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 know that my personal pet-peeve is extra armor. It is so easy and cheap to get some pre-etched plasticard and snap out a few squares and glue them on that it seems ridiculous when I meet people that claim they shouldn't have to model it because it's too hard.

I use spare track sections from IG tanks. So simple, and so easy.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 09/21/2006 6:27 AM
How does one model a refractor field? Or bionics being worn under a fully sealed suit of power armor (with helmet)? Or things like the Honorifica or Macharian Cross? Do you insist that melta bombs and grenades be modeled too? Where does one draw the line? Can things carried in pouches count, or must they be "visible"?

Just playing devils advocate here, as I am a modeler/painter first and only occasionally game (40k/sci-fi) these days. I understand the reasoning behind WYSIWYG, but I also think taking it to the extreme and requiring every little piece of warger, daemonic gift and so forth be modelled in some OTT way takes it too far. I've also never played in a tourney, sticking entirely to friendly "club" style play which is considerably more relaxed (and relaxing), to me at least.

I've seen very few people actually model a refractor field generator, but that isn't the point. If I'm using a piece of wargear that I don't feel is really appropriate to model I'll go out of my way before the game begins to let my opponents know that my model does have that wargear and although he should have it modeled on him, he doesn't.

Personally I don't feel that a tabletop miniature game really needs an element of deception to it, unless both players are coming into the game knowing that we're trying to decieve each other.

So no, I don't truly expect that someone should have to model a refractor field generator onto their model, but by the rules it should be and therefore they must let me know that the model should indeed have a refractor field modeled.

By the same token of sportsmanship I expect my opponent to tell me about wargear and weapons that aren't abundantly clear just by looking at the model. For example, if all the aspiring champions in a chaos army have chains on them, but only one model actually has daemonic chains, IMO a good sport would let me know which model's chains are actually "daemonic chains" before the game begins.

Its not deception, Remeber you dont have to tell your opponent whats in your army. Its the basic rule of 40K, Lets not forget that and get all "but its not fair and sporting", Yes it is.
I agree if you have a scartch built weapon that may not look 100% like whats its supposed to then yes you should tell your opponent what it is.
On another note who actually models frag grenades on all there men?? Who models things like demonic Rune or other such thing all the time. Not everybody does. Be it due to lack of imagination, parts, time, money etc.

i would tell you that an asp champ has chains, i just would not tell you which one. But my list would clearly have it written on or i would tell someone else just so you would not think i was cheating,

We play with closed lists, but everything has to be WYSIWYG and any wargear that isn't clearly modelled has to be stated when the unit is deployed.

Posted By beef on 09/22/2006 4:32 AM
Its not deception, Remeber you dont have to tell your opponent whats in your army. Its the basic rule of 40K, Lets not forget that and get all "but its not fair and sporting", Yes it is.
I agree if you have a scartch built weapon that may not look 100% like whats its supposed to then yes you should tell your opponent what it is.
On another note who actually models frag grenades on all there men?? Who models things like demonic Rune or other such thing all the time. Not everybody does. Be it due to lack of imagination, parts, time, money etc.

i would tell you that an asp champ has chains, i just would not tell you which one. But my list would clearly have it written on or i would tell someone else just so you would not think i was cheating,

DE-CEP-TION.

I am supposed to be able to look at your models and be able to tell which one has the wargear: "Daemon Chains". If I can't clearly tell which model has them (or if a model has them), you are decieving me.

Look, the rules state that all wargear must be represented on the model. I know most people don't waste their time with grenades and other odd wargear, but you must tell your opponent then because you are breaking the rules.

And just because the rules state that you don't have to tell your opponents what is in your army, the models themselves are still supposed to clearly represent all wargear and weapons. If an opponent cannot tell exactly what a model has by looking at it, then you are clearly decieving your opponent.

The only real problem I could see with this is Nids, lord only knows how many variants those guys have and each person, as far as I have seen which just makes it hard, and open disclosure is a must in that instance.

I agree, with nids you can model a lump on it and say it is this and this upgrade, as opponent you genereally cannot look at a 'fex and say exactly what upgrades it has. Which means that as soon as it comes into play you have to declare exactly what it has.

exactly. So its not possible with all models out there to get them WYSISYG. And YAK its not deception. If i dont have to tell you who the demon host is why do i then have to show you he has demonic chains, I think its enough that its written and i have told you that one of my asps have demonic chains. People talk alot of crap about playing in the spirit of the game but cant seem to get there head out the rule book and just quote from it like its there personal bible. well is it in the spirit of the game to argue over little items of wargear? No i thought not, poeple dont generall argue over grenades or Nid upgrades as long as the person tell you before hand. Same goes for the chains. you can say one has chains but i cant tell you who as he is my demon vessel. how many people would have a problem with that? Maybe a few weird individuals that just play the rules and not the game.

Posted By beef on 09/23/2006 5:19 AM

*slaughters the English language*

I almost responded by asking, "Did you read Yak's post?"  But I think this will be a far more effective method of expressing my feelings towards the target audience.  (Allow me to break the fourth wall: Beef, that's you.)

Posted By beef on 09/22/2006 4:32 AM
Its not deception, Remeber you dont have to tell your opponent whats in your army.

Not true.

You are supposed to tell your opponant what is in your army, through the models themselves.

WYSIWYG means that your opponant is supposed to be told, visually, what is in your army.

If your army is not WYSIWYG, for whatever reason, then you have denoed your opponant something to which he in entitled, which is, the ability to look at your army and know what he is facing.

It is therefore, the obligation of any non-WYSIWYG player, to make up that inequality and tell his opponant about anything that is not WYSIWYG.

Posted By beef on 09/23/2006 5:19 AM
 I think its enough that its written and i have told you that one of my asps have demonic chains.

Since when is it acceptable to disregard a rule just because you think it's good enough to do it another way?

I mean, if your opponant gives his consent, you can do it another way.  Most players will give their consent to breaking WYSIWYG so long as you disclose what is what, but breaking WYSIWYG AND refusing to disclose...what opponant is going to consent to that?

Anyway, I don't see why you're arguing such a ridiculous position in the first place.  Your position is not backed up by the rules, is not backed up by the spirit of the rules, is not backed up by the general practices of most gamers, and is considered bad form by nearly everyone who hears it.

Just tell your opponant who has the chains and play the game.

Consider this:

Makes said chains special: blue paint or somesuch.

Yes, your opponent will be eager to know which aspiring champion is really a S10 monster ready to reuprt into his lines.

Also, consider the Chaos player: does he really want his suprise to be known and shot dead before it has a chance to do its thing?

I don't have a copy on me, but I used to play Chaos: doens't the codex state something to the effect of you have to note which model is possessed, but you don't have to tell the opponent?

So, makes the chains special, but they don't have to be a neon "DAEMON HOEST IS HERE" sign.

Look, its this simple. If you take Chains, your opponent MUST know. How he knows is up to you, either you make it clear by modelling or you tell him. If you do not take chains then you do not have to say which Asp Champ is the host.

When i say you dont have to tell your opponent what in your list i wwas refering to the fact you dont have to show your army lists. I did say things should beWYSIWYG but not all things are. If i make a Nid upgrade like adreniline gland and model it, would a non Nid player know what it is?? if they dont then by most peoples reasoning of "well its WYSIWYG" then i hAVE DONE MY PART. Not all upgrades make sence to all players, Non nid players wont know what they are looking at, just like Nid players wont know what they are looking at in a IG army if the lHQ has a refractor field etc. And ssing as we dont have to disclose our army list/rosters then how the hell are you supposed to know what the upgrades or items are if you dont know what your looking for. there fore is it not easier to just tell your opponent that you have certain upgrades?? I think it would be easier just as it would be eiser to tell your opponenet your asp has chains and the underneethe of said model is marked clearly so he does not cheat. Most people would think that is fine. I have had no problem with thats in all the years i have played 40k and in all the different places and stores. There is a big difference between what the rules are and how peolple play the game. Thats were the spirit of the games shows.

I don't quite see what the 'nids have to do with this. At least on the 3rd edition models, they told you exactly what each biomorph was. In practice, I'd guess most people didn't care if the biomorphs were right on their opponent's models. That doesn't mean you shouldn't model them.

Beef, I'm sure you realize that there's a difference between your opponent knowing there's a piece of wargear somewhere in your army, and knowing who has it exactly. I don't see what it matters if your opponent doesn't know what demonchains are. Do you give your opponent a quiz before you choose a model for your demonhost? If you were playing with a complete newbie would you go non-WYSIWYG for your heavy weapons, since he wouldn't know the difference anyway?

You're right -- normally you don't have to show your opponent who the demonhost is. Giving away where your demonhost is at is the one big disadvantage of taking wargear that can only be taken by a demonhost. I know you just want to ignore that disadvantage, but that's not the way it's supposed to work.

Eh, just model it then. The best part of Chaos is that you dont have to tell people about the daemons. The only outward sign of a daemon summoning or host is the icons or the chains. Is it that hard to put something that looks like it is binding a daemon?

Im tempted just to model the items in question and never tell the opponent. Playing certain armies can be about deception AND have said deception be about sportsmanship and being a part of the army. Give all squads of marines in the army an icon bearer. Give the lord a huge arse weapon that is his icon for summoning. Put a marine, with a Mr. T style chaiin on and suddenly you have daemonic chains.

The surprise of the daemons is part of the flavor of playing Chaos. Heck it doesnt state anywhere that the aspiring champion looks any different from a normal CSM. It is lame to have game altering wargear that is not modelled.

I know a player at a local shop we affectionately refer to as "Dunk". He looks like he dunks his models. He also says all the bolt pistols are actuallty plasma. He states all this AT THE BEGINNING AFTER PLACEMENT. Yeah, WYSIWYG is important. I hate that player because he takes casual "friendly" playing and abuses it. Im willing to be adjustable with your army if you want to try something new but pulling crap like that is inexcusable. I bet the little b__t_rd didnt even try to recalculate it. WYSIWYG helps people not cheating. If you cant read another list atleast follow the rules closer.

Beef, the bottomline is that Daemonic Chains has to be modeled in a way where the opponent knows what they are. Modeling a plethora of chains on all you champions doesn't make that very clear. In fact, you are almost back to square one. All of them look the same...so which one actually has the chains? Since only the host can take them, then chains should really only be on him if you are playing WYSIWYG fair. Besides the shell game really doesn't work in 40k...so give it up already. Most tournaments I have played nobody has ever tried to pull that gak. It really isn't that game breaking to know what model has chains.

Capt K

Worse case of WYSIWYG abuse I've experienced is I was playing the manager at one of the Battle Bunkers. He kept on telling me that everything in the Blood Angels army he was using was WYSIWYG until his commander hit my lines and his chainsword turned into a power weapon...

Well, technically his chainsword can be considered a power weapon, but honestly, that is way lame, he should have told you.

EDIT:
I think I should qualify that above statement.  I think it is deceitful modeling, in a way that he used a chainsword, which is generally NOT a power weapon model, instead of using an actual power weapon bit which is very easy to find.  This is a case of deceit by not telling the trust.

I think one of the few times I have ever seen it said you can represent a with b is in the chaos codex that said just because it says the daemon weapon is an axe, it doesnt necessarily need to be modelled that way. Have fun with it.

Then again I would assume people would be told that it is a daemon weapon.

The only time it really is a problem is when there are no specific bits for certain pieces of wargear. For example, adamntine mantle? There is no bit for that so you just need a cape somehow (green stuff and what not). There are other items that don't have bits, the problem arises with what to do about these?

The answer is very simple, say what x thing does. If you make a custom bit, for example, taking a multi-laser and making them into assault cannons (with a good blade and some nice glue you can actually make it look really good), things like this should be clearly told to your opponent. Simple as that.

If you don't take wargear you don't have to identify specific characters. BUt situations where a piece of wargear turns into something else, thats a problem, chainsword power weapons and so forth.

In the end, openess and honesty are the critical aspect of playing this game, if you don't have either, then you need to give it up.

The chainsword turning into a power wepon, well you should have seen that coming. who take a BA HQ without a power weapon?? Unless it Tycho.

This has got to be one of the longest YMTC posts...

Posted By Mephet'ran on 10/01/2006 7:36 AM
This has got to be one of the longest YMTC posts...

Then you don't remember the "Can Furiosos drop pod?  And are they even dreadnoughts?" post.

Nope, guess I must have missed that one. Pity, sounds like it was a good fla..uhhh..discussion...

If one really wants to prevent their opponent from knowing which model has chains, pay for chains on all of your champions. Sure its expensive, but the upgrade does not state it is exclusive for only the host.

My codex says, "they may only be used by a model designated to be the vessel for a Greater Daemon."  I had assumed that meant you couldn't buy them for other models.

Is there a distinction to be made between who can purchase a piece of wargear and who can use it?  (Nevermind.  I don't really want to know.)

I guess your Codex is a newer version than mine then.

who cares anymore. . .