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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A.T. wrote:
Never been sure of where to put the second stormbolter on to immolators and repressors without them looking odd - both have a single turret/pintle rather than the two hatches of the normal rhino.

yeah, for the life of my I can't figure out where the third gun on a Repressor goes.

One goes over each of the exit hatches; one on the left, one on the right, one at the back where the Icarus Stubber is located on GW's default image. (That space can mount the Stubber, a Storm Bolter, or the same Icarus Missile Pod that is an optional add-on for the Redemptor.)

The Newman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A.T. wrote:
Never been sure of where to put the second stormbolter on to immolators and repressors without them looking odd - both have a single turret/pintle rather than the two hatches of the normal rhino.

yeah, for the life of my I can't figure out where the third gun on a Repressor goes.

One goes over each of the exit hatches; one on the left, one on the right, one at the back where the Icarus Stubber is located on GW's default image. (That space can mount the Stubber, a Storm Bolter, or the same Icarus Missile Pod that is an optional add-on for the Redemptor.)

...you're thinking of the Repulsor - sorry, Repulsive - not the Repressor.

A quick look in the gallery gives us this as an example of a painted Repressor - I'd link to a Forge World product page for it, but it was discontinued a while back

This is a good question. For me it's some optional stuff of odd merit. Like, Space wolves, they came in 5th with bolter, pistol and chainsword/CCW. Then they lost the CCW, now they can take them again. So I model my grey hunters with bolters, maybe a bolter and a pistol or bolter and a chainsword, but I don't put the CCW on them all, or the grenades. I just don't know when it would change again and Honestly they is just cluttering up the model, the grenades, pistol, chainsword and bolter. I just model the blood claws with the pistol and CCW though honestly they could stand in with each other if need was there.

Also as others have said, additional storm bolters, HK missiles, etc. They just don't always get taken and I like those random bits off for ease of storage and if I don't have the extra points, I try to make it easy to keep track of if I take them. Aside from that I really try and be fully wysiwyg just because I don't want there to be confusion.

Oh and I may use say a vanquisher as a leman russ, as vanqs hardly ever see use, or an eradicator cannon on a Russ as a demolisher turret, I just think they look better and most don't even know all the Russ variant names let alone what each cannon looks like.

Oh and Crisis suit support systems, I try and be accurate with the guns but stuff like multi tracker, target lock, etc, no. I don't even remember what is what so it's just making sure they know and I remember on the list lol.

HMint wrote:
Genestealer scything talons.

Not only do I have over 60 genestealers from a time before these talons were even a thing and will surely not convert all these monopose models, but it makes absolutely no sense that they are optional at all.
'Do you want to take this extra weapon for free, no downsides'?
There is no reason to ever not have them and so there is no need to differentiate between models that have them and those that don't. Every model has them.

Interesting pick. I'm a stickler for WYSIWYG but with stealers the idea of modeling them all with talons isn't one I'm keen on; the classic, iconic genestealer has two hands and two rending claws. I give my acid maw stealers scything talons so they stand out, and the rest of the them simply don't have talons, in game or on the model. It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to be honest. A nid list with lots of genestealers shouldn't have much to fear from daemons

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
Carnifex, the options for the back plate didn't exist when the model came out, so people chose what looks best, and thus the look of each wargear option is forever optional.

Um, yes they did. Literally everything in that kit, even down to the heads was a separate biomorph option.

I think he means 5th ed, there was no options for different backs in the codex not the kit. Well they had 1 option, frag spines or no frag spines.

It says “when the kit came out” ie 4th ed. When it absolutely did.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

LoftyS wrote:
Carnifex, the options for the back plate didn't exist when the model came out, so people chose what looks best, and thus the look of each wargear option is forever optional.

Um, yes they did. Literally everything in that kit, even down to the heads was a separate biomorph option.

I think he means 5th ed, there was no options for different backs in the codex not the kit. Well they had 1 option, frag spines or no frag spines.

It says “when the kit came out” ie 4th ed. When it absolutely did.

I know the kit did and came out, but im saying i think he is miss remembering and meaning the 5th codex, no one cared what was on the back at the time.

Tau Crisis Suit's support systems.

Andykp wrote:
So del, just to be sure I’m getting this right, you like to model mixed squads but run them as other things, like 4 lascannons? I have no issue with that. Model them so they look cool but play them as other stuff. I’ve done it with my mek gunz, wanted a mix, so done one of each. Play them as whatever I fancy.

To these people saying devestator squads are “meant” be all one weapon. That’s rubbish. They were first created as a mixed bag of two missile launchers and two heavy bolters. That was the codex norm but they could be swapped out as mission saw fit. It wasn’t until 2nd edition where you could have all of the same four. So if they are “meant” to be anything then it is mixed. But really nowadays it’s a matter of opinion. I prefer mixed units but with the primaris I’m liking the whole squad the same thing.

Yup that's pretty much it.

Yeah I know, its only been the game that has made 4 of the same weapon a better or standard load it. Before 2nd and in the lore its always been a mixed squad. I could imagine if the army knew they were going up against just Imperial Knights then they'd all fit out lascannons etc. but even at that they would take melta's and missle-launchers.

I bought 3x boxes if scions to build a ten man squad and commander. The ten man squad has 4x plasma guns one of which is actually a melts gun. No one seems to mind but it bothers me

New Havocs. Havent had a problem yet.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So del, just to be sure I’m getting this right, you like to model mixed squads but run them as other things, like 4 lascannons? I have no issue with that. Model them so they look cool but play them as other stuff. I’ve done it with my mek gunz, wanted a mix, so done one of each. Play them as whatever I fancy.

To these people saying devestator squads are “meant” be all one weapon. That’s rubbish. They were first created as a mixed bag of two missile launchers and two heavy bolters. That was the codex norm but they could be swapped out as mission saw fit. It wasn’t until 2nd edition where you could have all of the same four. So if they are “meant” to be anything then it is mixed. But really nowadays it’s a matter of opinion. I prefer mixed units but with the primaris I’m liking the whole squad the same thing.

Yup that's pretty much it.

Yeah I know, its only been the game that has made 4 of the same weapon a better or standard load it. Before 2nd and in the lore its always been a mixed squad. I could imagine if the army knew they were going up against just Imperial Knights then they'd all fit out lascannons etc. but even at that they would take melta's and missle-launchers.

I’m normally a stickler for things as long as they have a narrative behind them but when it comes to stuff like this looking wins and then I don’t believe you should be stuck with the choices based on what looks good. If you can magnetise and all that then great. If not go with what you like. Only play primaris marines now so not an issue but do it with ORKS and admech. No real issues. Who is to say what my ORKS traktor Kanon looks like anyway!

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So del, just to be sure I’m getting this right, you like to model mixed squads but run them as other things, like 4 lascannons? I have no issue with that. Model them so they look cool but play them as other stuff. I’ve done it with my mek gunz, wanted a mix, so done one of each. Play them as whatever I fancy.

To these people saying devestator squads are “meant” be all one weapon. That’s rubbish. They were first created as a mixed bag of two missile launchers and two heavy bolters. That was the codex norm but they could be swapped out as mission saw fit. It wasn’t until 2nd edition where you could have all of the same four. So if they are “meant” to be anything then it is mixed. But really nowadays it’s a matter of opinion. I prefer mixed units but with the primaris I’m liking the whole squad the same thing.

Yup that's pretty much it.

Yeah I know, its only been the game that has made 4 of the same weapon a better or standard load it. Before 2nd and in the lore its always been a mixed squad. I could imagine if the army knew they were going up against just Imperial Knights then they'd all fit out lascannons etc. but even at that they would take melta's and missle-launchers.

I’m normally a stickler for things as long as they have a narrative behind them but when it comes to stuff like this looking wins and then I don’t believe you should be stuck with the choices based on what looks good. If you can magnetise and all that then great. If not go with what you like. Only play primaris marines now so not an issue but do it with ORKS and admech. No real issues. Who is to say what my ORKS traktor Kanon looks like anyway!

Yeah, remember the days of cardboard dreadnoughts and deff dredds lol.

Bharring wrote:
I would say Cherub, because feth that noise. Have you seen the model? Maybe I'll alt-model it with an ammo stash or something someday (which would be WYSIWYG, but I haven't done it yet).

However, I just play without a Cherub. Sure, it's certainly worth the points, but not taking one because I hate the model doesn't make my lists unplayable.

I just use Servo Skulls in place of the 3 Armorium Cherubs I would need, never had a single complaint so far.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


Yeah, remember the days of cardboard dreadnoughts and deff dredds lol.

Hey! You dissin’ my card Deff Dread? Still have it in my Dredd Mob, thank you very much!

:-)

Chain swords on space marine bikes.
The choice is not pistol OR chain sword, but a significant number of the models come with 2 bolt pistols (I have several Dark Vengeance boxes). Plus I have bikes from 2nd edition when I was a kid and modelled whatever looked cool.

I got caught a bit off guard in the opposite way, where I modeled some of my chaos models in a 'rule of cool' way, taking some liberty from the then default (and only) set of weapons.
Something like a marine shooting two pistols akimbo-style, or some converted berserkers with multiple close combat wepaons.

None of that stuff was possible at the time, they all had the same set of equipment always. So it was obviously just 'for the looks'.

And now some of those things suddenly became legal, meaning I have to put all that stuff into my army lists now to avoid confusion. -_-
Such is the problem with old armies I guess. Also the fact that every model HAD to have a pistol and a close combat weapon in order to be considered a good CC unit... and now all those pistols are worse than nothing, because firing them ususally means you kill the very model you are planning to charge. Do you all completely rip up such armies whenever a new edition rolls around?

I would think that those models modelled with pistol/ccw combination are still workable in 8th - chose not to shoot the pistol before charging, no removing models to lengthen charge range. If you are still in combat next turn, shoot the pistols for extra attacks in the Shooting phase.

Don’t worry about models built with the ‘rule of cool’ in mind. Only the worst sort would try to game an advantage from them.

I still have a load of kitbashed CSM models from back in 3rd edition when a close combat weapon was a close combat weapon (i.e. could be modelled as a chainsword, chainaxe, regular sword/axe/mace, big mutated claw, guardsman's severed leg, etc.) and a power weapon was a power weapon (i.e. axe/sword/mace/spear/flail/anything as long as it had a power pack/cable/was painted blue). I don't use them except as a source of spare parts for conversions nowadays, but that's because I'm embarassed at how badly they're painted, not because they're no longer strictly WYSIWYG. I don't think anyone should have a problem with all those random melee weapons counting as chainswords.

I'm all for WYSIWYG - my Ultramarines are all WYSIWYG and right now I'm running an all-Armiger WYSIWYG Renegade Knights list of 2 Warglaives and 2 Helverins too. At 1000 points I'll run another 2 Warglaives, but to stay within the points limit all the Warglaive meltas will have to count as heavy stubbers. If GW adjust the points again in the future I'll want to run the Warglaives with melatas and the Helverins with heavy stubbers as intended, so I shan't be cutting them off!

I pretty much refuse to wysiwyg anything. I do make differences in special models to show they are different. But I go rule of cool across the board.

As an example, my nid warriors have deathspitters and bone swords with every 3rd having the stranglethorn cannon and scytal.

I never use stranglethorn, I use venom in the rules and I rarely actually give any warrior bone swords. (they generally have scytal, If they do get boneswords though they ALL get boneswords). The venom canon bit is too big and looks goofy imo.

Necron Lychguard has one guy with the 1 hand scythe bit and a shield even though the other 4 have shields and swords. I both hate the holding the sword down bit and I like the idea of making a "leader" lychguard with a polearm.

Small Eldar and Tyranid upgrads. Some of them don't even come in some of the boxes so getting enough is hard enough already. Second, they just hurt the look of the model with stuff that was obviously glued on as these bits were never intended to slot anywhere.

Same kinda goes for Drukhari as they have so many adornaments that can be considered one thing or another on the vehicles.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Small Eldar and Tyranid upgrads. Some of them don't even come in some of the boxes so getting enough is hard enough already. Second, they just hurt the look of the model with stuff that was obviously glued on as these bits were never intended to slot anywhere.

Same kinda goes for Drukhari as they have so many adornaments that can be considered one thing or another on the vehicles.

I mean, I use "anything on the back" as phantasm grenade launchers for my drukhari (always say my opponent got spooked by the spooky skelingtons when the phantasm grenade is being fired by the trophy rack thing) but what other extraneous upgrades are there for drukhari?

Some of them literally have to have no bits (shock prow is an optional upgrade, but there's no way to build the model with it not having a pointy prow, so I don't know how you WYSIWYG that, and I challenge you to build a drukhari vehicle that wouldn't be WYSIWYG for "Grisly Trophies". I think similarly the Splinter Racks must be built on a raider to assemble the thing...)

Definitely agree on gakky nid upgrades tho. No I don't want to just slap a thing right onto the back or chest of one of my models or give my genestealer a fugly goiter chin, I'll just paint some green dripping out of his mouth and that's the acid maw thank you very much.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Small Eldar and Tyranid upgrads. Some of them don't even come in some of the boxes so getting enough is hard enough already. Second, they just hurt the look of the model with stuff that was obviously glued on as these bits were never intended to slot anywhere.

Same kinda goes for Drukhari as they have so many adornaments that can be considered one thing or another on the vehicles.

Some of them literally have to have no bits (shock prow is an optional upgrade, but there's no way to build the model with it not having a pointy prow, so I don't know how you WYSIWYG that, and I challenge you to build a drukhari vehicle that wouldn't be WYSIWYG for "Grisly Trophies". I think similarly the Splinter Racks must be built on a raider to assemble the thing....

The shock prow bit comes with the Ravager kit for whatever reason.

I'm pretty good with WYSIWYG when it comes to vehicle weapons, heavies, specials, etc. I've converted melta guns into plasma for my praetorians, I've cut apart leman russes, and I've lovingly added storm bolters to hellhounds. But... I refuse to cut off the bolt pistols on my officers for anything other than plasma pistols. I run them as laspistol, bolter, whatever. Could not be bothered.

I'm not going to Wysiwyg my 180 ork boyz all with slugga choppa when I want to use them as shoota boys.

Some of them literally have to have no bits (shock prow is an optional upgrade, but there's no way to build the model with it not having a pointy prow, so I don't know how you WYSIWYG that, and I challenge you to build a drukhari vehicle that wouldn't be WYSIWYG for "Grisly Trophies". I think similarly the Splinter Racks must be built on a raider to assemble the thing...)

The Drukhari problem is more that if I skip the upgrades the model will just look ugly and janky so I feel obligated to add them even if I am not using them. Grisly trophy, shock prow, and so on. If I skip them the raiders/Venoms will feel very empty indeed so I put them on even if I rarely have the points to buy those upgrades. I think the only exception is the Chain-Snares as I have found them exceptionally easy to magnetize without looking out of place.

Below is an example of a Ravager of mine. It has Shock Prow, Chain-snares, and grisly trophies even if these are 3 things I have no interest in running on my Ravager. I just have it because it gives the gunboat a more Drukhari-like feeling. In short, I'd rather go for rule of cool than not when assembling my Drukhari gunboats. Only exception is the weapons. I magnetize those and run them as WYSIWYG as I do want my opponents to know what the real threats of the gunboats are.

When I get to doing some GSC Metamorphs I'll just build the models to look gribbly and cool and when it comes to time to write the list just give them all the same weaopon option and make it clear to my opponents what they have.

mhalko1 wrote:
I'm not going to Wysiwyg my 180 ork boyz all with slugga choppa when I want to use them as shoota boys.

Shocked you would not magnetise 180 Boyz to let you swap out weapons - Bad! Bad!

:-)

The original Ork Buggy has a curious weapon design - could be interpreted as Shoota, flamer or rocket with a small amount of imagination.

If you're talking about the plastic one, or the metal that preceded it, I believe it was meant to be a multi melta.

My mistake, the original was the metal one - had the same MM as the Marine speeder, I think.The plastic kit's the one I was referring to. Its weapon looked part shoota, part flamer and if the rockets were considered inside the barrel bit, rockets as well. Not sure if it specified in the box, or in the rules, what it was designed as. Very flexible, though :-).