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.

Well, basically topic. How exactly does "reverse WYSIWYG" work? Can you claim something isn't there when it obviously is?

Specifically, I am referring to this model:


I am in the process of acquiring two of these things in the very near future. The new Eldar Fire Prism/Night Spinner kit. According to GW, the wing-extensions for the Fire Prism are supposed to represent the "Vectored Engines" upgrade for Eldar Vehicles. (For those unfamiliar with Eldar models, if you look to the left of the picture, you'll see two slightly separated plates. These are what I'm talking about.)

Straight up though, if you look at the model, they look slightly odd without those wing extensions, especially with the longer profile of the Fire Prism/Night Spinner turret.

My question is, can I model them on and then claim they're not there? Or if I have them modeled, must I have them in my armylist?

Well, you understand the wysiwyg right?

Your question really is about basic wysiwyg rules, while not following wysiwyg is looked down upon, most players will let you get away with it, but it really matters about the person.

And modeling something on and claiming it's not their is not following wysiwyg, see just above about wysiwyg.

Though, wing extensions is your problem? Most people wont care about wing extensions i think...

It is called Overmodeling. It isn't WYSIWYG. Now if that impacts your game and the way you and your friends play that is a different issue.

If the event requires and enforces WYSIWYG then Overmodeling is not legal.

reverse wysiwyg works like this, if my warboss model has a big shoota but I only give him a pistol in my armylist, it is perfectly fine as long as I am clear about it. It is perfectly legal to have something on the model and not pay the points for it (as long as you play the model as if it was without said weapon). Thus your question about the fireprism. As long as the fireprism weapon is on the turret it does not matter what you put on the wings. it will still be a fire prism.

I see no problem with it, just say they are of lower quaility, or for aesthetic purposes. Shoot, I wouldn't even know they were wing extensions and just think they were part of the model

I do the same with my scout sentnals, they al have what appears to be an armoured cockpit (though no roof, maintaining open topped) Whenever someone questions it, I just say its made out of cardboard, and thus has no actual use other then to look cool.

It should be fine. Most people would not even know what they are!! haha

The main issue when it comes to wysiwyg is having things like PW, PF, and special weapons with out having them on the model and then saying, "oh, yeah! This guy has ****"

I have something to go with this, I have recently put together what I call an omni-raider. It is essentially a Land Raider that I have magnetized so as to have it be with the standard pattern one (TL Lascannon sponsons and TL HB) or Crusader pattern (Hurricane Bolters and TL AC) but I haven't figured out how to magnetize on the frag launchers from the crusader kit. Considering I play GK and everything I would put in there has frag grenades anyways, would anyone care that the frag launchers aren't there?

Personally, I wouldn't have even known it was meant to represent Vectored Engines if you hadn't told me. I just assumed it was a modelling device used to "balance" the miniature - you're right, it does look better with it.

Easy solution, though: magnets. Or failing that, just pin it in place without glue.

There can be a problem with overmodelling. A person could say that model A doesn't have a plasma pistol even though his model has one. If a person isn't careful he could forget that the model doesn't have the pistol and avoid that unit due to the pistol's presence or the owner could accidently forget that he didn't pay for the plasma pistol and use it in a key situation. So wysiwyg works both ways since the model is only supposed to have what it actually has modelled on it.

I agree with the magnetize them and then 'remove' it pre-game for times when WYSIWYG is required.

Or pay the points for the upgrade... not every game needs to be hyper-meta perfect. I put red paint job on all my vehicles even when I could do without it simply because I painted them all with flames. When I say 'these flames are RPJ' I don't have to say 'except on these tanks which are not RPJ even though they have flames.'

There is no such thing as 'reverse WYSIWYG'... at least not to do with over-modelling.

WYSIWYG, by the definition implicit in the name, works both ways.

In this case, it's sort of silly, as before this kit came out, was there ever a reference to part of the model referencing vectored engines? It's an upgrade you buy for a vehicle, but not one I remember ever having to model. Then again, I haven't put together a Falcon in about 10 years. Most players won't know what that little flange is, and there are a lot of wave serpents and falcons that players upgrade with VE that never came with it.

I don't think I have ever seen those bits on any Eldar tank I've faced and many of them have had vectored engines. My guess is gw added them to the most recent kits. I doubt anyone would care whether you put them on or not, I know I sure wouldn't.

There is no "reverse WYSIWYG", nor any special exceptions tied to that (invented) concept.
Either a model is compliant with/following WYSIWYG or it isn't.

Having said that, in the case of the Nightspinner/Fireprism, most people wouldn't know/care that the parts in question represented a specific piece of wargear. Neither do I think such things as Assault Launchers on a regular Land Raider (otherwise modelled correctly) would be an issue.

It was added to the new FP/NS. The old style FP, as well as WS don't have that bit.

The wing extensions are not vectored engines - the little flaps in the FP/NS kit that go on the back of the engine nozzle are vectored engines.

Better pic here:

I thought those nozzles were the star engines.

Dozer blades make tanks look cooler, I rarely ever pay for them though. I've never had an opponent complain. However, I'm smart enough that I would either pay for all or none as to avoid confusion, and I think avoiding confusion is the key issue here.

Happyjew wrote:I thought those nozzles were the star engines.

Given that vectored engines are engines with flappy bits to direct the thrust I think it's more likely to be vectored engines.

Couts-as: tank parts. Done.

For those discussing the Vectored Engines/Star Engines thing.

It is explained here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=400035&pIndex=1&aId=9500019a&multiPageMode=true&start=2

The flappy things at the end of the nozzle, no matter how much they LOOK like vectored engines, are Star Engines by GW's own admission. Check stage 1.

The Wing extensions are Vectored engines. Check stage 9.

Or the guy writing that article was an idiot? The diagram I posted from FW is equally as officially and actually makes some kind of sense.

except those apply to FW parts. The GW article applies to GW's plastic parts =/.