Advice on dealing non-WYSIWYG in major events

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.

**daedalus**

Coyotebreaks wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

It's a matter of drawing the line in the sand and saying enough is enough. You already have to remember to move each unit, shoot each unit, what enemy squads are in what vehicles, what turn it is, what the objectives for the scenario are (Adepticon at least always has a startling number of them per mission), potentially how many wounds are on characters if you're not marking them, how far squads were relative to each other last time you got to measure (can I move my terminators back a full 6 and fire, or can I only move them 5), the name of the chick you chatted up at the bar the night before, and so on.

Point is that you shouldn't HAVE to remember which one of the identical bolter marines has the combiweapon. You've got far too much going on otherwise.

**whitedragon**

Coyotebreaks wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

Monster Rain wrote:You really don't understand the difference between following the rules for certain wargear and using the wrong models for weapons?

You really don't understand the point he is trying to make? He is saying that there is a burden on the player to "remember" which combi-weapons have been fired just as if someone would have to remember what count as were in play during the game. He is saying it's odd that one is accepted while the other sometimes is not. Are you still having to remember a critical piece of information that could potentially affect the game?

Dashofpepper wrote:

BA: "Hold on, what are you doing? You only get one shot at them."
Eldar: "No, scatter lasers are four shots twin-linked."
BA: "Oh, right - sorry, I thought you were firing the lance at me, I forgot you had the scatter laser too."
Eldar: "Huh? No, I don't have bright lances. Those are scatter lasers."
BA: "What? I thought those were bright lances on top and your scatter lasers were the guns on the bottom under the cockpit?"
Eldar: "No, the bright lances are counting as scatter lasers, and the gun under the cockpit is a shuriken catapult."
BA: "Dude, I reserved my army because I saw that you had 8 twin-linked bright lances to shoot at me."
Eldar: "Dude, I'm sorry but I told you that I had scatter lasers."
BA: "Yeah, you did - I thought those were the guns under the cockpit because the ones on top are obviously bright lances."

So the Eldar player is winning their game because misinformation led to the BA player making tactical decisions based on that information. Not everyone knows your own codex as well as you do, and you cannot burden someone with the expectation that they can track counts as, proxying, etc - ESPECIALLY when large sums of money are on the line. That's why following the rules is CRITICAL.

How is this any different from the Marine player having multiple Sternguard squads with 10 combi-meltas? You could make the same argument in reverse that the Eldar player didn't advance towards a squad of sternguard because he didn't want to get melta'd, to which the marine player casually replies, "I told you already, they were all spent".

At this point the marine player is "winning".

You could also make the argument about the transport shell game as well.

As to your point about the financial aspect, I'll only state that the player on the other side of the table has just as much money/time/opportunity cost invested to have a fun game with their models that they also have invested financially in. As we all agree that counts as is acceptable in some circumstances, it isn't too inconceivable to think that the other player's stuff is consistent with whatever is reasonably accepted in their locale, and they are just as entitled to not having to be badgered about a few "scatter lasers".

**nkelsch**

A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

Are people saying a Kombi weapon reverts to a bolter after being fired? there are huge complicated WAC implications for NOBZ based upon that argument.

If the event requires WYSIWYG you have 2 options: magetize or model with the 'popular' option you see yourself using most.

Assuming your NON-WYSIWYG will fly or should be allowed at an event that requires it is arrogant and reeks of 'rules don't apply to me'. We all like to be reasonable but we all also like to participate in events where everyone follows the rules laid out to them months in advance.

Which is why ASK YOUR TO is the answer to any and all questions... If you don't want to risk it, then learn to love strict WYSIWYG!

**whitedragon**

nkelsch wrote:A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

That's right, but its incumbent on the opponent to remember that it had fired already, and what is being asked is, how is that different from remembering that a lascannon counts as a missile launcher for this game?

**Kilkrazy**

Is there an official list of official depictions of official weapons?

There used to be about half way through 4th edition, I don't know about now.

**Coyotebreaks**

whitedragon wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

Monster Rain wrote:You really don't understand the difference between following the rules for certain wargear and using the wrong models for weapons?

You really don't understand the point he is trying to make? He is saying that there is a burden on the player to "remember" which combi-weapons have been fired just as if someone would have to remember what count as were in play during the game. He is saying it's odd that one is accepted while the other sometimes is not. Are you still having to remember a critical piece of information that could potentially affect the game?

Thanks, thats the point I was trying make, all be it badly.

**Phazael**

There used to be a book called wargear back in 4th. It had tons of rules gaffes, but it was a great all around reference for 40k weapons and what they generally looked and acted like.

Side note: As a long time xenos and GK player, it makes me laugh to see all the people who played counts as cheese wolves the last year and a half do mental gymnastics to try and field a counts as GK army. Simply put, these are models that MUST be wysiwyg because of the staggering amount of unique wargear that can exist within the army. Its not like grey hunters where you can just shove an extra special weapon and sargeant model in there and call it done.

**Monster Rain**

Coyotebreaks wrote:Thanks, thats the point I was trying make, all be it badly.

I see what you're saying.

A combi-melta is still a combi-melta after it is fired, but I understand your point.

**Redbeard**

Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

**Coyotebreaks**

daedalus wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:
Coyotebreaks wrote:I find it interesting that combi weapons are required to be modeled. But after they fire they are essentialy a bolter. Leaving both players needing to remeber weather it is still a combi weapon.

Chapter House Studios makes some nice magnetized combi weapons. Seems like that would help the issue during games.

Indeed, although that will help the issue the point i was making is different. What I'm saying is, if I have combi weapons on my models I don't have to remove them and swap them if they fire a shot myself and my opponent have to remember it has happened. And this is OK and yet it not OK for people to have to remember that all the wave serpent weapons are scatter lasers and not bright lances. Which is easier to remember then the combi weapon thing. Just find that interesting.

It's a matter of drawing the line in the sand and saying enough is enough. You already have to remember to move each unit, shoot each unit, what enemy squads are in what vehicles, what turn it is, what the objectives for the scenario are (Adepticon at least always has a startling number of them per mission), potentially how many wounds are on characters if you're not marking them, how far squads were relative to each other last time you got to measure (can I move my terminators back a full 6 and fire, or can I only move them 5), the name of the chick you chatted up at the bar the night before, and so on.

Point is that you shouldn't HAVE to remember which one of the identical bolter marines has the combiweapon. You've got far too much going on otherwise.

Indeed, but in my example the one bolter marine with a combi weapon has a big red counter on his stand until it has fired. So you don't need to remember anything. Other then that counter means it is a combi weapon. I understand it is not allowed rules wise but imo arguably easier to follow, so yeah I just find it funny how some things are accepted and others are not, even though in some cases the unaccepted burdens are less of a burden then the accepted ones.

**nkelsch**

whitedragon wrote:
nkelsch wrote:A Kombi weapon is still a Kombi weapon after it launches... Just because a spent kombi works like a bolter doesn't mean it is a bolter.

That's right, but its incumbent on the opponent to remember that it had fired already, and what is being asked is, how is that different from remembering that a lascannon counts as a missile launcher for this game?

Because Spent Kombis falls under 'wound counters' where Lascannons proxied as Missiles falls under 'WYSIWYG'.

While both are usually casually informal in some situations, in an event that requires WYSIWYG you don't have the right nor should you show up expecting to have opponents to 'remember' what your proxies are.

When it comes to wound counters and spent single-shot weapons, this is not a WYSIWYG issue. If people want to try to 'remember' that is between them. If the player wishes to use counters, that is also a good solution.

I do believe it is on the player with the weapons to be able to prove what has been spent and what hasn't. If you have 10 kombimeltas in one unit, then I think you need to come up with a good way to distinguish who has shot and who hasn't. If there is ever disagreement, the way I have seen TOs rule is basically if the owning player doesn't have a clear enforceable way to distinguish, the TO declares all the ammo spent and that is the end of it.

I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

**Frazzled**

Redbeard wrote:Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

What about DIY?

**Redbeard**

Fix your house on your own time

**Kilkrazy**

Phazael wrote:There used to be a book called wargear back in 4th. It had tons of rules gaffes, but it was a great all around reference for 40k weapons and what they generally looked and acted like.

Side note: As a long time xenos and GK player, it makes me laugh to see all the people who played counts as cheese wolves the last year and a half do mental gymnastics to try and field a counts as GK army. Simply put, these are models that MUST be wysiwyg because of the staggering amount of unique wargear that can exist within the army. Its not like grey hunters where you can just shove an extra special weapon and sargeant model in there and call it done.

Yes, that's the book I was trying to remember.

My point is that if there isn't a standard reference for what weapons look like, it would be nonsensical to insist on "official" depictions of weapons and wargear on models, because there isn't any. I'm fethed if I know what a Deathspitter looks like, and I am a Tyranid player.

At the same time it's a shame for people to codex hop to the latest hot netlist with a proxy, because the visual appeal of different armies is a big part of the hobby. I was arguing this point with some guy the other day, saying I would like to play my Tau counts as Dark Eldar against his Dark Eldar counts as Grey Knights. It's all good, eh.

I'm not against variant, conversion or unofficial weapons. I think they need to be consistent throughout the army, and not confusingly similar to whatever is the widely accepted norm for well known weapons like bolters, plasma guns and so on.

**Mannahnin**

All the current codices have pictorial representations of the weapons nowadays. I think it started being consistent with maybe the Eldar codex, back in 2006?

**Kilkrazy**

Well, some, but not all.

Just checking my Tyranid dex none of the weapons or biomorphs are covered in the weapons or biomorph descriptions sections.

**Mannahnin**

In the Tyranid dex, don't they show you the weapons in the photographs in the 'eavy metal section? Or is it not a complete list?

**Dashofpepper**

nkelsch wrote:I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

Maybe I can help there too. =p

Presuming you have enough copies of your army list for every opponent, bring a pencil/pen.

Before the tournament, or at the start of every round, I draw a simple spreadsheet. Each nob goes into one column of cells. Kind of like this:

Ork | W | W | K

Waaugh!
BP
PB
PK/AR
PK/KR
PK/KR/AR
BC
BC/KR
BC/KR/AR

BP = Bosspole, PK = Powerklaw, AR=Ammo Runt, KR = Kombi-Rokkit, BC=Big Choppa, PB=Painboy

In the first column go the nobs. The second and third column are to make checkmarks when they take a wound, and the fourth column is for marking a check when the combi weapon gets fired.

I use the same little drawing when I go to take wounds. Rather than pointing at models, who often look similar, or trying to put die on the table to mark who is wounded, I track it on the chart. Makes it real easy. : )

**Kilkrazy**

They don't show you all the weapons or any biomorphs.

I would expect to find weapon descriptions in the weapon descriptions.

I didn't look closely at the colour pics anyway. I had already worked out my own colour scheme.

**Target**

Dashofpepper wrote:
nkelsch wrote:I have seen people do good things with Ork Nobz and rubber bands. Basically you can hang a rubber band on the model's gun or arm or 'something' to represent spent kombis and wounds. I might do this technique at NOVA for my ORKs as I have been looking for a better way.

Maybe I can help there too. =p

Presuming you have enough copies of your army list for every opponent, bring a pencil/pen.

Before the tournament, or at the start of every round, I draw a simple spreadsheet. Each nob goes into one column of cells. Kind of like this:

Ork | W | W | K

Waaugh!
BP
PB
PK/AR
PK/KR
PK/KR/AR
BC
BC/KR
BC/KR/AR

BP = Bosspole, PK = Powerklaw, AR=Ammo Runt, KR = Kombi-Rokkit, BC=Big Choppa, PB=Painboy

In the first column go the nobs. The second and third column are to make checkmarks when they take a wound, and the fourth column is for marking a check when the combi weapon gets fired.

I use the same little drawing when I go to take wounds. Rather than pointing at models, who often look similar, or trying to put die on the table to mark who is wounded, I track it on the chart. Makes it real easy. : )

If you want to save yourself a headache, take a page from warmachine (and I saw a SW player do this for his TWC).

Make up a nice little sheet/print out of the guys, what gear they have, and have a box for each wound. Laminate (or use poor man's lamination, iie clear packing tape) and use a dry erase marker to track wounds. No wasted paper or drawing prior to every game, just mark it, and wipe off after the round.

When my opponent did this I found it very helpful I must say

**nkelsch**

targetawg wrote:
If you want to save yourself a headache, take a page from warmachine (and I saw a SW player do this for his TWC).

Make up a nice little sheet/print out of the guys, what gear they have, and have a box for each wound. Laminate (or use poor man's lamination, iie clear packing tape) and use a dry erase marker to track wounds. No wasted paper or drawing prior to every game, just mark it, and wipe off after the round.

When my opponent did this I found it very helpful I must say

I might do this for NOVA... I haven't decided if I am taking NOBZ or a lot of kombi/multiwounds, but I like this design.

**Sarigar**

Redbeard wrote:Honestly, I'd like to see colours and iconography enforced as much as weapons as a WYSIWYG option.

There are now 6.5 codexes that represent power-armour (Vanilla, Blood Angles[sic], Dark Angles[also sic], Black Templars, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, and .5 for Grey Knights)

It's no more extreme to expect me, an ork player, to know what special rules are associated with your blue marine than it is to expect me to know the difference between the bright lance and the scatter laser. Colour conveys information. Models convey information. Horns&Pointy = CSM, Beards&Pelts = Space Wolves, Teardrops = Blood Angels, and so on.

Likewise, red marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Why draw the line at what armament a model is given?

I wish. GTs were something I really used to look forward to; not just for 5-6 fun and challenging games, but seeing all the fantastic armies and meeting so many dedicated fans of 40K. Fun stuff. It was really quite a sight to actually see some of these really powerful armies fully built and painted to a high degree of exactness. It's a shame there seems to be a trend going away from this mindset.

**thehod**

Mannahnin wrote:One can kind of understand the spot they'd be in. At a big event, people have often traveled a significant distance, and it sucks to have to DQ someone for the weekend.

Really, TOs should have a loaner army on hand for just such an occasion. If someone shows up at an event with an unpainted or non-WYSIWYG army, they get to either re-make their list into something they've brought which is actually painted and WYSIWYG, or they get to use the loaner army.

I agree with what Mannahnin says. If the army has no real effort put into the army for WYSIWYG, I will call a TO. I dont mind a counts as if you got the weapons and bases correctly done.

**Lord Scythican**

Redbeard wrote:

Likewise, Yellow marines are angry, blue marines are purists, green marines have nasty flamers, and space-wolf-grey marines are OP.

Fixed for you.

**Polonius**

Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

**Heffling**

Polonius wrote:While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

For one, they shouldn't be "the exact same guys", as the details will differ. For Example:

Ultramarines - Tactical Markings and Omega Symbol
Dark Angels - Robes and Angel Wing/Sword Markings
Salamanders - Salamander/Dragon Marking
Space Wolves - Wolf Pelts, Wolf Teeth, Wolf Etc...
Blood Angels - Angel Wings/Teardrop Markings
Black Templars - Cross Marking
Chaos - Spikes, Marks of Chaos, etc

All of these detail items are manufactured by GW, and demonstrated amply in the appropriate codexes.

From a strict interpretation of WYSIWYG, I could argue that because you don't have the appropriate details that you're not playing the appropriate army. A missile launcher alone does not a long fang make.

Additionally, and more importantly to me, army hopping with space marines gives a significant advantage that no other army can enjoy. As an ork player (or tau, necro, tyranid, imperial guard, etc), I don't have this luxury. This gives a significant advantage in a tournament environment.

**Redbeard**

Polonius wrote:Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

Look, part of my earlier post (and part of this one too) was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But, part of it has some merit.

Here are five different marine heads, that I found on google image search. They're not even painted. Can you name what codex they all go with?

No paint, just bare plastic. And you can probably figure them all out.

Now, why is it any harder for an opponent to remember that the eight brightlances on your spaceship are actually scatter lasers than it is for them to remember that the eight men with chaos helmets are actually grey hunters?

WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

They're not the exact same guys. Those guys have wolf heads and wolf pelts and runic armour, long hair and beards, these other guys have eagles on their chests, their helmets don't look like wolves and when they're not wearing helmets, they're bald.

I mean, why can't I use my orks with shootas as tactical marines with bolters? Or my guardians? Why should I have to build more models with two-handed submachine-gun looking weapons just to use different rules?

How about this logic? Space Wolves have bolt pistols, bolters, and chainswords. Tactical Marines have Bolters and Bolt Pistols. You have models that either have the extra chainsword, or don't. I, as your opponent, am willing to overlook the fact that your Space Wolves are not technically WYSIWYG in regard to their weapons as long as they have long hair and wolf pelts to visually let me know that they are, in fact, Space Wolves. But if they don't look like Space Wolves, and they're not armed like Space Wolves, why should I be expected to play against Space Wolves?

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

**Frazzled**

Heffling wrote:
Polonius wrote:While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

For one, they shouldn't be "the exact same guys", as the details will differ. For Example:

Ultramarines - Tactical Markings and Omega Symbol
Dark Angels - Robes and Angel Wing/Sword Markings
Salamanders - Salamander/Dragon Marking
Space Wolves - Wolf Pelts, Wolf Teeth, Wolf Etc...
Blood Angels - Angel Wings/Teardrop Markings
Black Templars - Cross Marking
Chaos - Spikes, Marks of Chaos, etc

All of these detail items are manufactured by GW, and demonstrated amply in the appropriate codexes.

From a strict interpretation of WYSIWYG, I could argue that because you don't have the appropriate details that you're not playing the appropriate army. A missile launcher alone does not a long fang make.

Additionally, and more importantly to me, army hopping with space marines gives a significant advantage that no other army can enjoy. As an ork player (or tau, necro, tyranid, imperial guard, etc), I don't have this luxury. This gives a significant advantage in a tournament environment.

Thats er...pretty anal but oh well.
AS GW has a prooud tradition of DIY chapters thats not especially applicable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:
Polonius wrote:Redbeard: how do you feel about DIY marines using different codices? I have a custom chapter, and i'll run it with Space Wolf rules some times. It's WYSIWYG in terms of weapons (wolf standards are banners, and mark of wulfen is a techmarine, but most stuff is one for one).

Look, part of my earlier post (and part of this one too) was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But, part of it has some merit.

Here are five different marine heads, that I found on google image search. They're not even painted. Can you name what codex they all go with?

No paint, just bare plastic. And you can probably figure them all out.

Now, why is it any harder for an opponent to remember that the eight brightlances on your spaceship are actually scatter lasers than it is for them to remember that the eight men with chaos helmets are actually grey hunters?

WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While part of me understands the idea that an army built out of one book (SM) shouldn't use another one (SW), I also don't see why I should build the exact same guys, again, just to use different rules.

They're not the exact same guys. Those guys have wolf heads and wolf pelts and runic armour, long hair and beards, these other guys have eagles on their chests, their helmets don't look like wolves and when they're not wearing helmets, they're bald.

I mean, why can't I use my orks with shootas as tactical marines with bolters? Or my guardians? Why should I have to build more models with two-handed submachine-gun looking weapons just to use different rules?

How about this logic? Space Wolves have bolt pistols, bolters, and chainswords. Tactical Marines have Bolters and Bolt Pistols. You have models that either have the extra chainsword, or don't. I, as your opponent, am willing to overlook the fact that your Space Wolves are not technically WYSIWYG in regard to their weapons as long as they have long hair and wolf pelts to visually let me know that they are, in fact, Space Wolves. But if they don't look like Space Wolves, and they're not armed like Space Wolves, why should I be expected to play against Space Wolves?

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Well I can only open two and couldn't tell other than they are MEQs of some sort, adn thats in close up.
If you think I'm going to tell, or care, what they represent in real life looking at them across a table, well thats a bit...er.. much.
Not to mention multiple generations going on. Beakie troopers were beakie troopers were beakie troopers.

**Polonius**

So, by your logic, you can't play a successor chapter without having the appropriate bitz? So, even if I built a blood angel army from the ground up, if I don't use BA bitz or symbolism my army isn't WYSIWYG?

What if a person doesn't want Wolf themed space vikings?

What about Blood Ravens, which explicitly don't have a known founding chapter?

I get the general rule, no doubt, that codex shopping is an advantage. But I don't think it's as much a problem for WYSIWYG as it is a problem because people resent the advantage.

And yes, it's not fair that marines can swap, while xenos can't. Life's tough sometimes. A power armored space marine simply doesn't change that much in look, while a guardian and Ork are vastly different. I'm not talking about calling a clear Space Wolf a Blood Angel, but when you have a generic, DIY marine... how can you tell, as a player, that it's "meant" to be an ultra, not a wolf?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:WYSIWYG is part of wargaming - as is the appearance of the models. If you can't be bothered to make your chaos marines look like chaos marines and your blood angels look like blood angels, why not play ASL with cardboard tokens representing the men?

While I get your point, I find any argument of the form "if you do not take your models as seriously as I do, don't play 40k." It's needlessly insulting. Arguing that calling my fully painted Star Owls Space Wolves instead of Ultramarines is the same as playing with chits is a gross exageration that does nothing to advance discussion.

In short, have some pride in your colours. Make your DIY chapter a Space Wolf successor chapter, or a Ultramarines successor, or whatever you want, but be consistent with it. Those little icons and details on the models do count.

Yeah, because my non-codex squad and company markings and hand painted chapter badges clearly idenfify my army as one thing. I appreciate being told that I don't have pride in them.

**Mannahnin**

I think Redbeard's comment about "pride in your colors" was directly more generically, especially to the folks who don't paint, or (to a lesser extent) who use an army which is clearly painted as one chapter to be something totally different.

Overall I agree with Polonius on this one, though with a side of Redbeard. While I'm not opposed to people swapping, I really do prefer it if a given army can easily be recognized to be whatever codex it's using- whether through color scheme or distinctive units.