a 5* hotel but gets a sofa bed in the boiler room instead.

I agree with everything but this. There should be no double standards, if it's fine for a veteran to have his metal salamanders to count as ultra marines, then it should be fine for the guy with an all primaris salamanders army as well.