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.

So, I'm finally starting to get my models back to presentable standards and play some pickup games at my local store. I've never really been too concerned with WYSIWYG, though I've always disclosed this to my opponents, but I don't really know how much it's expected and encouraged.

So, Dakka, what's your policy on WYSIWYG from your opponents?

Lets have some fun.

The more non-wysiwyg you are, the less fun I'm going to have in a game with you. But it takes a substantial break (popcans as tanks!) to make it unfun. However, there are many different aspects of you that impact "fun" - a more fun person with a less wysywig army is more likely to be fun to play against than "that guy" but with full wysywig.

There's a wide variety of what is "WYSIWYG". There are people who model/paint units such that they can be fielded as multiple completely different units but with similar wargear. There are people who paint or model every single honor or wargear piece. It goes all over.

I have squad numbers on the right sholderpad of my Marines. Each of my Aspect squads is a different Shrine and is painted appropriately. If I swap a squaddie between the two, am I suddenly not-WYSIWYG?

Is a looted Carnifex WYSIWYG (I'd say yes)?

It's a complicated question.

Bharring wrote:

There's a wide variety of what is "WYSIWYG". There are people who model/paint units such that they can be fielded as multiple completely different units but with similar wargear. There are people who paint or model every single honor or wargear piece. It goes all over.

I have squad numbers on the right sholderpad of my Marines. Each of my Aspect squads is a different Shrine and is painted appropriately. If I swap a squaddie between the two, am I suddenly not-WYSIWYG?

Is a looted Carnifex WYSIWYG (I'd say yes)?

It's a complicated question.

That's a very good point. I was aiming more towards wargear options, but that's definitely something to be aware of.
In that sense, I converted a used Ork Warboss into a DE Grotesque, because who honestly buys the awful ones from GW. Does its approximately correct (Modified Power Klaw = Flesh gauntlet, Talos Macro Scalpel = Monstrous Cleaver) gear count as WYSIWYG? Or would the model require the actual Flesh Gauntlet and Monstrous Cleaver bits?

Likewise, if you put a Commissar's power sword on a Space Marine Captain, is it still WYSIWYG?

This topic has a lot more nuance than I originally thought, it seems.

I'm not really strict on WYSIWYG nor are many people in my local gaming community. It's for sure very nice and respected, but no one really expects someone to go out of their way to spend a ton of extra money to get things just right for their squad to be as effective as they want when in a few months that loadout could be nerfed into the ground.

Now of course it has to be on reasonable levels which of course will vary, but by in large it's pretty self explanatory for most people. Uniformity is key to making proxies work in my experience.
A good examples of this is:
"Every single one of my deathwatch veterans has a storm bolter storm shield across the board except the ones with heavy weapons. Those are all frag cannons."

This is clear and uniform. I don't need to keep track of each and every individual proxy and I know that they are all set up a certain way.

A bad example of this is:
Hey this squad of Deathwatch marines is all storm bolter storm shields, but this squad is a mix of storm bolter and combi plasma, and this squad of veterans is actually a primaris intercessors squad. That land raider crusader is actually a land raider redeemer, and that standard land raider is a crusader. This primaris Lt. is actually a librarian and this librarian is a librain, but that captain over there is a watch master.

This is bad because it's a lot to keep track of and can lead to confusing moments of "I thought you said THIS unit was the combi plasma unit?" which of course can lead to conflict which is not what we want.

As for army painting there are a number of people who take that very seriously and expect your ultramarines to be played as ultramarines without exception or if your custom chapter uses the ultramarine tactic for one game it always needs to use their tactics. I am not one of them and only know of one guy at my club like that, but even he does not enforce that on his opponents. As long as say all of your ultramarines are using deathwatch rules then it's not going to be a gameplay issue because it's again very uniform and easy to keep track of. The only issue is when you mix and match between different subfactions all under the same or none uniform color scheme.

That Grot sounds like an alternate model/kitbash, which would be WYSIWYG to me.

If I ever did Haemy Covens or Demons, I'd need to do a lot of kitabashing. One of each sculpt is cool. Two identical Demon Princes? The idea is that they're a unique, unknowable, upredictable eldritch horror. But each one is the same?

The same goes for two Haemy constructs. Each one should look different. I'd rather see more conversions of them than duplicated official models.

I put a lot of effort into my 15 Harlequin Troupers, to ensure no two models look the same. One doesn't have a pistol (he's using one hand to spring off a rock during a flip) - that's technically not WYSIWYG, but as long as I play it as "stock equipment" in a unit with others who *do* have the pistols, it's WYSIWYG-enough - most people I know would rather see that model than one *with* a pistol.

I voted 'Other'.

For me, the main thing is that the actual weapons on units are WYSIWYG. Also your models should be a good faith representations of that particular unit. That means that I'm ok with kit bashed models but they need to reliably represent the model that they are suppose to replace. Also, if you have a character that is supposed to be on a bike/mount/jetpack...they need the bike/mount/jetpack.

Some terms to be familiar with:
-Kitbash - using different parts to make the same model
-Alternate Sculpt - using a nonstandard model that represents the same model
-Counts-As - using a model for something else, as something else, but that something else uses the same rules (example: High Elf Lord on a Lizardman Ankleosaur as a Wraithlord, Looted Carnifex as an Ork tank)
-Proxy - using a model for something else as the target model (example "All my Deathwatch are Orkz this game).

All these can apply to models or wargear.

Note that Alternate Sculpts, Kitbashes, and Counts-As are not Proxies. Only Proxies (models or wargear) are considered not to be WYSIWYG-compliant, in my experience.

My general view on WYSIWYG

1) Where models are not official models they should be distinctive from the rest of the army. Ergo each different unit should look different from each other so that, at a glance, an opponent can tell which unit is different from the other - ideally able to basically identify each unit for what it is.

2) For specific models they should have their weapons modelled accurately for what they are in the army list.

3) Upgrades/biomorphs/powers etc... do NOT have to be modelled. Furthermore even if they are provided in the box they are more optional decorations than required/specific upgrade parts for the model.

This view is basically a practical application of WYSIWYG. Within Warhammer a lot of units have upgrades that can vary in power and in points cost, but often are only a few points each. Whilst these do have an effect in the game it is purely impractical to expect gamers to model units with them accurately.


Take the humble Tyranid Gaunt. It can take three upgrades - extended carapace, toxin sacs and adrenal glands. That's 3 different upgrades for a total of at least 8 combinations of being equipped. We've not touched a weapon and already there are 8 different ways to build the model and equip it with upgrades.

As the upgrades only tweak stats whilst the weapon defines a role (a devourer is vastly different to spinefists); its far more practical to require modelled weapons and not upgrades; otherwise you're requiring your opponent to either only use one variation of their army or to buy, built and paint an insane number of models just to have upgrade variety.

Finally most of these upgrades are invisible. Grenades on a marine; seals on a marine; extra bits of carapace on a tyranid etc... Most are invisible upgrades that won't be seen at 1ft away or so during a game. Weapons and unit types are far bigger and more overt.




So there you have it - in general unit type and weapon choices are critical and the cornerstone of WYSIWYG; whilst upgrade parts are purely optional even if they are included on the sprue (many are not and some can't even be represented as they might be internal upgrades or such)

I try to be as close as possible, as that was the game I was brought up on. "All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" was a mantra that was drilled into us.

Now, all I ask of my opponent is consistency. Wanna use all them Meltas as Plasmas? Be my guest (though personally I would never do this myself). Mix them up and then we have problems as you're veering into TFG territory there...

Which is why I'm always wary of lack of WYSIWYG; that, with the grey horde is a sure sign you may be in for a terrible game. Now, I know what inevitable retorts are going to come from this, but this is my experience. This is the standards of playing I was raised on, with WYSIWYG being expected and those not conforming to it to be shunned. Fighting a pair of legs and finding out it has a power fist is not fun.

Now, we also have the tangent of "counts as". I love counts as. It is such a magical rule that you can bypass WYSIWYG a little with rule of cool. Want that massive 2-handed axe to be a power fist? Counts as has got you covered, fam. I have a LoC with a massive bell that counts as a Plaguereaper, is it WYSIWYG? Hell no, but it's covered nicely by counts as.

What if I told you there was a way to cut down on arguments and to make the game more immersive and increase you and your opponent’s satisfaction in playing?

What is it you ask?

WYSIWYG.

Dont really care about wargear, as long as theres SOMETHING to differentiate the plasma gun guy from a regular lasgun guardsman (other special weapon or something), though I would expect the model to be the actual model. Tac Marine is a Tac Marine, not a Terminator/Aggressor. That said in a tourney or something I understand its all WYSIWYG, which makes sense.

How many times have we had this discussion on Dakka now?

As stated before: Consistency is key. All plasmas are meltas? Sure. Two of the five identical plasmas are meltas? Yeah, no. Unless you put a piece of tape or something on the ones that are not WYSIWYG.
Also, being clear with what's not wysiwyg before the battle starts is as important. And maybe being a little "too clear" a couple of times during the battle, just to remind your opponent (and yourself). Like:"And I'll move this plasma squad with the proxied meltas 6" this way".

One of my armies is Custodes. The cheapest model is over 40p and the only additional wargear we can slap on is a dagger (Misericordia) for 4p. So if I have -let's say 20p to spare, I can have 5 models with a dagger. If I can't equip a whole unit with them, I'm just gonna forfeit those point, because I can't be bothered to actually magnetize all my models so they MIGHT take a Misericordia some day.

Frequently, and it'll continue to pop up (either out of boredom or somebody had an argument at their FLGS and is using this as backing for said argument).

Personally I only play strict WYSIWYG (outside of people like BCB who will be here shortly to invent a new way of viewing it and push his 'special' nature, etc.). It's a matter of respect for my opponent.

As long as it is reasonably recognizable and doesn't change mid-game I'm pretty flexible on WSYIWIG. I myself adhere to it because I value the hobby side but I try not to put that same expectation on everyone.

I seriously don't care, so long as non-WYSIWYG isn't being used as an opportunity to take the piss.

If all your Flamers are actually Plasma Guns, I'm good. If that Flamer is a Plasma Gun, that one is a Melta Gun and that other one is actually a Flamer, then I award you no points and may Slaanesh have mercy on your soul.

I always try to be 100% WYSIWYG. Exceptions are when I'm trying list for big tournaments or being a "sparring" opponent to a friend that is gonna go to tournaments, to make my lists more competitive with units or options that I don't have.

But outside of that I'll always go WYSIWYG. I prefer if others do the same, the most the better because it keeps thing less confusing.

Yep I'm currently 100% WYSIWYG and I prefer playing others that are too. To be honest, most people I play are WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG is asinine when optimal builds change from edition to edition. It just needs to be made simple so your opponents know what everything is.

If I have a unit of tyrranid warriors that are built with all kinds of melle options but I say they all have boneswords - there is no problem with that. I wouldn't both playing with anyone that disputed this.

As long as it's not confusing it's ok.

One cannot change models at every FAQ, unless magnets everywhere.

 Xenomancers wrote:
WYSIWYG is asinine when optimal builds change from edition to edition. It just needs to be made simple so your opponents know what everything is.

If I have a unit of tyrranid warriors that are built with all kinds of melle options but I say they all have boneswords - there is no problem with that. I wouldn't both playing with anyone that disputed this.

Tyranids actually suffer about the most with it because whilst many armies have a specialist model for a specific role - Tyranids grew up with multi-role models for warriors, carnies and hive tyrants. It's why many advocate the use of magnets for weapon arms for warriors and anything larger. Because edition changes and just general changes within your army composition are so much easier when you can just swap the arms over instead of having to proxy all the time or buy more models (in excess of the point where its fun to buy more of course).

Others will run a core of magnet units backed up with fixed arm ones so that they've got the best of both worlds .

 Xenomancers wrote:
WYSIWYG is asinine when optimal builds change from edition to edition. It just needs to be made simple so your opponents know what everything is.

If I have a unit of tyrranid warriors that are built with all kinds of melle options but I say they all have boneswords - there is no problem with that. I wouldn't both playing with anyone that disputed this.

Because god forbid you might not have the perfect optimal build at all times.

 Xenomancers wrote:
WYSIWYG is asinine when optimal builds change from edition to edition. It just needs to be made simple so your opponents know what everything is.

If I have a unit of tyrranid warriors that are built with all kinds of melle options but I say they all have boneswords - there is no problem with that. I wouldn't both playing with anyone that disputed this.

My 25 year old Berzerkers agree, I had like two in 30+ maybe modeled with Chainaxe/Chainsword...

Unfortunately - the difference between optimal and non optimal is great. ESP when sometimes the most expensive option is a lot worse than that build.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I seriously don't care, so long as non-WYSIWYG isn't being used as an opportunity to take the piss.

If all your Flamers are actually Plasma Guns, I'm good. If that Flamer is a Plasma Gun, that one is a Melta Gun and that other one is actually a Flamer, then I award you no points and may Slaanesh have mercy on your soul.

My feelings exactly. The only time I've ever gotten cranky about opponent's not being WYSIWYG is when fighting a bunch of grey legs on bases that kept seeming to change what they actually were. Just be consistent, be clear, and don't get shirty if I have to ask, 'and what were those guys again?'

As long as you make it very clear what I'm dealing with, I can tolerate it to a degree.

At a certain point, I expect you to actually get the stuff you need.

I couldn't give the least bit of a damn.


The thing for me is that, squinting at my opponent's army on the other side of the table, I can rarely tell what wargear an individual model has even when it's accurately represented.

I don't mind a little wandering from WYSIWYG. It really has only been an issue in a couple of skirmish games (Deadzone 2nd ed most notably) that I played outside the Games Workshop umbrella . Otherwise, I can't remember it being much of an issue in other miniautres.

With Citadel miniatures, I completely understand that they are often too expensive for a player to pick up another box (or three) to get the numbers of the particular special weapon they want to field. I am all for a player using count-as special weapons to save money.

I just would prefer that they keep things simple with count-as/proxies. Which usually isn't an issue, at least not in 8th edition. I most commonly see Kill Team Imperial Guard players counting meltas as plasmas or even all special weapons as plasmaguns for that sweet Guard plasma spam against my Chaos Space Marines. And I totally get it, I wouldn't want to buy much more than a box of Scions and maybe a Command Squad or something just to make a good IG kill team.

I can't say I haven't done count-as myself. In my first game of 40k in 8th, I wanted to keep the rules as simple as possible so all 30 my Chaos Space Marines only had bolters so I wouldn't have to check the rules for the other weapons (I hadn't played much of 7th ed when I started). I still couldn't make that army list today without dipping heavily into my Betrayal at Calth 30k marines.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. That's my position on it.

Consistency. That is all I ask.

Models are inherently representative. And that’s fine. A Lascannon is only a Lascannon because it’s called so. By the same extension, if you tell me, as your opponent, all the Lascannon are actually Missile Launchers, that’s fine and dandy with me. Visual representation still stands up.

But what I am most definitely not ok with is having to book keep. I cannot be bothered keeping track of which Lascannon is a Heavy Bolter, Missile Launcher, or actually a Lascannon. That’s putting too much onus on me, and is a Richard expectation from you.

Same with proxy models. Model X can represent Model Y for me with no problem. I only ask they be of roughly similar dimensions. But if Model X could be A, B, C or D? No, get to fornication.