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 have an old Blood Dragon Vampire model that is clearly modeled with a GW. Obviously WYSIWYG applies but in a tournament situation could I use him as being armed with a hw & s if I clearly state it. I'm trying to avoid purchasing a new model unless I absolutely have to *gasp*

You couldn't just add a shield to the model? And then just call the GW a really, really big hand weapon...

I think if you want to take a shield you should model it; however they are a lot of ways/places to add a shield (he doesn't have to be holding it).

So lots of alternatives to still be WYSIWYG without buying a new model!

I agree, its easy to add a shieled to a model. If you don't want to for some reason, just put it on the base? I don't play VC but if the Dragon gets shot out from under the rider make sure the dismounted vamp has the shield as well.

Don't worry about it. There has never been a WYSIWYG rule in Fantasy battle.

40K, yes, but WHFB, no. This often causes confusion among people who play both games, especially 40K players who are new to fantasy.

Part of the reason for this is that in fantasy, many items of equipment are kept secret from your opponent until you choose to use them, while in 40K, all wargear is supposed to be visible and known.


(If 8th edition has added a WYSIWYG rule and I have somehow missed it, could you please post the page number and relevant quote from the rulebook?)

Actually there has been. Units had to be armed with at least 50% of the models hainv the correct equipment.

This was in 7th ed, btw.

That rule's been around since at least third, I think.

Nothing about characters, though.

Characters == units.

Meaning "at least 50%" means "yes, your unit of 1 model has to be armed correctly"

That's bogus. Some teams don't even have the necessary models to field a wysiwyg army, especially on the character front. Remodelling and greenstuffing is -not- a requirement to play this game, because not everyone can do it, or at least not everyone can do it in a way they think it will look good enough.

Obviously GW doesn't care enough themselves, knowing people are not picky with WYSIWYG in Fantasy.

Except its in the rules. Mainly to use as a beatstick if someone is fielding an atrocious army.

Plus most tournaments I have ever been to enforce WYSIWYG - and they need to.

when in doubt as the TO for the tournament.

but saying he has a hand weapon instead of a great weapon isnt a big deal, worst case scenario cut the end off and make it shorter.

The closest thing you have to a great weapon for a skaven hero/lord is a big spear. He doesn't even have the spear option, so I suppose it "counts" as a great weapon?

And there aren't even any models for war-litters or rat-ogre bonebreaker. Who can say what is right and what is wrong with how I chose to model a war litter? Maybe I make it look like an iron pot he's carried around in, or glues him to the head of another rat with a wooden plank. I'd consider that pretty atrocious modeling but who can say if it's wysiwyg or not?

fellblade wrote:Don't worry about it. There has never been a WYSIWYG rule in Fantasy battle.

40K, yes, but WHFB, no. This often causes confusion among people who play both games, especially 40K players who are new to fantasy.

That's funny.

I did that too.

Thanks!

GM - the TO and your opponents, mainly.

Remember that Rule of Cool pretty much wins out in any modelling query.

Nos's right here. The main thing, though, is that this rule is pretty soft. 50% of your guys isn't that big a requirement. And yeah, it can be annoying, but it's usually avoidable, and people generally understand.
Example: the Skaven warlord with the "great weapon" or "halberd" is armed with a big spear. Who's going to complain about that? Jerks, that's who. I mean, there isn't actually a benefit for your character to have a spear if he's not mounted, so...no worries, I say.

This rule probably came about because someone, somewhere, was willing to field some Empire crossbowmen as "proxies" for his Khornate Chosen with Extra Hand Weapons; you could try to purposefully mislead and confuse your opponent to get an edge. Stupid? Oh, of course. But it would be possible, without this lil' ol' rule.

Like I said, though. It's pretty soft. I mean, have you seen the Bloodletter's "hand weapons"?

One thing you could do with the shield is put a small hole in it and thread some string through it, or attach it to some fine jewelry chain. Basically make a shield necklace for your count and sling it over his shoulder. Boom, now he has a shield, and is just not holding it in his hand (and this is actually pretty historically accurate.)

I am planning on doing the same sort of thing if I ever start playing around with marking my WoC: make little icons on cords and drape them over the unit banners to demonstrate the marks they have.

There ya' go. Whose going to complain about that not being WYSIWYG? Not anyone reasonable in my book.

At least one exception to the WYSIWYG rule of characters came up for me recently. My character was using the Hammer of Judgment, but his model is modeled with a sword. The rulebook specifically permits this, and also indicates that armor may be worn under clothing (i.e. your model doesn't need to actually have it.) I don't know what the specific language says and I don't have my book on me, but it seems like they've made an effort to deal specifically with characters and WYSIWYG, and their bias is to give people an awful lot of leeway.

Magic weapons do not follow wysiwyg - as it a) makes it difficult to hide them and b) the "hammer of judgement" might actually be a sword. or a halberd. The word "hammer" might be allegorical, literal, or otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Characters == units.

Meaning "at least 50%" means "yes, your unit of 1 model has to be armed correctly"

This is exactly the sort of foolishness that has driven me out of WHFB. Stretching "half the models in a unit" into "unit=character, so there!"

I'll tell you his basic equipment when I deploy him, and I'll tell you again, any time you ask, during the game. If that isn't good enough for you, then I doubt we would enjoy playing each other.

Sigh. Waaaay to remove all sense there fellblade and overreact, somewhat.

I was pointing out what the rules SAY on the matter, and then, if you had bothered to lower your hyperbole just a single notch you may have, just MAYBE, noticed the other posts on the matter.

You apparently cant distinguish between a rational, sane, calm discussion of rules in a *gasp* rules forum and how those rules are applied in real life.

Possibly, possibly. I do get exercised to no good purpose over silly things. I played WHFB for over 20 years, and I have seen an awful lot of WYSIWYG questions pop up, more so since 40K actually included it as a rule. It has never been much of an issue in Fantasy Battle, principally because our models were metal for so many years.
Now two things are happening. GW is actually starting to make hero kits in plastic, with many extra equipment options, so it doesn't come as a surprise that there is a new mindset out there, one of "WYSIWYG isn't so hard, what's your beef?" (Note some of the posts above- they are addressing not whether or not something has to be WYSIWYG, but how to make it WYSIWYG.) And GW just incorporated a lot of the 40K game mechanics into Fantasy Battle, such as true line-of-sight and dangerous terrain tests. So the two games are growing closer together, and the gaming populations of WHFB and 40K will start to blend a lot more, and even more unwarranted assumptions can result.

I'm a grumpy old man whose favorite game has been ruined by the newest edition.

I think it foolish to say that magical weapons don't have to be modeled correctly, but normal equipment does. The reason they included that rule is precisely because of nit-picking tools who wanted to gain some sort of advantage by not letting their opponent field a specific model, because the model had a sword but was equipped, in the army list, with a magic hammer- people who wanted to insist on WYSIWYG when there was no rule for it. Of course, once GW cleared that up by explicitly stating that magic weapons don't have to be WYSIWYG, the same people start insisting that "O hey, the rule only says magic weapons." Foolishness, I say again, from a sense of historical perspective. (The rule apparently also states that armor can be worn under clothes. Magic armor only? I don't know, but I don't see any reason to restrict it so.)

Let me just say this: nosferatu1001, I quite respect you as a thoughtful and intelligent poster (and not just because you have agreed with my positions in the past). I believe that your current argument is logical, but flawed, and ultimately incorrect. However, I don't play Fantasy Battle anymore. I don't own an 8th edition rulebook. I cannot muster a logical counter-argument using quotes and page numbers from the current rules. But what is the purpose of having a "rational, sane, calm discussion of rules in a *gasp* rules forum" if the results of said discussion are not going to be applied in real life? Are you saying that you are just playing Devil's advocate, and you don't really expect your opponent to field correctly modeled characters?

Do me a favor. Look through the rulebook again, but this time, look for anything that implies (or states) that characters don't have to be WYSIWYG, and let me know what you find, and whether you still contend that character=unit=must be WYSIWYG.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Characters == units.

Meaning "at least 50%" means "yes, your unit of 1 model has to be armed correctly"

What i get from this is that at least half of my character's items must be modeled on him, everything else is fair game

I wish I'd said that.

8th edition hasnt ruined WHFB - quite the opposite. 7th edition, where one model could quite reliably take out an opponents army (BT, hatred, flaming sword) ruined fantasy. Same as hero hammer ruined 4th/5th ed.

8th ed is, finally, achieving some form of balance. Hopefully it wont be mucked up by new armybooks, but that's a wait and see I guess!

To respond to some of the earlier posts above, definitely magic items can be included without being modelled (it even says so) so if you go for a magic shield, you'd have a little more leeway. Still easy enough to stick it on the base, though!

I do adhere to WYSIWYG in fantasy, and make sure to point out to my opponent anything that might not be clear modelling-wise (as I would in any game).

Personally, and with no regard to what the rules say, I am very comfortable with fairly outlandish WYSIWYG and counts as modeling, so long as it is fairly consistent. Perhaps because I don't play either 40k or WHFB enough to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the various armies that I feel comfortable just looking at a unit and knowing what it should do, I always ask ahead of time what everything does no matter what. It also helps that my main army is SoB, the army of special rules, so I am in the habit of explaining things at length before games.
Also, I am of the mind that the rules just represent what a unit does, and the name attached to the rule is irrelevant. A "halberd" for instance adds 1 str, requires two hands, and attacks at I. Ok, that's fine, but I think great swords actually should have that stat line instead of +2 Str, 2 hands and ASL (the two weapons are not that different in real life, actually). If you model your units with halberds as having great swords, let me know and I will say "Good job, that makes a lot more sense". Then tell me that the other unit that looks the same actually has great weapons though, and I will be a little unhappy.

I guess what I am saying is that so long as your models can be told apart and are consistent, it doesn't really matter what they have in their hands. What I would suggest though is that the theme is at least consistent. You probably shouldn't have naked fanatics count as Chaos Warriors with Shields and then have guys in armor being naked marauders. But given that GW models frequently have weapons that are roughly the size of a horse being whipped around in one hand, internal consistency is probably a lot more important than strict "This is my rifle, this is my gun" distinctions.