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.

darkcloud92 wrote:See that's what I am saying. How is their confusion if you tell them before hand and you have the list printed out with the model mark for the specific upgrades/wargear? That should prevent something crazy like your marine sergeant turning into the Emperor of Mankind

Beceause on the middle of a game, your opponent may forget that the Sgt has a power fist and try and tank shock his unit, the tyranid warriors he's been avoiding actually have wings, or the model that comes out of nowehere to fix your necromancy is actually a tomb spyder. Unless you are reminding.someone constantly, ot is easy to lose track of specific models while playing, hence the courtesy of fairly representing what you are fielding.

It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

To play devil's advocate, yes it is.

I put effort into my personal appearence, is it too much to ask the same from others? Yes, it is.

Unless it is a rule, guidlines are just that, guidelines. It is a courtesy, one that I partake in, and hope that others do as well. They are free to not partake, and I am free to choose to not deal with them if I wish, just as you are. But neither of us are allowed to outright ask of them to do so, and if we were to, we're openning ourselves up to their response, and must be ok with both receiving their response as well as respecting their decision. Just as they must be of ours. That can be too much though, as simply asking can instantly imply wrong doing, which puts the person asked at a disadvantage and on the defensive in their mind, as they fend off a perceived attack against their beliefs. This should be avoided, unless what they are doing is dangerous or harmfull to either themselves or especially others, as safety is everyone's responsibility.

What we can and should do, is hope that others show common coutesy and follow generally accepted guidlines.









Please do not take anythin I said to heart or personally, I'm just playing point counterpoint.

Of course.

Effort is obviously subjective. I have a reasonable stance that if you at least tried its ok. I tolerate, by my standard, sloppy paint jobs because not everyone has the ability to paint well. I'm only so-so myself. However the point is that you at least painted them. And I can understand unpainted models, people have lives of their own. However I would expect progress to be made if and when you did have time, like over Summer.

SDFarsight wrote:I think there's a balance to be struck- try to make your army represent your list so that it doesn't turn into a game of 'guess the model' for both you and your opponent, but to expect 100% WYSIWYG out of "courtesy" is pompous. I assume that the person has the chance to at least do some research into magnetising rather than "look at that oik who hasn't even bothered to put Flatchette Dischargers onto his Hammerhead, the utter nerve of him!! To come infront of I, presuming that I would- HA! Actually play a match with him and his peasant models..."

I would respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure what point you think you're making.

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

This is one of the problems with the environment of 40k, over pompous pricks that expect things out of courtesy from their opponents and who try to enforce them on other players. For tournaments its different. Its a higher level, playing with rules in order to prevent cheating and to make it more standard and official.
But for someone to post you SHOULD have wysiwyg, or you SHOULD have a fully painted army to enjoy the same rights to playing like everyone else it over the top. I say feth you to that. (Not you personally grey templar lol). That is the same thing they are saying back to me. 40k is about making the game your own for the sake of fun and playing the game, while building cool models. "I" payed for them so "I" get to decide what is aesthetically pleasing for my army, not you or anyone else. If I want my army to be painted a certain theme or have certain weapons represented by other bits b/c I think they look better, that is up to me. Just the same as you get to decide whether you want to play with my army or not. I understand if it is your "opinion" that wysiwyg should be enforced, or that good looking fully painted armies should be enforced, perfectly reasonable. But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

insaniak wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:I think there's a balance to be struck- try to make your army represent your list so that it doesn't turn into a game of 'guess the model' for both you and your opponent, but to expect 100% WYSIWYG out of "courtesy" is pompous. I assume that the person has the chance to at least do some research into magnetising rather than "look at that oik who hasn't even bothered to put Flatchette Dischargers onto his Hammerhead, the utter nerve of him!! To come infront of I, presuming that I would- HA! Actually play a match with him and his peasant models..."

I would respond to this, but I'm not entirely sure what point you think you're making.

I think there's a balance to be struck........................................

Scambone wrote:so no sleeves are a pass. How about permanent 'counts-as' that are intended to represent things that I can't afford

Like I said, I have no problem with people trying out a proxy to see how it works and it can be used. I don't enjoy playing against people repeatedly using proxies because 'I can't afford it.'

If you can't buy it or convert your model to represent it acceptably, don't run it in your list until you can.

*Image*

would this be easily recognized as what it represents? It's not like it can be 'mistaken' for a storm bolter on the shooting turn. I know its not pretty but would this form of proxy be acceptable for continuous use?

If you're representing a Heavy Flamer and Chainfist, then yes this is WYSIWYG. There's no confusion here at all, it's not even a proxy.

darkcloud92 wrote: But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

I would suggest that you do the same. You just took a relatively inane post of one player's opinion and blew it all out of proportion with a rather insulting rant.

The fact that a player prefers to play WYSIWYG, or prefers to play against fully painted armies, or whatever else they may state as a preference in no way suggests that they are forcing that style of play on anyone else. The comment about it being a courtesy is based on the fact that making your army easier for your opponent to now what is what goes a long way towards making the game easier to play. That's really all there is to it.

So, please, take a step back and look at what is actually being said before you decide to wind up and insult people for not sharing your viewpoint on the game.

darkcloud92 wrote:See that's what I am saying. How is their confusion if you tell them before hand and you have the list printed out with the model mark for the specific upgrades/wargear? That should prevent something crazy like your marine sergeant turning into the Emperor of Mankind

I don't know a lot about Tau. So when you tell me that this model with these weapons actually has those weapons, and the stats are XYZ, and then that model with those weapons is actually carrying these weapons, and the stats are ABC, and then this other model with these other weapons is actually carrying these OTHER weapons with stats 123...

I'm going to be confused. When I'm making decisions in my turn about what to target, where to move my units and why, I want to have a rough handle on the capabilities of my enemy. WIth something like non-wysiwyg battle-suits I'm going to be constantly referring to your list and cross-referencing models to uderstand whats going on. I can do that, but why should I have to?

Just make them wysiwyg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ulthanashville wrote:If you and your buddies refuse to play them because a couple of models don't match their list, then not only are you a jerk but you've potentially cost GW a life-long customer.

No one should refuse to play him, but he should have the etiquette explained to him. If he has glued missile launchers into his squad and he wants lascannons, then tough. He'll have to just use the missile launchers.

This, IMO, is an important lesson for all gamers: You should just take what you like and what looks cool, and not stress about whats the 'best'. Who cares if you haven't glued the 'best' weapons to your model? Just go with what you have and enjoy the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oppressor wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:It also looks better, and I want to play against visually appealing armies.

I put the effort into my army, is it too much to ask the same from you?

To play devil's advocate, yes it is.

I put effort into my personal appearence, is it too much to ask the same from others? Yes, it is

You're only reading part of the equation.

If I put effort into my army, I expect my opponent to do the same, and if he does not I am less likely to engage in a game with him.

Just the same as, I put effort into my appearance, and I expect others to do the same, and I am less likely to engage in social interaction with people that don't.

People can dress however they want, and paint their armies however they want, but I don't have to like it and I don't have to play them, and I'm certainly allowed to post on forums telling them what I think of them and their 'peasant' models.

insaniak wrote:

darkcloud92 wrote: But don't make it something it isn't, it is nothing more than an opinion.

I would suggest that you do the same. You just took a relatively inane post of one player's opinion and blew it all out of proportion with a rather insulting rant.

The fact that a player prefers to play WYSIWYG, or prefers to play against fully painted armies, or whatever else they may state as a preference in no way suggests that they are forcing that style of play on anyone else. The comment about it being a courtesy is based on the fact that making your army easier for your opponent to now what is what goes a long way towards making the game easier to play. That's really all there is to it.

So, please, take a step back and look at what is actually being said before you decide to wind up and insult people for not sharing your viewpoint on the game.

I would suggest you read my whole post. I clearly said I wasn't referring to grey knight directly lol

I just realized, that, my Tournament army is going to need a bit of an overhaul, since, getting 10 combi meltas on my Sternguard Vets is going to be a pain. Any suggestions?

This is a little off topic but somewhat relevant so bear with me.

In my opinion, the main problem with WYSIWYG in 40k is that the current wargear rules create a “conundrum” type scenario when one has to represent specific wargear upgrades in order to play at the cost of wasting a lot of time and money on the modelling the “wrong” wargear choice (especially when the current meta and level of codex creep can make this a very difficult choice). Alternatively it is an extreme hassle to build additional models or magnetize alternate wargear choices (which is why I usually opt for building all comers lists). Additionally most kits don’t come with adequate enough bits to represent all the wargear options which in turn forces players to buy additional kits or third party products.

It is interesting that 40k is the only game that I am aware of where WYSIWYG is such a big issue largely because the rules are incredibly reliant on representing the specific wargear choices. There’s seriously no alternative process IMO considering the ramifications on the competitive scene if “large scale” proxying was allowed.

Personally I kinda wish that more ranged weapons had alternate firing modes/special ammunition (e.g. Missile launcher, Blastmaster etc) which would make the process of selection ranged weaponry less punishing.

Combi-meltas are a fairly easy conversion. there are tons of videos on Youtube on how to turn standard bolters into combi-weapons.


I made mine by taking a regular bolter and a Multi-melta(1 MM makes 2 combi-bolters)

Take one of the little fuel tanks and one of the front barrels. glue the barrel on just above the bolter's barrel(clip the little stick thingy just above it to get the flat surface)

the fuel tank can be placed anywhere convienient on the bolter.

bam, you got a fairly easy combi-melta.

Anyone who has bought Devestator squads should have a few Multi-meltas around(I don't remember if the Tac squads come with one)

The problem is I dont have any meltas/combi meltas laying around. I haven't bought Devastators because they are not competitive, unfortunately, and Missile Launchers are a strong (and come with Tactical Marines) heavy weapon.

I wouldn't refuse to play with a proxy army, but I think part of the idea is also that you have to commit. Yeah, if you wasted all your points on a lascannon in a tac squad, you have to fit that into your list. Its kinda lame to say 'oh I need to drop 15 points... uh, that's a missile launcher now'. As a guy who can't resist putting all the upgrades possible on my sergeants, I know the pain of having to squeeze them into points limits, but I don't go around pretending I didn't give them plasma pistols, power swords, and melta bombs. That was my fault and I'll live with it.
The opinion that its presumptuous to prefer wysiwyg is presumptuous Its just a preference, we'll still let you play with your goofy models (see my prior post w/pics before taking offense to *me* calling *your* models goofy).

candy.man wrote:It is interesting that 40k is the only game that I am aware of where WYSIWYG is such a big issue largely because the rules are incredibly reliant on representing the specific wargear choices.

It's not.

When I played FoW, I'd be annoyed if that Panzer I was actually a Tiger, or if that Ha-Go was actually a Panzer IV.
I'm pretty sure Warmachine has similar issues (but I don't play it so I can't say for sure).

There's just more options in 40k, and lots of codexes having lots of options, so it's harder to remember each little "change" from what's visible.

Indeed, FoW has WYSIWYG as a rule as well. its actually on the very first page of rules so actually has more of a legal requirement there then it does with GW.

IDK about Warmachine but I imagine they discuss it there too.

Scambone wrote:I wouldn't refuse to play with a proxy army, but I think part of the idea is also that you have to commit. Yeah, if you wasted all your points on a lascannon in a tac squad, you have to fit that into your list. Its kinda lame to say 'oh I need to drop 15 points... uh, that's a missile launcher now'. As a guy who can't resist putting all the upgrades possible on my sergeants, I know the pain of having to squeeze them into points limits, but I don't go around pretending I didn't give them plasma pistols, power swords, and melta bombs. That was my fault and I'll live with it.
The opinion that its presumptuous to prefer wysiwyg is presumptuous Its just a preference, we'll still let you play with your goofy models (see my prior post w/pics before taking offense to *me* calling *your* models goofy).

You mean when you've glued the weapon onto the model and then regret it? As otherwise it sounds like you're changing your list only minutes before the game starts.

Being a Tau player most of my weapons options are either on suits where it's relatively easy to blu-tac or (much cleaner) magnetise them, or Hammerhead/Devilish options where I just change the turret or drone. The most proxying I've done is using Orks for Kroot.

There is a difference between Count's As and Proxy.


Orks would be an ok Count's As for Kroot. You could say your Cadre has bribed some orks with some nice fancy shootas to fight for them.

Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference between Count's As and Proxy.


Orks would be an ok Count's As for Kroot. You could say your Cadre has bribed some orks with some nice fancy shootas to fight for them.

I'm glad for that, though it's really because they're the only massed infantry I had who weren't more Fire Warriors (I've built a couple of Kroot units now, though); and because Orks and Kroot are both lightly armoured CC infantry.

Having a metaphorical 'weapon rack' for my Crisis suits is actually part of the fun when building list-after-list, keeping dynamic. The problem comes when you're working with models which aren't so easy to tac/magnetise.

As deathwing I've had my fair share of pulling arms off models and gluing new ones on. It's an annoying pain in the rear but having the correct wargear on a model saves a lot of time and mental energy in a game. It just makes it easier on you and your opponent.

I have done proxies before though when testing things out. It's best to try and make things as clear as possible though. All the guys with green paint have plasma guns and red paint are melta guns for example.

If an opponent didn't want to play me because of that though I certainly wouldn't hold it against them. Who you want to play against is your choice and it's nothing to get bummed out over.

There's also a fine line here, which I think is a much more interesting direction to discuss. Full weapon swapping is obviously a problem for most people because visual misrepresentation causes confusion, but at the same time no one expects tesseract labyrinths or teleport homers or black sun filters to be represented.
Somewhere in between there is something like a combi weapon or melta bombs where you can put the melta nozzle on a bolter with maybe some guitar wire or a fuel can sticking off it someplace, are you absolutely required to call that a combi melta for every game without swapping arms, or can it just be a bolter with some flare some games? Is just painting a frag grenade red enough for it to count as a melta bomb? Doesn't everyone shave points to make lists fit by dropping or picking up those kinds of little things?
Where is the line of having your opponent look at the army list before game and see 'oh that dude has a melta bomb, better watch out for him getting near vehicles' and 'oh he's not running that banner as a chapter banner this game it's just a visual banner' and having an unreasonable model misrepresentation for you guys?

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed, FoW has WYSIWYG as a rule as well. its actually on the very first page of rules so actually has more of a legal requirement there then it does with GW.

IDK about Warmachine but I imagine they discuss it there too.

Additionally, pretty much any of the various collectible miniatures games require you to use the correct model.

I don't recall if Warmachine has it as a rule, but at least back when I was playing most units didn't really have options... It was just assumed that you would be using the correct models. Which seems to be more or less the standard for most games.

WYSIWYG most certainly isn't exclusive to GW games. It's just the fact that they allow for a lot more options makes it more problematic to make it stick, since a lot of players like to switch around their lists on a frequent basis.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm pretty sure Warmachine has similar issues (but I don't play it so I can't say for sure)

WYSIWYG is less of an issue in Warmachine because the wargear rules are less complex. There’s no standardised/pre-established weaponry (such as melta, plasma, flamer etc) and instead things are balanced on a unit level. You can’t extensively customise the wargear of squads the same way as 40k as well. All you can do with Squads in Warmachine is purchase a larger squad or add a unit attachment (usually an officer, standard bearer or special weapons guy).

In regards to Warjacks specifically, most Warjacks have 2-3 variant models (each with a specific weapons load out) and Plastic Warjacks kits normally come with all the options to represent the variant models. Considering most lists would only have a very small handful of warjacks, the odd proxy in a non competitive setting is less of an issue.

The conversion rules for Warmachine are a little interesting. As long as the converted model is made of at least 60% of the original model and is equipped with similar weaponry (e.g. pistol and melee weapon) it is allowed.

Now for stuff like SM and other places with guns, I can see this hold up quite well but how about things like chaos daemons?

If I had wings on a model that is somewhat angelic looking and had tattered angel wings with various wounds/ragged appearance being called a daemon prince I think most friendly games would think that would be decently cool.

If I suddenly showed up to a tourny, would I then rip off the wings and now the model doesn't make any sense as a fallen angel since I didn't pay for wings? How do I show things like bolt of breath upgrades? Do I need a harp to represent pavane somewhere on there? What do you do to show iron hide? Drawing marks or could I just have them hold a banner?

My seekers are actually all fantasy chaos knights, my chariot has horses pulling it, my fiends are forest spider goblins with parts of daemonettes on top. My spawn are actually from an anime series action figure that's kind of close to the same size as the spawn. Almost the whole thing outside of fateweaver, bloodcrushers, and plaguebeares are count as. I got 3 daemon princesses running around.

Specifically for daemons, I think there can be alot of leeway on what's counting as what.

I find it amusing that the tournaments at my FLGS don't really care for WYSIWYG. They won't always condone proxies if they see a steady effort from you, but for the most part it seems to go unnoticed and no one seems to really care. Its odd in my opinion since I've been playing casually until now and I've always been all about not using proxies.

Ok, so, for a Tournament, would all my Sternguard need to be toting Combi-Meltas (since, they are already built and painted, ruining their paint job would be a damn shame to get those little bits on) or, if I brought spare Army Lists, and gave it to my opponent, would it be fine as long as i had one or two in the squad to represent that I had it them?

I'd hate to destroy perfectly good multi meltas and such, and to ruin perfectly good paint jobs for it.

Crazyterran wrote:Ok, so, for a Tournament, would all my Sternguard need to be toting Combi-Meltas (since, they are already built and painted, ruining their paint job would be a damn shame to get those little bits on) or, if I brought spare Army Lists, and gave it to my opponent, would it be fine as long as i had one or two in the squad to represent that I had it them?

I'd hate to destroy perfectly good multi meltas and such, and to ruin perfectly good paint jobs for it.

I'd be dissapointed if they didn't have actual combi-meltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazyterran wrote: I haven't bought Devastators because they are not competitive

Says who? Devastators are awesome!

You will need to actually model combi-meltas for any guys who are equipped with them, in most tournaments. There are tournaments out there which don't require WYSIWYG, but they tend to be small local ones.