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.

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?

Scroll back through the thread, I pointed EXACTLY where it was in the 3rd Ed. rulebook. If not, then I assure you that either Google is a thing or find a copy and look yourself.

T1nk4bell wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

Most sane people would simply pick a nice middle of the line build and stick with it. If you have to own literally every single option for every single model in every single unit of every single army, then that is a YOU thing, not a GW games thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:

But a primaris holding a bolter instead of a stalker bolter is a problem?

I don't believe anyone said that.

A flamer as a plasma gun? Different thing entirely.

No it isn't. Each Primaris Bolt Rifle is fundamentally different in terms of targets and range, JUST like the Flamer vs Plasma Gun.

They're really not. Let's go over the similarities of every bolt rifle build:
30", with a +/-6" either side.
Always S4.
AP -1, with a +/-1 either side.
D1, barring one variant, which is D2.
Heavy, Rapid Fire, or Assault, with shots appropriately.

Versus flamer and plasma:
8" versus 24"
S4 versus S7/S8
D1 versus D1/D2
AP0 versus AP-3
D6 hits versus Rapid Fire
Autohitting versus overcharge

That's way more different, in aesthetics (at least all bolt rifles have roughly the same core aesthetic - they're built from the same rifle body), in function, and in impact on the game.

Those differences affect preferred targets and Stratagems. So no you're still wrong.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

T1nk4bell wrote:
Oh and where was it before?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Most posters: we accept mostly common sense and courtesy, plus it's in the rulebook.


A few poster: but... but.. but here is the random example of less than 1% of kits that can't be WYSIWYG to some fluffy random build!


Pretty much the entire thread. Not gonna touch the absurdity of owning 100+ arms to swap out one freaking Ork Nob...

Has nothing to do with fluffy random build.
And with the nobz it's not absurd.
I play orks myself and sometimes I use double choppa nobz with 1 klaw.
Sometimes I use big choppa nobz.
Sometimes I use choppa slugga.
Sometimes double choppa 2 combi rocketz
Sometimes klaws
Sometimes slugga choppa
It's not absurd its real.
I have the luck That I have 87 nobz painted to show the most options if I play just 10.
But the most may not

The problem is every single option is playable and its 11 arms needed for one nob to show it

Some of the options are no problem to count as, some are nogoes for sure.
But we'll in a box in 1 power stabba and it's nothing than a needle thing, no prob to count a choppa as stabba.
It's just hard to get.

And more than 29 times now.
There is no problem if one player say my choppa are stabba

I suspect that you are only trolling but why not use the weapons that the model has?

Without WYSIWYG this whole hobby becomes rather pointless.

Because he must use the most... efficient... option... that.... the.... meta... demands... to eke out every single point from a list.

Most people who are against WYSIWYG and vehemently dig their heels in are just pissed some options they built are now second best.

Nah, that’s ridiculous.

If someone owns 2k worth of Orcs and have modeled their 90 nobz with melee weapons, and now want to play their nobz as gunners for a different theme, only a ridiculous elitist would push the glasses up their nose and say “no, I understand you spent over $80 on THOSE nobz, but you’re going to have to spend another $80 on MORE nobz and model them to an outrageous WYSIWYG standard.”

And only a truly WAAC player would pretend to feign utter confusion when a player in good faith can reliably and consistently advise on the load out of their units, which in all other respects are clearly what they are meant to be.

Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting, VG?

Because I would MUCH rather play against a polite opponent who proxies everything and has either badly painted or gray plastic models, then a rude jerk who insults me.

Actually I'm pretty sure its only online people get this silly about it. In the real world it resolves itself pretty quickly. Even in this you can see most of those going "I expect WYSIWYG" still accept people using proxies.

It's mostly when things get a bit bent out of shape with people taking really polarised extreme viewpoints. These often generate the most chatter because they often go against the established normal and thus get a more pushback - which results in far more back and forth. That's before you throw in one or two stirring the pot because they can (trolling/having a laugh).

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

Can't believe people even complain about this.

if you care so much about optimum buiild you should pay the price to get the correct models, it's as simple as that.

Ironically many people also complain about Primaris having a lack of customisation even though all the parts you need come in the kit, thus avoiding any problems like this entirely.

And yes, if anything, constant whinging will probablty force GW to change the wargear selection for units in the future to only allow what comes in the kit. Imagine how bad that would be for many factions. At least my Primaris, AdMech and Custodes won't be affected :-P

This topic must surely be a troll? lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Can't believe people even complain about this.

if you care so much about optimum buiild you should pay the price to get the correct models, it's as simple as that.

Ironically many people also complain about Primaris having a lack of customisation even though all the parts you need come in the kit, thus avoiding any problems like this entirely.

And yes, if anything, constant whinging will probablty force GW to change the wargear selection for units in the future to only allow what comes in the kit. Imagine how bad that would be for many factions. At least my Primaris, AdMech and Custodes won't be affected :-P

This topic must surely be a troll? lol

Well that isn't the case for all the armies in regards to weapons in the kit. So it's understandable. Some units the difference between optimal and garbage is massive too in both price and performance. So I have some sympathy. Take the hammerhead for example (which actually comes with the ioncannon) but the railgun used to be better. So almost everyone had railguns on those tanks. The difference in performance is so silly that I could never make someone use the railgun over the ioncannon if it was modeled that way. As long as it's not silly and it's a simple explanation like...all 4 of these railguns are actually ion cannons...Its not even a question. We all know why GW does it. It is to make money. Like the new havoc kit...it only comes with 1 reaper chain cannon! Which is both the coolest looking and best weapon they have access to. Should players actually be forced to by 4 havoc kits to run the unit they want?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

You mean no standards. I don't hold up others to my modelling or painting standards, merely to most rudimentary basic standards that have been a normal part of the wargaming hobby far longer than 40K has even existed. Assemble your models, try to maintain at least rough WYSIWYG, give your models at least a simple basic paintjob. Not unreasonable. Also, you are very easily insulted.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

You’re just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

I’m not hurt-random internet shmoes shouting insults doesn’t get to me. But you cannot in good faith say that that’s polite. Or anything other than outright rude and insulting. I don’t mind if you only play with fully painted models that are 100% WYSIWYG. That’s your choice, and if that’s how you have fun, I wouldn’t expect you to not have fun by playing another way.

But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect you to be polite-and part of being polite is not supporting blatantly insulting posts. You could’ve said “I agree that models should be painted and WYSIWYG, but there’s no need to be rude,” or similar. But you didn’t-you agreed with the insults.

 Crimson wrote:

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

I’ve played against that, in a tourney, with WYSIWYG in the rules, three color paint also in the rules, called a judge, got a lame shrug. This was the second day of the tourney so the kid had had time to glue the gak together.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

It was once in the rulebook (up to 5th Edition, and dropped with 6th) and some events still hold to it tightly, so some take it to the extreme everywhere else. A lot of people are very focused on the events, and so spread it everywhere else. I haven't seen an event regarding historicals since Flames of War died in our meta, and that was a D-Day event 5-6 years ago.

To be fair, the possible weapon mix you're likely to have in a historical unit won't be as robust as you'd likely see in a Space Marine Tactical Squad, and have several with the same model representing different things across the literal board.

JNAProductions wrote:Crimson, why are you supporting a directly insulting post? I can fully understand wanting to play against well-painted models, but there’s no need to insult those who have different standards than you.

Okay, did I miss something? What part of that post was insulting? I mean, quote it directly or bold it within the quote because I'm not seeing anything insulting in there.

 Crimson wrote:

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Same with the painting. Next people will complain about the unreasonable expectation that they assemble their models instead of just throwing the sprues on the table.

Done and done. Crimson was not themselves insulting, just supporting an insulting post.

Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

But that doesn't fit the narrative. Best to forge one...

Considering VG's posting history, I'm inclined to think it's not sarcasm.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear Valentine's thoughts on this.

 ValentineGames wrote:
Funny how it's only 40k players who get so argumentative over WYSIWYG.
You can have a German Panzergrenadier who could potentially have 1 or 2 of 10+ weapons weapons and each doing something different and nobody will avoid being WYSIWYG because it's polite.

It's also a point of pride in just how exactly historically accurate you can be.

 ValentineGames wrote:
But for 40k it's just too much man.
You're just a WAAC bully and a meanie poo head who should be shamed.

So sad

Yup.

WYSIWYG exists to make the game easier to play, so that anyone playing can tell what something is at a glance.

And GW has been removing options from the game because they're giving us fewer and fewer modelling options with their kits, so the idea that it's there to sell more models is absurd. If that were true GW would be piling on the weapon options for everything.

I like WYSIWYG because I don't like subbing things in. I want something to look the way it's armed. The other day I played a game where I subbed a Carnifex w/Crushing Claws and Scything Talons for a Screamer Killer because I only have one Carnifex with two sets of Talons (I do have two 2nd Ed Carnifexes I could have used, but I wanted to use the fancier minis). My opponents were fine with that, but it drove me nuts all game. I wanted to take a Flyrant with two sets of Talons, but the only Flyrant I have built has a Venom Cannon, so I gave it a Venom Cannon. That's just the way it is.

Generally speaking though if I don't have something, I just won't field it. I own 30 Leman Russ tanks of various descriptions. I tried to get just about every combination I could. Then GW updated the rules for Russes and suddenly they could get Multi-Meltas and Plasma Cannon sponsons on everything, not just Demolishers. And there were new turret types.

Now I just have every combination of hull/turret mount, so I'll have to make do. Outside of converting the minis or buying new ones (as I said, I have 30 Russes... I don't want any more!) I'll just live with the fact that I can't do everything these days.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Considering VG's posting history, I'm inclined to think it's not sarcasm.

I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear Valentine's thoughts on this.

As a ‘Citizen of the Empire’ (Retd), I should point out the whole ‘poo head’ thing is the typical six-year-old, school yard insult that should be taken in jest.

The originator should be sat on the Naughty Step for failing to point this out, and Sent to Bed for allowing the Colonials to misunderstand.

Bad Zut. Naughty Zut.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is there a reason you feel the need to be insulting, VG?

Because I would MUCH rather play against a polite opponent who proxies everything and has either badly painted or gray plastic models, then a rude jerk who insults me.

At what point have I insulted you?
I think you may of read into something as more than a sarcastic general comment.
Which is not my problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Sure looks like sarcasm to me...

At least someone noticed

I will always prefer models representing what they are supposed to represent. Its very jarring to have to remember all of the proxied weapons someone is running amuk with. "These spears are power fists", "this boltgun is a plasma gun", etc.

The title of the thread is correct though, it does force meta chasers to buy new models regularly or not be running optimal builds.

Nobody should care about Meta chasers.
They bring it upon themselves by taking gaming to be life or death.
Nobody cares about those morons.

If anything punishing optimizers and meta chasers is a good thing.

Nurglitch wrote:
If anything punishing optimizers and meta chasers is a good thing.

ABSOLUTELY. I was punished myself by trying to rebuild my Crimson Fists to take advantage of different builds available during 5th, and to also work within Kantor's rules. ALL that has passed me by, so I got what I deserved. Luckily I went back to 3rd, so I already know what works or doesn't, what I like or don't and with the exception of the mutable genus crap from Tyranids, Chaos 3.5, and the IG doctrines, I can count on a balanced game with no unmodeled surprises.

Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

 Crimson wrote:
Skitarii rangers? They're troop unit and the box builds vanguard too and has other special weapons. So you will be getting several boxes anyway and thus can easily build focused squads, you just can't equip all your squads identically.

And why shouldn't you be able to?

Just throwing my penny in. Surely it wouldn't be too much to ask if GW did weapon selection kits? It couldn't hurt to have a 'Guard sprue' or a 'CSM sprue' with 2-3 of each of the relevant weapons. I mean, it's not like they don't already do singular versions of that. For example.

I've got a slight side question with conversions\proxies for models that are out of production, e.g. things like the Salamander vehicles or the Macharius Omega from the Guard perspective. Are the percentage GW guidelines any more relaxed for things like that?