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.

Aash wrote:
WYSIWYG is about more than the game, its about the whole hobby. Building the models, painting them and playing the game are all aspects of the hobby, and WYSIWYG is an encouragement and a reason to pay attention to the modelling aspect of the hobby, in addition to the reasons given above: clarity, fairness, respect for the game and your opponent etc etc.

And a way to milk customers for more money if they want to build for specific loadouts. Great and obvious example being chaos marine chain cannons.

WYSIWYG exists so I, as your opponent, can be visually informed by your army, and plan accordingly.

However, it doesn’t need to extend to Stock Equipment.

For instance, a Tactical Marine comes with Stock Equipment of a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak. So I don’t need to see all of that modelled.

But, any upgrades, such as Intercessor Bolt Rifle/Auto Bolt Rifle etc should be appropriately modelled. Because that does make a difference. If I see Auto Bolt Rifles 24” away, I know I can pull back to remain out of range in your next turn, for example. But if it’s suddenly revealed they were the Snipey Bolt Rifles? Well, I’m still in range, and your lack of WYSIWYG has granted you an unfair advantage, as it directly changed my tactical decisions.

Likewise Special and Heavy Weapons. Now, here, there is some flexibility. If we’ve pre-arranged a game, perhaps as part of a campaign, I’m ok with consistent substitution. By that, I mean all infantry mounted Las Cannons ‘counting as’ say, Heavy Bolters, and vice versa. That’s easy to remember, and potentially desirable as it lets opponents try before they buy.

But if Lascannon A is a Multi-Melta, B is a Missile Launcher etc? I’m afraid I’d have to decline, as it’s putting too much onus on me as your opponent.

Yes, GW could do a much better job of making stuff available. For instance, that snacky Chaos Rotor Cannon thing. That’s a highly desirable weapon - and of exceptionally limited availability. For such, I wouldn’t object to an upgrade sprue being released. But equally, I’ve no objection whatsoever to someone using FW’s Heresy Rotor Cannon, because I cannot mistake them for anything else.

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
While I could focus on all the bad things that wysiwyg creates I will instead talk about how pointless it is. It really isn't hard to remember what each unit is armed with even if the model isn't completely accurate, as most people don't model every single piece of weargear on their model, like grenades and sometimes even swords are often left behind, and relics and such are usually not modelled, and even if you forget you can just ask your opponent. So really the only question remaining is that why do so many people defend this rule? Certainly from GW's perspective selling people extra models so that their armies comply with this rule makes sense, but why do so many non GW affiliated people defend this rule?

EDIT: I should add that if there is a risk of a mix up, like for example your sergeant has an item which is very positioning dependent, then yes being clear is important, but saying that the helmetles guy is the sarge should be enough.

A little bit isn't bad, like a "hey, this unit has chainswords, they've got a variety of stuff modeled on them but we're just going to say they all have chainswords." Easy to remember, short and sweet. It's very different to say "this unit of chainswords actually has a hammer, two fists, a power axe, a power sword, and a couple meltas" with a long list of tiny differences the models have to tell them apart. That's incredibly annoying and easy to forget, especially in big games.

It's also one thing to do one unit as a proxy, and another to be a whole army. It's not hard to remember a single unit is weird, but when your whole army is blatantly just being run as something that's flavor of the month and you're too lazy to model it, I'm going to have issues. Not that op is doing it, but every group has a guy like this. WYSIWYG is critical for tournament play, and honestly pretty important for casual play too. I don't need to see every single grenade modeled on every single guy, but I do like to see that if you have a plasma, it's actually a plasma. That, or an honest attempt at something standing in as a plasma and uniform across the army, like say volkites, and not a single actual volkite is actually in the army.

I'll defend it for the most part. I think it's critical, after all, this is a modeling game first and foremost. What's the point in models if they're not what they're actually supposed to represent, aside from cool conversions and the like? I also think it helps slow down Flavor of the Month chasing and keeps cheese down a bit, but then again a player with a massive collection can do still do it with little issue. I dunno, that's my stance on it.

WYSIWYG isn't a problem and I think is a good thing i.e. this unit has Helblasters and is armed as such.

The problem however is GWs fething idiotic box contents e.g. all your Chaos termies can take chainaxes...tough, you only get one in the box. Your havocs can take four rotary cannons...ha, fool...you only get one in the kit.

GW need to align core/special weapon choices in the codex with the contents of the kit.

To address OPs posit...you would have to have way more money than sense to buy four boxes of havocs to make one WYSIWYG squad. Most people kit bash / third party or fly the Jolly Roger and sail the pirate seas (I don't condone the latter).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
WYSIWYG exists so I, as your opponent, can be visually informed by your army, and plan accordingly.

However, it doesn’t need to extend to Stock Equipment.

For instance, a Tactical Marine comes with Stock Equipment of a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak. So I don’t need to see all of that modelled.

But, any upgrades, such as Intercessor Bolt Rifle/Auto Bolt Rifle etc should be appropriately modelled. Because that does make a difference. If I see Auto Bolt Rifles 24” away, I know I can pull back to remain out of range in your next turn, for example. But if it’s suddenly revealed they were the Snipey Bolt Rifles? Well, I’m still in range, and your lack of WYSIWYG has granted you an unfair advantage, as it directly changed my tactical decisions.

Likewise Special and Heavy Weapons. Now, here, there is some flexibility. If we’ve pre-arranged a game, perhaps as part of a campaign, I’m ok with consistent substitution. By that, I mean all infantry mounted Las Cannons ‘counting as’ say, Heavy Bolters, and vice versa. That’s easy to remember, and potentially desirable as it lets opponents try before they buy.

But if Lascannon A is a Multi-Melta, B is a Missile Launcher etc? I’m afraid I’d have to decline, as it’s putting too much onus on me as your opponent.

Yes, GW could do a much better job of making stuff available. For instance, that snacky Chaos Rotor Cannon thing. That’s a highly desirable weapon - and of exceptionally limited availability. For such, I wouldn’t object to an upgrade sprue being released. But equally, I’ve no objection whatsoever to someone using FW’s Heresy Rotor Cannon, because I cannot mistake them for anything else.

Not starting an argument here, but you can actually tell the difference from a standing tabletop perspective? That's impressive. I 100% can't tell without getting close and by that point I'm leaning over a table, nudging models and wishing I had just asked lol. All my intercessors are from the time of the standard bolt rifle being the only valid option so when I use them I give every single one the same weapon. "Every single intercessor is using a stalker bolt rifle" has never caused issues.

As many times as I have had trouble with a player proxying models, I have had 3x as many times had players flip flop between wounds on and wounds remaining on a model.

I really only care about consistency. All your Melta Guns are Plasma because GW screwed the pooch on Melta Gun rules for 8th Edition? Sure I don't really care. I also don't care about reasonable substitutions. Your Rad Grenade Launchers are Frag Launchers for your Deathwatch? That's rad because those look much better. Likewise I've had no issues using Volkite Calvs as Grav Cannons on my Sternguard, because what else are they really gonna be?

It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

How do people deal with things in transports?

DE for example have a lot if not all their units in transports. I know I almost always have to ask what's in what when I get to my shooting phase. How is that any different than double checking what a unit has? Sure there's onus on you to know what a unit has but there is a social contract to 40k like all other games (maybe except competitive, but if they refuse to tell you then call over a judge I guess)

carldooley wrote:As many times as I have had trouble with a player proxying models, I have had 3x as many times had players flip flop between wounds on and wounds remaining on a model.

Amen. I have never understood counting how many wounds a model has taken when not everyone knows how many wounds every model starts with. I always count "wounds remaining" so it's clear what's almost dead.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WYSIWYG exists so I, as your opponent, can be visually informed by your army, and plan accordingly.

However, it doesn’t need to extend to Stock Equipment.

For instance, a Tactical Marine comes with Stock Equipment of a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak. So I don’t need to see all of that modelled.

^ This.

I can assure you it is not fun losing track of all the stuff my opponent is proxying (which can sometimes mysteriously change during the course of a game) and deepstriking a unit of Deathwing terminators next to a squad whose bolters are actually plasmas.

It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

People at my GW would have these mishmash armies of broken, half completed models painted an array of different colors and they'd do this "10mansquadwithamissileandflamernowaitit'saplasma and PredatorwithduallascannonsbuIdon'thavethesprueyetohheyhowyadoinandit'sgotanautocannonthat'sjustrestingthere and thisflamerisactuallyamissile and thisguywithnoarmshasamelta" quickly talking me through their proxied army that I have to memorize. It got really annoying. I watched a guy playing another game turn his armless marines from plasmas to meltas when they got close to a vehicle. I would say he did it intentionally but then again this guy seemed so unorganized he probably lost track of which unit was proxying his meltas because nothing was WYSIWYG.

In a squad with multiple weapon options I make sure everything is WYSIWYG even if that means strapping weapons to their backs and not necessarily in their hands. If a pistol isn't basic equipment but an option I make sure the majority of the squad at least has holsters on their hips and at least a few are holding their pistols out so they're seen. I make sure my plasmas glow one color and meltas glow another but that's just me, I don't expect that.

Personal opinion: WYSIWYG is good form in wargaming for both you and your opponent, just like showering and wearing deodorant. You don't technically have to take a shower or completely wipe yourself before leaving the house to play a game at your local GW, that's not just soap and deodorant companies trying to sell you unnecessary products. I stopped going to my local GW for a couple of years until a few guys cycled out who couldn't handle basic male hygiene (not joking about the wiping oneself either).

Things like WYSIWYG or bringing your rulebook and codex instead of relying on the ol' cerebral army list just makes the game more enjoyable, especially among strangers. While you might be able to remember all of your army's special rules it's nice to have something on hand when someone has a question. Over the last few years GW has gotten rid of almost every option that doesn't come in a box (which is incredibly aggravating to people who like converting like I do) so there's almost no reason for anyone's recent army not to be WYSIWYG at this point.

WYSIWYG is simply courteous gameplay. It makes life easier for your opponent.

Cool conversions can be WYSIWYG but need to be reasonably obvious. A converted battle cannon should look like a cannon, a converted heavy bolter should look like a high-volume, large caliber slugthrower. The key here is to keep the volume of things the opponent needs to remember to a minimum. If every squad has different weapons and they're all distinctly different conversions - even between weapons that are the same - you're creating problems for your opponent. If all your tactical squads have the same weapons and the same conversions, it's a lot easier for everyone.

And yes, it does sell more miniatures, but only if you decide that you need to constantly be changing the load-out of your miniatures. You can always put in the extra effort to magnetize things to save money.

I personally don't adhere to strict WYSIWYG but I only play garage hammer and it's not my fault GW deems it unnecessary to include all options in a kit. Having said that I do keep my proxies/stand ins simple so as to not burden my opponent, eg. all my Killa Kans have rokkits despite what they are modeled as. If I were to use a second unit of them I'd gave all of them rokkits too just so it would always be clear what they have. Because I do agree mix and matching between identical looking squads is just asking for errors later in the game and/or cheating.

Here's the thing: everything exists to force people to buy extra models.

Wysiwyg exists to sell models? No, it exists to sell magnets!

Well, for me it's all about the immersion. 40K is a reenactment/ roleplay of Fantasybattles with tiny plastic miniatures. Yes, you can proxy, or don't use WYSIWYG and play on the kitchen table with books as hills, but to really get the feeling of the game, take painted minis with the right equipment. And if you don't have the equipment ready - well, don't play it then, there's no 40K mini that is unplayable. If I only have 4 flamers I can't play 6, so what? (I don't enforce that view on my opponent's, it's just my personal approach.)

WYSIWYG is pretty rare in my experience.

I don't think I care all that much either because GW hardly makes any effort to encourage an accurate representation of their own models. WYSIWYG is understandable for narrative style games, but taking issue with random pick-ups at a store for saying all their Havocs have weapon X gives off some real That Guy vibes

If GW could do two things, it should be 1) Be less stingy with a kits weapon options and 2) Find a way to decouple the game rules from the paint jobs

No one likes painting up chapter, legion or craftworld X and finding out they're crap on the table because their sub-faction rules are weak. People could freely paint what they want without worrying about the in-game repercussions for having Biel-tan paintjob as opposed to Alaitoc for instance.

WYSIWYG is massively important for competitive play. It prevents cheating both intentional and unintentional and helps facilitate good decision making by informing your opponent what a uniit does at a glance.

Also, it's just really helpful for keeping your rules straight. I've been playtesting my Sisters of Battle lately, which means proxying just about everything and it SUCKS. I get characters confised, lose track of units, relics, weapons, etc all the time because I can't just look at a unit and go 'ah yes, that is clearly a dialogus, not a missionary.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:
WYSIWYG is pretty rare in my experience.

I don't think I care all that much either because GW hardly makes any effort to encourage an accurate representation of their own models. WYSIWYG is understandable for narrative style games, but taking issue with random pick-ups at a store for saying all their Havocs have weapon X gives off some real That Guy vibes

If GW could do two things, it should be 1) Be less stingy with a kits weapon options and 2) Find a way to decouple the game rules from the paint jobs

No one likes painting up chapter, legion or craftworld X and finding out they're crap on the table because their sub-faction rules are weak. People could freely paint what they want without worrying about the in-game repercussions for having Biel-tan paintjob as opposed to Alaitoc for instance.

No one DOES paint their army according to rules. People use blue Blood Angels and Green Ironhands all the time. No one worries about the game ramifications of their paontjobs unless they're a narrative player. And even then only a little bit because power isn't the most important thing to them.

The only time paintjob matters is when you have 2+ CTs in the same army. And even then base markers can do the same job.

 Fajita Fan wrote:

carldooley wrote:As many times as I have had trouble with a player proxying models, I have had 3x as many times had players flip flop between wounds on and wounds remaining on a model.

Amen. I have never understood counting how many wounds a model has taken when not everyone knows how many wounds every model starts with. I always count "wounds remaining" so it's clear what's almost dead.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WYSIWYG exists so I, as your opponent, can be visually informed by your army, and plan accordingly.

However, it doesn’t need to extend to Stock Equipment.

For instance, a Tactical Marine comes with Stock Equipment of a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak. So I don’t need to see all of that modelled.

^ This.

I can assure you it is not fun losing track of all the stuff my opponent is proxying (which can sometimes mysteriously change during the course of a game) and deepstriking a unit of Deathwing terminators next to a squad whose bolters are actually plasmas.

It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

People at my GW would have these mishmash armies of broken, half completed models painted an array of different colors and they'd do this "10mansquadwithamissileandflamernowaitit'saplasma and PredatorwithduallascannonsbuIdon'thavethesprueyetohheyhowyadoinandit'sgotanautocannonthat'sjustrestingthere and thisflamerisactuallyamissile and thisguywithnoarmshasamelta" quickly talking me through their proxied army that I have to memorize. It got really annoying. I watched a guy playing another game turn his armless marines from plasmas to meltas when they got close to a vehicle. I would say he did it intentionally but then again this guy seemed so unorganized he probably lost track of which unit was proxying his meltas because nothing was WYSIWYG.

In a squad with multiple weapon options I make sure everything is WYSIWYG even if that means strapping weapons to their backs and not necessarily in their hands. If a pistol isn't basic equipment but an option I make sure the majority of the squad at least has holsters on their hips and at least a few are holding their pistols out so they're seen. I make sure my plasmas glow one color and meltas glow another but that's just me, I don't expect that.

Personal opinion: WYSIWYG is good form in wargaming for both you and your opponent, just like showering and wearing deodorant. You don't technically have to take a shower or completely wipe yourself before leaving the house to play a game at your local GW, that's not just soap and deodorant companies trying to sell you unnecessary products. I stopped going to my local GW for a couple of years until a few guys cycled out who couldn't handle basic male hygiene (not joking about the wiping oneself either).

Things like WYSIWYG or bringing your rulebook and codex instead of relying on the ol' cerebral army list just makes the game more enjoyable, especially among strangers. While you might be able to remember all of your army's special rules it's nice to have something on hand when someone has a question. Over the last few years GW has gotten rid of almost every option that doesn't come in a box (which is incredibly aggravating to people who like converting like I do) so there's almost no reason for anyone's recent army not to be WYSIWYG at this point.

To counter one of your points of something just being "good form"..., I'm pretty sure Konami made it an official rule in Yugioh to take a fething shower because basic hygiene apparently needs to be enforced.

 fraser1191 wrote:
It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

How do people deal with things in transports?

DE for example have a lot if not all their units in transports. I know I almost always have to ask what's in what when I get to my shooting phase. How is that any different than double checking what a unit has? Sure there's onus on you to know what a unit has but there is a social contract to 40k like all other games (maybe except competitive, but if they refuse to tell you then call over a judge I guess)

Because it's WAY easier to remember what units are in X number of transports(especially when the WYSIWYG unit is in plain sight) than it is to remember what every unit on the table does.

Also, asking what every single unit does takes time. Games are already pushing 3 hours, like I need an extra hour of 'what is that unit equipped with again?'

Finally, cheating. Intentional or not, it's entirely possible, even incredibly easy, to have a non-WYSIWYG unit have multiple different equipment loadouts over the course of the game. I've had more than one pickup game where proxies were used and neither player realized until after the game ended that a unit that had started with meltas, ended with Lascannons.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Aash wrote:
WYSIWYG is about more than the game, its about the whole hobby. Building the models, painting them and playing the game are all aspects of the hobby, and WYSIWYG is an encouragement and a reason to pay attention to the modelling aspect of the hobby, in addition to the reasons given above: clarity, fairness, respect for the game and your opponent etc etc.

And a way to milk customers for more money if they want to build for specific loadouts. Great and obvious example being chaos marine chain cannons.

That's more a consequence of GW's box design than a problem with the idea of WISYWIG. Most games I've played either give units a small number of options and ship every option in the box (ex. Bolt Action, Star Wars Legion, Warmachine), or have a different mechanism of representing options in play than bits on the model (X-wing, Armada), or have explicitly clarified that WISYWIG shouldn't be enforced in tournaments (Infinity).

ERJAK wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

How do people deal with things in transports?

DE for example have a lot if not all their units in transports. I know I almost always have to ask what's in what when I get to my shooting phase. How is that any different than double checking what a unit has? Sure there's onus on you to know what a unit has but there is a social contract to 40k like all other games (maybe except competitive, but if they refuse to tell you then call over a judge I guess)

Because it's WAY easier to remember what units are in X number of transports(especially when the WYSIWYG unit is in plain sight) than it is to remember what every unit on the table does.

Also, asking what every single unit does takes time. Games are already pushing 3 hours, like I need an extra hour of 'what is that unit equipped with again?'

Finally, cheating. Intentional or not, it's entirely possible, even incredibly easy, to have a non-WYSIWYG unit have multiple different equipment loadouts over the course of the game. I've had more than one pickup game where proxies were used and neither player realized until after the game ended that a unit that had started with meltas, ended with Lascannons.

Then write everything down. This isn't that difficult. I mean, I always carry sticky notes on my person because I get work calls randomly in an IKEA when I'm trying to grab something off the shelf and it falls on me, but I'd figure at minimum most people would bring that to a game to make note of stuff.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then write everything down. This isn't that difficult. I mean, I always carry sticky notes on my person because I get work calls randomly in an IKEA when I'm trying to grab something off the shelf and it falls on me, but I'd figure at minimum most people would bring that to a game to make note of stuff.

I've never seen people with proxy armies where "these two flamers are plasma guns and these two flamers are meltaguns" bring post it notes to make anyone else's life easy.

I think people at my store have gotten much better over the years as the player base has gotten older and bigger. There's far less Proxyhammer and I think that's a good thing. Heck over in the Aeronautica forum people were thinking of how to equip their tiny missiles on Thunderbolts and how we don't get enough missiles on Marauders. In that game having missile tokens would make far more sense than equipping the models all WYSIWYG since we're talking 1mm tubes. Seeing a pair of half assembled Predators on the table representing different weapon loadouts and needing to remember what is equipped with what when someone does't even have a written list is sorta different.

My $.02 and I rather enjoy seeing all of my guys equipped the right way. I really respect cool conversions that represent the equipment options.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Not starting an argument here, but you can actually tell the difference from a standing tabletop perspective? That's impressive. I 100% can't tell without getting close and by that point I'm leaning over a table, nudging models and wishing I had just asked lol. All my intercessors are from the time of the standard bolt rifle being the only valid option so when I use them I give every single one the same weapon. "Every single intercessor is using a stalker bolt rifle" has never caused issues.

I'm the same. I can rarely ever tell what a small infantry model on my opponent's side of the table is holding.

Moreover, unless it's an army I'm familiar with, I'll often have no clue what it's supposed to be anyway.

e.g. if I'm playing against Knights or Primaris or Admech or Tau etc., then my opponent saying 'everything in my army is WYSIWYG' is of absolutely no use to me because I have no idea whatsoever what the different weapons in those armies look like.

And as has been pointed out at least once there are cases where you can't even wing it since some weapons have wildly different sculpts from one kit to another.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
WYSIWYG enhances the visually immersive gaming experience. If you don't care about that, you can play with bottlecaps and coke cans instead of models.

I think that's a step too far.

I know off the top of my head I have six Sgts, 2 with combi plasmas, 2 with combi gravs, and 2 with combi meltas. None of them are wielding a chainsword but it's not outside the realm of reality to say "Hey all my Sgts have chainswords"

Yeah, but I'm not worried a mere chainsword. It's the much more deadly combi-weapons I expect to see modeled. Because if all the models are wielding standard looking bolt pistols, WE don't know wich ones are wich combi-weapon wise. Applies to special & heavy weapons as well.
Where certain weapons are can affect how I'd move, target selection, what I charge etc. And in too many cases over the years I've seen these non-WYSIWYG weapons magically shift around - often to whatever position is most advantageous atm - as the owner "makes a mistake" or "gets confused".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
It seems like a big part of this wysiwyg discussion relies on not being able to ask your opponent what unit X has.

How do people deal with things in transports?

DE for example have a lot if not all their units in transports. I know I almost always have to ask what's in what when I get to my shooting phase. How is that any different than double checking what a unit has? Sure there's onus on you to know what a unit has but there is a social contract to 40k like all other games (maybe except competitive, but if they refuse to tell you then call over a judge I guess)

Because it's WAY easier to remember what units are in X number of transports(especially when the WYSIWYG unit is in plain sight) than it is to remember what every unit on the table does.

Also, asking what every single unit does takes time. Games are already pushing 3 hours, like I need an extra hour of 'what is that unit equipped with again?'

Finally, cheating. Intentional or not, it's entirely possible, even incredibly easy, to have a non-WYSIWYG unit have multiple different equipment loadouts over the course of the game. I've had more than one pickup game where proxies were used and neither player realized until after the game ended that a unit that had started with meltas, ended with Lascannons.

Then write everything down. This isn't that difficult. I mean, I always carry sticky notes on my person because I get work calls randomly in an IKEA when I'm trying to grab something off the shelf and it falls on me, but I'd figure at minimum most people would bring that to a game to make note of stuff.

Yes exactly. Building a list is pretty fundamental to the game so you have a list somewhere unless it's in your brain in which case I'd call you out for not being prepared for game. Be it battlescribe, a print out or written down you have a reference and so should your opponent

WYSIWYG I always look at as a gaming aid and makes the game look good.
Does the model look like what it represents?
Should it do otherwise?
Every time I get into this conversation I keep thinking of this:


Plus I find it easier on me as the model owner and a courtesy to my opponent to be able to know the model for what it is.
Gives a whole new meaning of modelling for advantage / obfuscation.

It COULD exist as a factor to get people to buy models, it "forced" me to get good modeling with magnets.
I would argue that WYSIWYG exists primarily as the main principle of tabletop war gaming that makes it the spectacle it is.

What is all the "negative waves" with WYSIWYG?

Alkaline_Hound wrote:
While I could focus on all the bad things that wysiwyg creates I will instead talk about how pointless it is. It really isn't hard to remember what each unit is armed with even if the model isn't completely accurate, as most people don't model every single piece of weargear on their model, like grenades and sometimes even swords are often left behind, and relics and such are usually not modelled, and even if you forget you can just ask your opponent. So really the only question remaining is that why do so many people defend this rule? Certainly from GW's perspective selling people extra models so that their armies comply with this rule makes sense, but why do so many non GW affiliated people defend this rule?

EDIT: I should add that if there is a risk of a mix up, like for example your sergeant has an item which is very positioning dependent, then yes being clear is important, but saying that the helmetles guy is the sarge should be enough.

Seeing how often I have had to go "now which one of these squads has melta gun and which has the flamer?" when opponent hasn't been wysiwyg...

ugh no. If you don't have models howabout less waac attitude then? Or if you want to maximize power at least make it easier for opponent to quickly know the crucial information. Otherwise you are either gaining advantage by confusing opponent and hoping he makes mistake because he lost track of what weapon it has or make game slower(rather rude of you) when every detail needs to be double checked regularly.

 Castozor wrote:
I personally don't adhere to strict WYSIWYG but I only play garage hammer and it's not my fault GW deems it unnecessary to include all options in a kit. Having said that I do keep my proxies/stand ins simple so as to not burden my opponent, eg. all my Killa Kans have rokkits despite what they are modeled as. If I were to use a second unit of them I'd gave all of them rokkits too just so it would always be clear what they have. Because I do agree mix and matching between identical looking squads is just asking for errors later in the game and/or cheating.

So you're just lazy. I mean, there's enough rockets out there (Gw or from anything else) that you could easily arm your Kans.
You want cheap rockets? Take a stroll through a toy aisle in your local WalMart. Or take 5 minutes & scratch build yourself some.

It irks me a bit to have a regular character model only being given one option. For example, a Chaos Lord model gives you a thunderhammer and plasma pistol and that's it. No options for a bolt pistol, power sword. Squads/units on the other hand, have plently of options and should be able to change them out fairly simply. I get your point though.

 Talizvar wrote:

What is all the "negative waves" with WYSIWYG?

It's what you get from the cheaters, the cheap, & the lazy.

ccs wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

What is all the "negative waves" with WYSIWYG?

It's what you get from the cheaters, the cheap, & the lazy.

that's hardly fair, if I don't magnatyize my minis and an edition changes and now the melta guns I sued are now simply a bad choice and I declare them all plasma guns, is that really a big deal?

I agree it can get a bit nuts but it's a matter of balance. 40k is expensive eneugh that a little bit of flex isn't a bad thing