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 generaly try to have all of my armies strict wysiwyg. Yes, even down to meltabombs. The new necron codec has many items of wargear that have no picture, and/or vague discriptions. What are necron players planning on doing as far as modeling their carried wargear. And more importantly what kind of wysiwyg exceptions will you as an opponent let fly before call foul.

As long as he's paying for it in his list, I don't care.

If the general weapon that he is using is modeled, I'm good.

Most of the wargear that's not modeled is Technosorcery on the Crypteks, which I see as something akin to psychic powers. You don't need to model them. As long as my opponent is clear before the game about what is what then I don't particularly care.

You are going to see this split right down the middle. Those that don't care as long as the model looks the part and is discernable from other models and those that will come here and tell you if it isn't WYSIWYG you are playing a "counts as" and look down upon you.

The codex doesn't have the page with images or examples of the models?

What weapons don't have models? So far it appeared to me the necros boxed sets seemed pretty complete and reasonable when it came to weapon options.

I just see Crypteks as being the biggest problem, for the reasons already stated. There are only two official models with staffs, and since each different Harbinger has a different staff weapon, it could get very confusing if an army uses multiple types of Harbingers.

Hopefully, most people will recognize how poor and expensive the finecast Cryptek models are, and will convert their own out of Necron Warriors with Deathmark heads and give each unique Harbinger their own staff (fingers crossed).

I'm hoping people will be lenient about Cryptek counts-as. Not only are there no bits for any of their special gear, but we're stuck with one very distinguished looking model playing the part of up to 10 Crypteks. Lame. Here's hoping we get a Royal Court kit soon...

Oaka wrote:I just see Crypteks as being the biggest problem, for the reasons already stated. There are only two official models with staffs, and since each different Harbinger has a different staff weapon, it could get very confusing if an army uses multiple types of Harbingers.

Hopefully, most people will recognize how poor and expensive the finecast Cryptek models are, and will convert their own out of Necron Warriors with Deathmark heads and give each unique Harbinger their own staff (fingers crossed).

This is exactly what I am planning on doing, using extra bits from praetorians & deathmarks that I'm not going to be building. Hopefully with painting/converting I can make all the staves look different.

There is a page in the codex with pictures of many of the weapons, including a tachyon arrow, but you're right about a lot of cryptek technosorceries really being closer to psychic powers in terms of model representation. Things like a tesseract labyrinth don't seem to have a picture either (unless I missed that, don't have the book at the office).

I'm glad there was the picture of the Tachyon Arrow. I'm thinking the Praetorian pistol could be modded into one pretty easily.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You are going to see this split right down the middle. Those that don't care as long as the model looks the part and is discernable from other models and those that will come here and tell you if it isn't WYSIWYG you are playing a "counts as" and look down upon you.

I take offense to that - I don't look down upon anyone, but if it's not WYSIWYG it is a "counts as". Just because I follow common sense doesn't give you the right to assume I'm being an ass.

As long as the army is internally consistant, IE: everyone with the same wargear looks the same, then you should be fine.

WYSIWYG works fine when we have no standard, you make your own standard and hold yourself to it internally. "This Uber-death ray is a Multi-melta" you say. then your opponent knows that all Uber-death ray wielders have a multi-melta.

"This funky light prisim is my Cryptek's Lance thingy"

Wargear with no representive piece.

Mindshackle scarabs.
Phase shifter
Phylactery
Sempiternal weave
Tesseract labyrinth
Transdimensional beamer
Whip coils
Gloom prism

And then there's all of the crypteks Wargear such as the chronometron and harp of dissonance to name a few..

Almost none of the previous Necron codex's lord options had a phys-rep either

Some armies don't physrep well. I'm having the same issue with my daemons, as some models in the unit can be ugraded with gifts that don't actually HAVE a physical form, and some of the people i play like strict WYSYWYG. I'm modelling staves onto Horrors that have Bolt of Tzeentch, for example, but there are no options in the kit

Chaos gifts could be painted on to the model like a tattoo or a brand.

I wouldn't have a problem with this really, it's fairly easy if you only have a few models on the board with this problem.

How about paint a number on the bottom of the base, keep a notebook by the table with the numbers and what wargear they have written in it.

That way the opponent can see you aren't changing around which model has what in the chaos of a high points battle.

All you can do is your best...

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You are going to see this split right down the middle. Those that don't care as long as the model looks the part and is discernable from other models and those that will come here and tell you if it isn't WYSIWYG you are playing a "counts as" and look down upon you.

Not "split right down the middle". Most people are NOT obnoxious snobs, please don't lable the 40k community as such.

I don't think it would be a nightmare. Making all of your Crypteks having different staves to represent their respective discipline shouldn't be incredibly difficult or against WYSIWYG, especially if you're consistent like previously stated.

As for the wargear options in the codex not represented by models, if a general consensus has arisen that things like Tachyon Arrows or Whip Coils need to be represented on the model, then fine. Now, if it somehow comes to everything needing to be represented(save for Cryptek abilities) that there are no obvious options for, that will be too far IMO.

Though, I believe I've already accidentally created a problem for myself(though fixable). I created a standard Lord out of Destroyer and Necron Warrior parts, with which I was going to add the last of my unused Warscythes from the Lychguard to him for a weapon. While fiddling with it, I accidentally broke the handle in a couple of places, so now it looks like a sword version of a WS. With the way it looks it would allow me to do a "counts-as" for either a Hyperphase Sword or a Warscythe, but I foresee this to guarantee problems from those that abide by WYSIWYG strictly.

rigeld2 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You are going to see this split right down the middle. Those that don't care as long as the model looks the part and is discernable from other models and those that will come here and tell you if it isn't WYSIWYG you are playing a "counts as" and look down upon you.

I take offense to that - I don't look down upon anyone, but if it's not WYSIWYG it is a "counts as". Just because I follow common sense doesn't give you the right to assume I'm being an ass.

LOL hit a nerve did I? You shoud look deep inside and figure out your reasons why. If someone goes through the trouble of converting a model to make it stand out above the rest, as far as I'm concerned it is the actual representation. Stating this DEV squad of HBs are Lascannons would be a different story. Like you said when playing I use common sense and a good helping of courtesy. Anything less is being an ass.

Camarodragon wrote:Wargear with no representive piece.

Mindshackle scarabs.
Phase shifter
Phylactery
Sempiternal weave
Tesseract labyrinth
Transdimensional beamer
Whip coils
Gloom prism

And then there's all of the crypteks Wargear such as the chronometron and harp of dissonance to name a few..

Well, their might be Wraith/Spyder-minis coming with their equipment. As for Phase Shifter, Sempiternal weave, etc.., it's the Necron-equivalent of Artificer Armour or Iron Halo. Space Marine Digital Weapons? Elder Farseer gear, runes, etc...? Etc..? If you were able to play against Space Marine armies with these items before, you should be able to play against a Necron Army with the Necron-equivalent now.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:You are going to see this split right down the middle. Those that don't care as long as the model looks the part and is discernable from other models and those that will come here and tell you if it isn't WYSIWYG you are playing a "counts as" and look down upon you.

I take offense to that - I don't look down upon anyone, but if it's not WYSIWYG it is a "counts as". Just because I follow common sense doesn't give you the right to assume I'm being an ass.

LOL hit a nerve did I? You shoud look deep inside and figure out your reasons why. If someone goes through the trouble of converting a model to make it stand out above the rest, as far as I'm concerned it is the actual representation. Stating this DEV squad of HBs are Lascannons would be a different story. Like you said when playing I use common sense and a good helping of courtesy. Anything less is being an ass.

Note how he didn't say that there's anything wrong with counts-as.

Well I was thinking of using a unit of Praetorians and giving them Deathmark heads - then using different colour schemes to differentiate between the different Harbingers (Black for Despair, Blue for Eternity etc). I think there's a lot of potential for conversion - rather than an explcit nightmare. A lot of the gear is probablty too small to model, like Mindshackle Scarabs etc. The other systems might just be included within their bodies - like the Phase Shifter, hard-wired in so to speak. A Tachyon arrow could be like a wrist gauntlet thing, so you could use a particle caster arm...there's lots of potential and I don't think many people would mind if you can't figure out a way to model something.

To be honest so long as everything is written down and made explicit to me before a battle, you could put a wooden block down that's the right size/proportion and say 'that's a Necron Overlord with x,y & z'.

warspawned wrote:Well I was thinking of using a unit of Praetorians and giving them Deathmark heads - then using different colour schemes to differentiate between the different Harbingers (Black for Despair, Blue for Eternity etc). I think there's a lot of potential for conversion - rather than an explcit nightmare. A lot of the gear is probablty too small to model, like Mindshackle Scarabs etc. The other systems might just be included within their bodies - like the Phase Shifter, hard-wired in so to speak. A Tachyon arrow could be like a wrist gauntlet thing, so you could use a particle caster arm...there's lots of potential and I don't think many people would mind if you can't figure out a way to model something.

To be honest so long as everything is written down and made explicit to me before a battle, you could put a wooden block down that's the right size/proportion and say 'that's a Necron Overlord with x,y & z'.

Ditto. But I was thinking of using deathmarks with staffs. Gotta love the "hoods"