WYSIWYG

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.

**WarlordRob117**

Im sure there is much debate on this topic... and Im sure Im not the first to create a thread on this, but since I havent seen many recently on it... I figured why not?

The question: How serious do you take WYSIWYG?

I did my first 'Ard Boyz recently and I was unimpressed with this rule, as you can not possibly model everything on your kits... case in point...

I saw a post by someone regarding the love of the chainsword look but wanting to use it as a force weapon... I saw many say that this is a NO-GO!!!
Why? Im sure in the 41st they have the ability to make such a weapon and if the dude likes it... IMHO if you really need to know what someone has on a character/characters then ask or look at their list.

What are all your opinions?

**motyak**

Well I can see how it could cause confusion, but if old mate loves his chainswords, he's paid for them, they are on a character who is obviously a libby (or inquisitor, or whatever army he is playing) it should be sweet. If his libby is a normal SM sergeant model, that could cause an issue, but I doubt it would be.
I'd say its fine.

**Lightcavalier**

As long as its distinctive. It is all about not causing confusion...so if all your sergeants have chainswords, and 1 of them is a power sword (just an example) then you had better find a way to make that 1 chainsword look really different.

Almost all of the options available in the codexes have models or can be suitably represented. Example. My DE venom blades are "power swords" which I painted with a green wash so as to look poisoned.

When I look at your army I should be able to ID what special kit (specifically weapons) that a model has, just as a general principle of fairplay and easy gaming.

**WarlordRob117**

Lightcavalier wrote:As long as its distinctive. It is all about not causing confusion...so if all your sergeants have chainswords, and 1 of them is a power sword (just an example) then you had better find a way to make that 1 chainsword look really different.

Almost all of the options available in the codexes have models or can be suitably represented. Example. My DE venom blades are "power swords" which I painted with a green wash so as to look poisoned.

When I look at your army I should be able to ID what special kit (specifically weapons) that a model has, just as a general principle of fairplay and easy gaming.

See I can dig this... but the dude in question with the chainsword offered to paint it with a blue-ish glow and that still didnt fly... its like a dude I was playing against using Wolves... A grey hunter comes with frag/krak grenades, yet none of his models had them and he was mad because my GK had a chain axe with a blue glow for his force weapon... which I have him a copy of my list to see that it was represented exactly as halberd... with a different head... same pole too... just with a berserker chainaxe head... What the hell, over?!?!?!

**motyak**

Well if it was a GK, then it was going to be a force weapon of some kind anyway, so what is his beef? and if it has the same pole, etc etc then it shouldn't matter at all! were you dishing the pain on the guy in game? he might have been a sore loser, but thats just speculation...

**WarlordRob117**

I wish it were that but we hadnt even started the game... his excuse was, and I quote "I have been screwed over before by people having things on models and claiming this was that and I just dont want cause a fuss..."

My retort... "Really, cause when I see you outside, Im gonna finish the fuss you just created..."

commence to face-smashing... in the game of course... BUTT-STROKE TO THE HEAD SERIES... MOVE!!!

**lunarman**

Look, WYSIWYG is easy. The rule is this:

If, given the models for your opponents army, you could write out his army list (without seeing it beforehand) then it's a WYSIWYG army.

Standard equipment need not be modelled, so krak and frag and pistols don't need to be on every model. However, chainswords are CC weapons, whatever the paintjob they shouldn't stand in for power weapons, it's just confusing (though I am guilty of this it is not tourny suitable).

A chain-halberd would be fine by me if all the halberds in the army looked the same. Or they all looked different/several variations but all obviously pole weapons. Obviously sometimes the look is more important but it should still be REALLY obvious what is going on, equipment wise.

My point is that if all the GK in the army had normal halberds and then one had a halberd with a chainaxe on top you'd assume he had a different weapon to the rest. However if they all had chain axes on top it'd be obvious. Or, if there was a good selection of weaponry but all obviously pole weapons then you'd assume that anything on a pole was a halberd (assuming the hammers were obvious and distinct).

**rigeld2**

WarlordRob117 wrote:My retort... "Really, cause when I see you outside, Im gonna finish the fuss you just created..."

Really? *Really*?

He doesn't have to model his krak/frag grenades because they're standard equipment. The halberd isn't - I would've been fine with it, but if he wasn't, then get the TO to rule and move on. Posturing like you're going to beat him up over some toy soldiers is out of line.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

WarlordRob117 wrote:
Lightcavalier wrote:As long as its distinctive. It is all about not causing confusion...so if all your sergeants have chainswords, and 1 of them is a power sword (just an example) then you had better find a way to make that 1 chainsword look really different.

Almost all of the options available in the codexes have models or can be suitably represented. Example. My DE venom blades are "power swords" which I painted with a green wash so as to look poisoned.

When I look at your army I should be able to ID what special kit (specifically weapons) that a model has, just as a general principle of fairplay and easy gaming.

See I can dig this... but the dude in question with the chainsword offered to paint it with a blue-ish glow and that still didnt fly... its like a dude I was playing against using Wolves... A grey hunter comes with frag/krak grenades, yet none of his models had them and he was mad because my GK had a chain axe with a blue glow for his force weapon... which I have him a copy of my list to see that it was represented exactly as halberd... with a different head... same pole too... just with a berserker chainaxe head... What the hell, over?!?!?!

Standard wargear doesn't have the need to be represented, however any special gear Meltas, Flamers, Daemonhammers, Halberds, Power fists need to represented properly

**nkelsch**

WarlordRob117 wrote: I was unimpressed with this rule, as you can not possibly model everything on your kits... case in point...

I have 50k of orks that say you are wrong. Everything is modeled and 100% wysiwyg.

Chain sword is not a power sword, and a power sword is upgrade which means at an event that requires WYSIWYG, you have to model it. If I have to look at your list, you are burdening me by making me check a list opposed to looking at the models on the table.

Nice threatening physical violence because you don't like a rule. If you don't want to follow WYSIWYG, don't play in 'ard boyz or any other events which decide to require it.

**Cheex**

Would you allow a power sword to count as a power fist? A combat knife to count as a chainfist? A chainfist to count as a pair of lightning claws? More to the point, would you feel comfortable using these examples and then expect your opponent to remember everything?

The problem is that a chainsword is a distinctive piece of wargear. The average player looks at a chainsword and knows exactly what its rules are.

The same goes for a force weapon, which usually has more decorative elements than a regular power weapon. You see a force weapon and know that it's a force weapon.

It's all well and good to tell your opponent what counts as what, but the whole point of WYSIWYG is that a player should be able to look at the battlefield and know exactly what is going on. If your models aren't representative, then it's easy for an opponent to forget.

On the other hand, a force weapon is always going to be on a very distinct model, such as a librarian or sorcerer, who often doesn't have access to any other close combat options, so that should make it easier.

What I suggest as a solution to this would be to give the model a chainsword if you want (as a purely decorative element), but put a force weapon somewhere else on the model, or even driven into the ground or something. That way, you can follow the chainsword aesthetic while still being satisfyingly WYSIWYG.

**The Mad Tanker**

If it is close and army wide (example, red chainswords are power weapons) or reasonable (example, this termie squad is all TH/SS and nothing else, even if only one has it) I am fine with it.

**WarlordRob117**

Again I feel that some opinions here... in my opinion hahaha... are just being difficult...

Classic example, Inquisitorial henchmen retinue from Grey Knights codex. Over half of the models they suggest using dont even come with the ability to make the equipment available on the model, for example the Warrior Acolyte (essentially a storm trooper with lower stats and way cheaper)... by your logic, I can use a space marine model since the option is there as an upgrade for the acolyte?

Also the Evesor assasin has a neuro-gauntlet that counts as a lightning claw... so again according to what you guys are saying I should just go ahead a chop up my finely painted model to attach a lightning claw to my assassin because its easier for you?

Whatever happened to the paramount of Fanatasy and 40K... Communication... if you dont know what something has, then you need to ask plain and simple... it should be no trouble to take a second to skim over a list that probably consists of around 2 pages anyway, especially when its over a game of imagination...

and to those of you who thought I was immature enough to cause a fist fight over something like a game is poor form on your part, and in turn shows a lack of maturity for assuming... in case anyone is unfamiliar with me... look at my status and see how long I've been a member... now equate that to how many times I've been reprimanded for language on this forum, which has been around 12 times by the way... I can honestly say that vocalizing without swearing is hard for me concerning my upbringing and my job, and the fact that I had the fortitude to stop myself before emberassing my friend (the store owner and the guy who was running the tournament). Just so we are on the same sheet of music, I made my opponent tear up for accusing me of a lack of integrity... thats what I meant by going outside...
-end explanation-

Back to the topic at hand wooha!

**insaniak**

WarlordRob117 wrote:...by your logic, I can use a space marine model since the option is there as an upgrade for the acolyte?

Sorry, yuo lost me there. Why are you using a space marine?

Also the Evesor assasin has a neuro-gauntlet that counts as a lightning claw... so again according to what you guys are saying I should just go ahead a chop up my finely painted model to attach a lightning claw to my assassin because its easier for you?

The Eversor already has the neuro gauntlet on the model. Why are you adding a lightning claw...?

**WarlordRob117**

In the force org section of the Grey knights book, under Inquisitorial Henchmen Retinue, you will see a selection for meagerly pointed Warrior Acolyte... for 10 points, you can upgrade him to power armor... essentially space marine armor

I understand that he already has a neuro-gauntlet, but if Im reading several of the posts correct, if they cant look at my army and write down what it is without looking at my list... its not WYSIWYG... which makes no sense to me... imagine what would have happened if there was no nemesis dreadknight or a jokaero-tang?

**kirsanth**

WarlordRob117 wrote:imagine what would have happened if there was no nemesis dreadknight or a jokaero-tang?

Or tervigons, or. . .oh wait.
I get it. Silly examples are silly.

If you have two of the henchmen that could wear power armor, and one of them IS wearing power armor, do you think it is wysiwyg to use the same model for both?

**CthuluIsSpy**

WarlordRob117 wrote:Im sure there is much debate on this topic... and Im sure Im not the first to create a thread on this, but since I havent seen many recently on it... I figured why not?

The question: How serious do you take WYSIWYG?

I did my first 'Ard Boyz recently and I was unimpressed with this rule, as you can not possibly model everything on your kits... case in point...

I saw a post by someone regarding the love of the chainsword look but wanting to use it as a force weapon... I saw many say that this is a NO-GO!!!
Why? Im sure in the 41st they have the ability to make such a weapon and if the dude likes it... IMHO if you really need to know what someone has on a character/characters then ask or look at their list.

What are all your opinions?

Well it's fine if he has it in his Army List and declared beforehand. I really don't care.
But yeah, a force weapon chainsword would be pretty cool. But it has to be blue. With lightning.

**nosferatu1001**

Warlord - thats 'counts as" - you are counting a space marine (who is S and T4, never mind all the other stat line changes) as being a S3 T3 model.

I have to look at an Eversor and SEE an eversor. You dont have to model any UPGRADES as there are none for that model.

**Remulus**

In most tourneys WYSIWYG is like the 10 comandments, though, its really only like 1. Wait... Well, whatever it is it is pretty important in tourneys.

**Deadshot**

I have a model with a double chainsword. Like a Chainsword version of Darth Maul's lightsaber.

Consider altered stuff like this for force weapons. The extra blade xcan detach and decapitate the opponent.

**commissarkurn**

lunarman wrote:Look, WYSIWYG is easy. The rule is this:

If, given the models for your opponents army, you could write out his army list (without seeing it beforehand) then it's a WYSIWYG army... END OF QUOTE

Let's say I've never played Eldar, but I've played against them a fair number of times. Let's assume I've never read the Eldar codex, and let's also assume I've seen some of my opponent's lists and they've never had grenades listed, but I assume that's because none of them have ever intended to assault with their units. For the sake of discussion and debate, let's say my opponent puts his models in front of me, and they include Dire Avengers. The Dire Avengers kit comes with pieces used to assemble each model, and some of these pieces clearly have grenades on them, even though Dire Avengers have no available grenade upgrade in their unit entry. I then begin to write: Dire Avengers (10) w/ shuriken catapults and grenades...and I later assume they have grenades and make a decision based on that assumption, a decision that later proves to have been a mistake. I then find out Dire Avengers may not have grenade upgrades of any kind and I say to my opponent "Then why do you have them modeled with gear they cannot have? This is a WYSIWYG event, and I can clearly see kit/gear that unit is not supposed to have. I never would have made decision (x) if they had been modeled as WYSIWYG."

What about Warlock psychic powers? How are they to be modeled so as to be easily recognized at a glance?

The point here is this: This game will always have many subtle instances where the rules will require some reasonable assumptions. WYSIWYG cannot be reasonably interpreted if ANYTHING is added and/or omitted to or from a model's appearance. Otherwise, WHAT I SEE is in question. If what I see is in question, it stands to reason I would question my opponent(s) before a game begins. There are in-built redundancies: you get a copy of your opponent's list, you are allowed to ask questions about anything pertaining to that list, and your opponent (under the auspices of fair sportsmanship) is to answer any and all questions truthfully and completely (no matter how many times you ask).

The only conversion beamer model GW (read as GW, not ForgeWorld) has ever produced was included in the 'Genestealer' expansion box to the original Space Hulk. The point is that they have produced one (and it has a Chaos symbol on it) but I bet it will be hard for most 40K players to get their hands on one. Can I scratch build a conversion beamer? Will my opponent take my word for it that my scratch build is a conversion beamer, or will he/she say it looks nothing like the GW conversion beamer and have the tournament TOs pull my Tech-marine because it is not WYSIWYG? You make da call...

**Landrain**

Here is the issue...

Where in any GW codex or rulebook does it give a specified definition of what a Force Weapon Looks like?
What is the difference in look from a Power Weapon to a Force Weapon?
What is the difference from a Close Combat Weapon to a Power Weapon?

A Power weapon is sheathed in a lethal haze of a powerful disruptive energy field.

I don't know about you but, I am not sure exactly how to model a powerful disruptive energy field.. or a lethal haze...

No where does it say that a Pwer Weapon has to be a sword, or an axe, or a maul, in fact all of these specifically DID exist in prior editions.
A Power Weapon therefore is a close combat weapon with this "lethal haze"
Nothing says it cannot start as a regular chainsword.
Just that they are usually swords.

The important point is that there is a distinctiveness between a Regular Chainsword, a Power Chainsword, a Force Chainsword.
And that this distintiveness is not only readilly apparent, but is consistent.

If Say a Chainsword is red, Power Weapon is blue, Force weapon is green, as long as all of your weapons follow that same system. There is no way to say that it is not WYSIWYG.

I have assault troops that use axes and swords instead of chainswords, because they have the same rules, is that "cheating"?

I have a Space Marin in Power Armour with a bolt pistol and a sword, what is he?

A Vanguard Vet?
A Sgt?
A Captain?
A Librarian?

None of the above?
All of the above?

How do you tell the difference?
They are all WYSIWYG...

**nkelsch**

Landrain wrote:Here is the issue...

Where in any GW codex or rulebook does it give a specified definition of what a Force Weapon Looks like?
What is the difference in look from a Power Weapon to a Force Weapon?
What is the difference from a Close Combat Weapon to a Power Weapon?

All the prduct descriptions and most codexes have clear art and text descriptions of weapons and gear.

I know my codex has a full page if high detail photos that show my armies weapons.

Claiming you have no idea what anything looks like so anything can be everything is an unsupportable position.

We know what a CC weapon is, we know what a power weapon is and we know what a force weapon is.

**For-eign**

50% of this hobby is modeling. So to say that a chainaxe painted to look like a power/force weapon, weilded by a special model is just part of the hobby.

I have a fully painted and WYSIWYG army. I don't have a problem playing against a player with an army that is "being built." However, when remembering what your army is takes longer than my entire turn... that's crap.

Furthermore, I would appreciate that my apponent would at least build his models to include any major weapons and gear.

To me, I think having the model look like it's profile list is more important than painting (but not by much ;D)

So in this case that guy is being unreasonable (at least how it reads).

**insaniak**

WarlordRob117 wrote:In the force org section of the Grey knights book, under Inquisitorial Henchmen Retinue, you will see a selection for meagerly pointed Warrior Acolyte... for 10 points, you can upgrade him to power armor... essentially space marine armor

OK. So what problem are you seeing with representing a power-armoured acolyte with a model in power armour?

Just using a stock standard space marine would potentially be pushing it a little, since an acolyte is not a space marine. But using marine armour as a basis for it shouldn't be a problem.

I understand that he already has a neuro-gauntlet, but if Im reading several of the posts correct, if they cant look at my army and write down what it is without looking at my list... its not WYSIWYG... which makes no sense to me... imagine what would have happened if there was no nemesis dreadknight or a jokaero-tang?

What doesn't make sense? That's exactly what WYSIWYG means. It's inherent in the name.

If you're trying to use something for which ther eis no model, then you have two options: don't use that unit, or use something that adequately represents what it is supposed to be. So if you want to field a Tervigon, for example, use something that people can look at and clearly identify as a Tervigon rather than a Carnifex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Landrain wrote:I have a Space Marin in Power Armour with a bolt pistol and a sword, what is he?

A Vanguard Vet?
A Sgt?
A Captain?
A Librarian?

None of the above?
All of the above?

How do you tell the difference?

The Space Marine codex details how to mark your units so that they can be told apart...

**Lightcavalier**

All I really care about is consistency. But they are right...the IoM books do not have the nice page that DE do which has pictures of all the weapons. Although in the instructions for many newer kits it also tells you what each special bit is.

All i care about is consistency. If your marines have a chainsword fetish and different colours denote different types of weapons on the ccw, power, force scale...then go for it...so long as blue always = power weapon (example)

while I would prefer to see a different model for it (as they exist in abundance) all i really want to avoid is "every flamer is a meltagun, except that one, its a lascannon"

**d-usa**

Lightcavalier wrote:All I really care about is consistency. But they are right...the IoM books do not have the nice page that DE do which has pictures of all the weapons. Although in the instructions for many newer kits it also tells you what each special bit is.

I can't speak for any of the other books, but Codex Space Marine does have the nice page that has diagrams of all the weapons.

**cgmckenzie**

But are those diagrams fluff or rules? The ork one is obviously fluff, I don't actually insert ork into the power klaw to model it.

-cgmckenzie

**ObliviousBlueCaboose**

Seriously whats wrong with using chainswords as power weapons? If anything they make more sense as power weapons then a sword. Honestly, all my sergeants have chain swords. Which i either make all power weapons or close combat weapons. And i make it quite clear which one i'm using. All my officers dont have a ccw in their left hand. They have the pimp skull cane or binoculars.

**insaniak**

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Seriously whats wrong with using chainswords as power weapons?

Nothing, so long as there is someway of differentiating between the chainsword power weapons and the regular chainswords.

If you point out to an opponent before the game that all of your chainswords are power weapons, you should have few issues. Although making them look distinct to normal chainswords in some way would also reduce what few complaints you might get.